2008 $35,000 Subscriber Contest (3 Viewers)

[Alberta Clipper]

Thanks DD. Reading these updates and looking at some of the top teams help me see I'm just on borrowed time (carrying Edge & Ben will do that to ya).

 

[Doug Drinen]

Alright, here's this week's extra dose of geekery....

I took the simulated survival percentages that are a couple of posts up, then I looked at each player and determined what the average (predicted) survival rate was for teams that had that player.

For example, there are 31 live teams that have Bernard Berrian. The average survival percentage for those 31 teams is 47.3%. The overall survival rate will be 50%, so this says that having Berrian is slightly more correlated with non-survival rather than with survival. (Remember, of course, that correlation is not causation.) DeAngelo Williams' teams average 52.9% survival, Antonio Bryant's 54.1%, Ray Rice's 49.1%.

Here is a trivia question: among the players who are on 50 or more teams, who is the "most valuable" guy to have this week, in the sense that teams he's on have the highest average survival percentage?

 

[kevzilla]

The Sims (lol) don't like my chances very much, but I'll be checking my score obsessively on Fantasy Star anyway. GL to everyone.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Alright, here's this week's extra dose of geekery....

I took the simulated survival percentages that are a couple of posts up, then I looked at each player and determined what the average (predicted) survival rate was for teams that had that player.

For example, there are 31 live teams that have Bernard Berrian. The average survival percentage for those 31 teams is 47.3%. The overall survival rate will be 50%, so this says that having Berrian is slightly more correlated with non-survival rather than with survival. (Remember, of course, that correlation is not causation.) DeAngelo Williams' teams average 52.9% survival, Antonio Bryant's 54.1%, Ray Rice's 49.1%.

Here is a trivia question: among the players who are on 50 or more teams, who is the "most valuable" guy to have this week, in the sense that teams he's on have the highest average survival percentage?

My guess would be Matt Forte. He is on 62 rosters, and Dodds projects him as the highest scoring RB this week.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

My second guess, if it's a WR, would be Santana Moss

 

[gman74]

I think the contest should be changed to allow for scoring that should have happened if the refs knew the rulebook.

We know already you got the shaft already. I guess this is going to be a daily thing like just ploy to motivate was

 

[Dirty Weasel]

I'm #481 out of 1000 for week 12. Here are my projected starters (based on Dodds projections):

QB - Jay Cutler (23.7)

RB - Clinton Portis (18.4)

RB - Maurice Jones-Drew (14.7)

WR - Brandon Marshall (20.2)

WR - Steve Smith (19.1)

WR - Derrick Mason (14.0)

TE - Tony Gonzalez (15.4)

Flex - Steve Slaton (14.5)

K - Kris Brown (7.0)

D - Jets (4.0)

Total - 151

151 seems low to have a better than 50% chance, but could be based on alot of tough matchups.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Warrick Dunn is my guess.

 

[BassNBrew]

For everyone complaining about the contest and player prices, may I point out that everyone has the opportunity to buy the low-price players with huge upside? Players like Warner and Slaton are obviously no-brainers when you build your team and they act more as a way to eliminate people who aren't paying attention to the game than as a overall winning strategy. The real game is played among the higher priced players because that's where the people who pay attention to the game have differing opinions on value vs. price.

First of all, I don't think anyone is complaining. Your point has some validity until you reach the later weeks. The "real game" boils down to a handful of players (possibly kickers and Ds) when the no-brainers hang a postable score. The "real game" could be significantly expanded if the player population was accurately valued when most people submit their rosters.Let's look at a hypothetical 2008. Let's assume that DWill, ADP, and Barber blew out their knees in the week 3 pre-season games. Most of the rosters would have then consisted of Stewart, Taylor, Jones, Slanton, and Williams. Where does this leave a guy that identifies Thomas Jones, Portis, and CJ as great RB values? Even if they exceeded Stewart/Taylor/Slanton/Jones/Williams on a point per dollar basis for the entire year, it only takes one week for the herd of masses to run flush the Jones/Portis/CJ owners out of the contest.In the current format one could reasonably argue that it's as important to identify and join the herd as it is to pick good players. All I'm suggesting is that the contest would be improved if the valuations were more accurate and there were fewer no-brainers on the table. When you have 50%+ of the people selecting the same guy, obviously there's a valuation problem.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Alright, here's this week's extra dose of geekery....

I took the simulated survival percentages that are a couple of posts up, then I looked at each player and determined what the average (predicted) survival rate was for teams that had that player.

For example, there are 31 live teams that have Bernard Berrian. The average survival percentage for those 31 teams is 47.3%. The overall survival rate will be 50%, so this says that having Berrian is slightly more correlated with non-survival rather than with survival. (Remember, of course, that correlation is not causation.) DeAngelo Williams' teams average 52.9% survival, Antonio Bryant's 54.1%, Ray Rice's 49.1%.

Here is a trivia question: among the players who are on 50 or more teams, who is the "most valuable" guy to have this week, in the sense that teams he's on have the highest average survival percentage?

Dirty Weasel got it: Santana Moss. Here is the full list:[code=

 

[Sheriff66]

Alright, here's this week's extra dose of geekery....

I took the simulated survival percentages that are a couple of posts up, then I looked at each player and determined what the average (predicted) survival rate was for teams that had that player.

For example, there are 31 live teams that have Bernard Berrian. The average survival percentage for those 31 teams is 47.3%. The overall survival rate will be 50%, so this says that having Berrian is slightly more correlated with non-survival rather than with survival. (Remember, of course, that correlation is not causation.) DeAngelo Williams' teams average 52.9% survival, Antonio Bryant's 54.1%, Ray Rice's 49.1%.

Here is a trivia question: among the players who are on 50 or more teams, who is the "most valuable" guy to have this week, in the sense that teams he's on have the highest average survival percentage?

My guess would be Matt Forte. He is on 62 rosters, and Dodds projects him as the highest scoring RB this week.

I hope he is right

 

[BassNBrew]

Alright, here's this week's extra dose of geekery....

I took the simulated survival percentages that are a couple of posts up, then I looked at each player and determined what the average (predicted) survival rate was for teams that had that player.

For example, there are 31 live teams that have Bernard Berrian. The average survival percentage for those 31 teams is 47.3%. The overall survival rate will be 50%, so this says that having Berrian is slightly more correlated with non-survival rather than with survival. (Remember, of course, that correlation is not causation.) DeAngelo Williams' teams average 52.9% survival, Antonio Bryant's 54.1%, Ray Rice's 49.1%.

Here is a trivia question: among the players who are on 50 or more teams, who is the "most valuable" guy to have this week, in the sense that teams he's on have the highest average survival percentage?

Dirty Weasel got it: Santana Moss. Here is the full list:

InterestingAdrian Peterson        32   40.6

T.J. Houshmandzadeh    14   40.2

Wes Welker             17   38.9

Plaxico Burress        10   38.2

Dwayne Bowe            10   35.2

Randy Moss             15   34.2

relative to

Earnest Graham         52   44.0

Javon Walker            6   40.9

Tom Brady               7   36.9

 

[Cheesedawg]

I know this much: 244 of us would be happy if Mike Nugent got his leg onto the field! It has been Bironas against the world all season.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Did I miss Jake Delhomme on that list?

 

[Dirty Weasel]

I have 11 guys above 50% and 11 below 50%. I think I'll root against my rarest guys below 50%. Those guys would be:

Maurice Morris

Leon Washington

Reggie Williams (no need to root against him, because he blows chunks anyway)

 

[ctriopelle]

For everyone complaining about the contest and player prices, may I point out that everyone has the opportunity to buy the low-price players with huge upside? Players like Warner and Slaton are obviously no-brainers when you build your team and they act more as a way to eliminate people who aren't paying attention to the game than as a overall winning strategy. The real game is played among the higher priced players because that's where the people who pay attention to the game have differing opinions on value vs. price.

First of all, I don't think anyone is complaining. Your point has some validity until you reach the later weeks. The "real game" boils down to a handful of players (possibly kickers and Ds) when the no-brainers hang a postable score. The "real game" could be significantly expanded if the player population was accurately valued when most people submit their rosters.Let's look at a hypothetical 2008. Let's assume that DWill, ADP, and Barber blew out their knees in the week 3 pre-season games. Most of the rosters would have then consisted of Stewart, Taylor, Jones, Slanton, and Williams. Where does this leave a guy that identifies Thomas Jones, Portis, and CJ as great RB values? Even if they exceeded Stewart/Taylor/Slanton/Jones/Williams on a point per dollar basis for the entire year, it only takes one week for the herd of masses to run flush the Jones/Portis/CJ owners out of the contest.In the current format one could reasonably argue that it's as important to identify and join the herd as it is to pick good players. All I'm suggesting is that the contest would be improved if the valuations were more accurate and there were fewer no-brainers on the table. When you have 50%+ of the people selecting the same guy, obviously there's a valuation problem.

Who is this Slanton fellow you keep referring to? Maybe if I selected him I would still be in this...

 

[Dirty Weasel]

For everyone complaining about the contest and player prices, may I point out that everyone has the opportunity to buy the low-price players with huge upside? Players like Warner and Slaton are obviously no-brainers when you build your team and they act more as a way to eliminate people who aren't paying attention to the game than as a overall winning strategy. The real game is played among the higher priced players because that's where the people who pay attention to the game have differing opinions on value vs. price.

First of all, I don't think anyone is complaining. Your point has some validity until you reach the later weeks. The "real game" boils down to a handful of players (possibly kickers and Ds) when the no-brainers hang a postable score. The "real game" could be significantly expanded if the player population was accurately valued when most people submit their rosters.Let's look at a hypothetical 2008. Let's assume that DWill, ADP, and Barber blew out their knees in the week 3 pre-season games. Most of the rosters would have then consisted of Stewart, Taylor, Jones, Slanton, and Williams. Where does this leave a guy that identifies Thomas Jones, Portis, and CJ as great RB values? Even if they exceeded Stewart/Taylor/Slanton/Jones/Williams on a point per dollar basis for the entire year, it only takes one week for the herd of masses to run flush the Jones/Portis/CJ owners out of the contest.In the current format one could reasonably argue that it's as important to identify and join the herd as it is to pick good players. All I'm suggesting is that the contest would be improved if the valuations were more accurate and there were fewer no-brainers on the table. When you have 50%+ of the people selecting the same guy, obviously there's a valuation problem.

Who is this Slanton fellow you keep referring to? Maybe if I selected him I would still be in this...

He meant Steve Slayton, the Texans RB

 

[Dirty Weasel]

For everyone complaining about the contest and player prices, may I point out that everyone has the opportunity to buy the low-price players with huge upside? Players like Warner and Slaton are obviously no-brainers when you build your team and they act more as a way to eliminate people who aren't paying attention to the game than as a overall winning strategy. The real game is played among the higher priced players because that's where the people who pay attention to the game have differing opinions on value vs. price.

First of all, I don't think anyone is complaining. Your point has some validity until you reach the later weeks. The "real game" boils down to a handful of players (possibly kickers and Ds) when the no-brainers hang a postable score. The "real game" could be significantly expanded if the player population was accurately valued when most people submit their rosters.Let's look at a hypothetical 2008. Let's assume that DWill, ADP, and Barber blew out their knees in the week 3 pre-season games. Most of the rosters would have then consisted of Stewart, Taylor, Jones, Slanton, and Williams. Where does this leave a guy that identifies Thomas Jones, Portis, and CJ as great RB values? Even if they exceeded Stewart/Taylor/Slanton/Jones/Williams on a point per dollar basis for the entire year, it only takes one week for the herd of masses to run flush the Jones/Portis/CJ owners out of the contest.In the current format one could reasonably argue that it's as important to identify and join the herd as it is to pick good players. All I'm suggesting is that the contest would be improved if the valuations were more accurate and there were fewer no-brainers on the table. When you have 50%+ of the people selecting the same guy, obviously there's a valuation problem.

Who is this Slanton fellow you keep referring to? Maybe if I selected him I would still be in this...

He meant Steve Slayton, the Texans RB

Oops, I meant Sleighton

 

[Otis]

Those power rankings confuse me every week. Every week I'm somewhere in the bottom half (this week I'm at about 40% survival chance) and every week but one I've pretty easily cleared the cutoff.

I feel like I have a pretty strong team, and when Bush comes back (hopefully this weekend) I expect that it will be even stronger.

Maybe it's my limited TEs, K, Ds...

 

[Kuz]

Those power rankings confuse me every week. Every week I'm somewhere in the bottom half (this week I'm at about 40% survival chance) and every week but one I've pretty easily cleared the cutoff.

I feel like I have a pretty strong team, and when Bush comes back (hopefully this weekend) I expect that it will be even stronger.

Maybe it's my limited TEs, K, Ds...

I think it's your RB's since Bush may still be out.. Your WR's are great but your RB depth without Bush is lacking which probably keeps your survival rate down. I sure wish I had your WR's..

 

[dbc925]

Rest-of-season simulations. Usual caveats apply.

I'm sitting at #2 and loving life! That's the ultimate spot in which to find your team, given the propensity of former #1s that are now on the outside looking in

 

[BassNBrew]

Rest-of-season simulations. Usual caveats apply.

I'm sitting at #2 and loving life! That's the ultimate spot in which to find your team, given the propensity of former #1s that are now on the outside looking in

After this week's #1 gets booted, you'll be elevated to #1. Doh!!!!!!!!!!!!!1Plus you just keerocked yourself to boot. Double Doh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

 

[Cheesedawg]

Is there an easy way to find your team in that long list?

 

[Sheriff66]

Rest-of-season simulations. Usual caveats apply.

Can someone run my team and post the results ?104782

TIA

 

[gman74]

Rest-of-season simulations. Usual caveats apply.

Can someone run my team and post the results ?104782

TIA

you are # 532

 

[Sheriff66]

Rest-of-season simulations. Usual caveats apply.

Can someone run my team and post the results ?104782

TIA

you are # 532

 

[gman74]

Rest-of-season simulations. Usual caveats apply.

Can someone run my team and post the results ?104782

TIA

you are # 532

Lol remember got to be in it to win it

 

[Sheriff66]

Rest-of-season simulations. Usual caveats apply.

Can someone run my team and post the results ?104782

TIA

you are # 532

Lol remember got to be in it to win it

True, anything can happen

 

[ctriopelle]

For everyone complaining about the contest and player prices, may I point out that everyone has the opportunity to buy the low-price players with huge upside? Players like Warner and Slaton are obviously no-brainers when you build your team and they act more as a way to eliminate people who aren't paying attention to the game than as a overall winning strategy. The real game is played among the higher priced players because that's where the people who pay attention to the game have differing opinions on value vs. price.

First of all, I don't think anyone is complaining. Your point has some validity until you reach the later weeks. The "real game" boils down to a handful of players (possibly kickers and Ds) when the no-brainers hang a postable score. The "real game" could be significantly expanded if the player population was accurately valued when most people submit their rosters.Let's look at a hypothetical 2008. Let's assume that DWill, ADP, and Barber blew out their knees in the week 3 pre-season games. Most of the rosters would have then consisted of Stewart, Taylor, Jones, Slanton, and Williams. Where does this leave a guy that identifies Thomas Jones, Portis, and CJ as great RB values? Even if they exceeded Stewart/Taylor/Slanton/Jones/Williams on a point per dollar basis for the entire year, it only takes one week for the herd of masses to run flush the Jones/Portis/CJ owners out of the contest.In the current format one could reasonably argue that it's as important to identify and join the herd as it is to pick good players. All I'm suggesting is that the contest would be improved if the valuations were more accurate and there were fewer no-brainers on the table. When you have 50%+ of the people selecting the same guy, obviously there's a valuation problem.

Who is this Slanton fellow you keep referring to? Maybe if I selected him I would still be in this...

He meant Steve Slayton, the Texans RB

No ####?

 

[ctriopelle]

Rest-of-season simulations. Usual caveats apply.

I'm sitting at #2 and loving life! That's the ultimate spot in which to find your team, given the propensity of former #1s that are now on the outside looking in

Actually, I wouldn't feel very safe there either. I was ranked #3 last week and got the boot. I was only ranked #1 in the original power rankings.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Those power rankings confuse me every week. Every week I'm somewhere in the bottom half (this week I'm at about 40% survival chance) and every week but one I've pretty easily cleared the cutoff.

Not to pick on Otis, because others have made similar comments (and because I like Otis), but 40% doesn't mean "you stink." It means 40%. A whole lot of pitchers who faced Ted Williams can tell you what 40% means. Not exactly a huge upset when that guy got a hit.[...looking up your team....]Hey, wait a minute. Now I'm confused. In week 10 you were 86%, and in week 11 you were 74%. Neither was in the bottom half.

 

[apalmer]

Is there an easy way to find your team in that long list?

Assuming you're using Internet Explorer, click on "Edit" in your menu line, then "find" (or just hit "ctrl-f" which saves going through the menu). In the box that appears, enter your team #. If you don't know your team #, check it in "myFBG" first.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Those power rankings confuse me every week. Every week I'm somewhere in the bottom half (this week I'm at about 40% survival chance) and every week but one I've pretty easily cleared the cutoff.

Not to pick on Otis, because others have made similar comments (and because I like Otis), but 40% doesn't mean "you stink." It means 40%. A whole lot of pitchers who faced Ted Williams can tell you what 40% means. Not exactly a huge upset when that guy got a hit.[...looking up your team....]Hey, wait a minute. Now I'm confused. In week 10 you were 86%, and in week 11 you were 74%. Neither was in the bottom half.

No worries, Otis. I only believe the contest simulator when it has me making the cut. The weeks it has me getting booted I can only assume Doug screwed up in the formula somewhere.

 

[BassNBrew]

Those power rankings confuse me every week. Every week I'm somewhere in the bottom half (this week I'm at about 40% survival chance) and every week but one I've pretty easily cleared the cutoff.

Not to pick on Otis, because others have made similar comments (and because I like Otis), but 40% doesn't mean "you stink." It means 40%. A whole lot of pitchers who faced Ted Williams can tell you what 40% means. Not exactly a huge upset when that guy got a hit.[...looking up your team....]Hey, wait a minute. Now I'm confused. In week 10 you were 86%, and in week 11 you were 74%. Neither was in the bottom half.

Check his five alias.

 

[Otis]

Those power rankings confuse me every week. Every week I'm somewhere in the bottom half (this week I'm at about 40% survival chance) and every week but one I've pretty easily cleared the cutoff.

Not to pick on Otis, because others have made similar comments (and because I like Otis), but 40% doesn't mean "you stink." It means 40%. A whole lot of pitchers who faced Ted Williams can tell you what 40% means. Not exactly a huge upset when that guy got a hit.[...looking up your team....]Hey, wait a minute. Now I'm confused. In week 10 you were 86%, and in week 11 you were 74%. Neither was in the bottom half.

I must have misread something. I looked at something today that had me at a 40% survival percentage. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong column.I take it all back. These projections are AWESOME. Edited to add:Oh wait. I just checked this week's, and it does have me around 40%.Yeah, I'm pretty sure these power rankings are buggy.

 

[Jayrod]

teams AvSurv%----------------------------------Ronnie Brown            1   60.9Willis McGahee          2   58.2Antonio Gates           3   56.9

I think these three ownership #'s are crazy.I'd love to be one of these 6 people. If those guys have a great game, that is a huge advantage over the rest of the field.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

teams AvSurv%----------------------------------Ronnie Brown            1   60.9Willis McGahee          2   58.2Antonio Gates           3   56.9

I think these three ownership #'s are crazy.I'd love to be one of these 6 people. If those guys have a great game, that is a huge advantage over the rest of the field.

I said it over a month ago. The dude with Ronnie Brown is gonna win it all. He also owns the very rare Peyton Manning (26 teams, IIRC).

 

[bengalboy]

Doesn't look like this game is going to move anybody much.

 

[Das Boot]

Felix Jones being done for the year takes away an ace up the sleeve for the 42 still alive teams that had him.

My ace up the sleeve is Chester Taylor.

 

[dbc925]

25.35 for Roethlisberger tonight (subtracting .1 from FS for the last-play kneel-down).

Rooting heavy for the Giants D to contain Kurt Warner.

That said, does anyone else find it odd that the NFL scheduled the Cards to travel to the East Coast on a short week to play the Eagles Thanksgiving night?

 

[Dirty Weasel]

25.35 for Roethlisberger tonight (subtracting .1 from FS for the last-play kneel-down).

Rooting heavy for the Giants D to contain Kurt Warner.

That said, does anyone else find it odd that the NFL scheduled the Cards to travel to the East Coast on a short week to play the Eagles Thanksgiving night?

Ben's score of 25.45 is correct, because he had positive yards rushing.Here are all the contest players from last night, their scores, and their ownership percentages:

QB's

Ben Roethlisberger - 25.45, 2.2%

Carson Palmer - 0, .6%

RB's

Willie Parker - 3.70, 8.7%

Kenny Watson - 0, 5.6%

Rashard Mendenhall - 0, .9%

WR's

Santonio Holmes - 13.40, 19.0%

TJ Houshmandzadeh - 6.00, 1.4%

Hines Ward - 4.70, 1.6%

Limas Sweed - 4.50, 1.2%

Nate Washington - 2.60, 1.2%

Antonio Chatman - 0, 1.4%

Cedrick Wilson - 0, 1.1%

Note: There are no live teams with Chad Johnson or Andre Caldwell

TE's

Heath Miller - 16.40, 3.5%

Ben Utecht - 8.10, 12.4%

K's

Jeff Reed - 11.00, 3.1%

Shayne Graham - 4.00, .7%

D's

Pittsburgh - 3.00, 2.9%

Cincinnati - 2.00, 4.1%

I doubt these numbers will do much to the overall simulation percentages (except to the 87 Willie Parker owners). The only players over 10% owned are Santonio Holmes and Ben Utecht, and they both scored right around the Dodds prediction. The only players over 5% owned are Willie Parker (predicted 14.20, scored 3.70) and Kenny Watson, and Watson was predicted for a goose egg already.

 

[Doug Drinen]

OK, this week I re-ran the simulation just before putting in the CIN-PIT scores so the only changes will be those resulting from the game.

Before CIN/PIT

After CIN/PIT

The biggest mover (up) is this guy, who had Jeff Reed and Heath Miller. He moved from 40% to 56.8%. Seems odd, but I guess it passes the sniff test. His expected score went up by about 8 points. But when you're right in the fat part of the bell curve, 8 points can make a huge difference in your survival chances. Does 8 points seem about right? Well, his only other TE is Keller. Before the week, Miller was projected with 8 and Keller with 11. So that's probably a 13-point expectation out of the position maybe. Now Miller is a guaranteed 16.4, so the TE expectation is more like 17.5 or 18. So that's about 4.5 or 5 points I'd guess. Meanwhile Reed was projected with 8.1 and his only other kicker is Gould, who is projected at 8.8. Prior to the game, the expectation was maybe 11. Now, with Reed's 11, it's more like 13. So that's another 2ish points, making about 7 points in all. I guess that seems close enough.

Overall, teams with Miller gained 8.1 percentage points on average. Teams with Marion Barber, for some reason, gained 1.6 percentage points on average. Teams with Hines Ward lost 13 percentage points on average, Houshmandzadeh 9, Parker 6, Steeler D 5, Bengal D 4.

This guy, whose only D is the Steelers and who also owns Ward and doesn't have a tremendous amount of WR help, is the biggest downward mover, from 50% to 29%.

 

[kevzilla]

I had no one in last night's game, and went all the way from 30.8% to 30.9%. Woo-hoo!

 

[Dirty Weasel]

I had no players and went from 54.2 down to 54.1. I assume many people around me have Ben Roethlisberger, Heath Miller, or Jeff Reed, bumping them up just above me.

 

[bengalboy]

I had no players in last night's game and went from 62.9% survival chance to a 64.7% chance. Gotta love that.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I'm missin' out on all of the Turk's new toys :(

Actually kinda relieved that my team would've been buried this past week (142.55) and that the QB-disaster week of a month ago (Romo out+Ryan on bye+Warner on bye = OUT) didn't keep me but big moolah at the end.

Still, the postseason contest can't come fast enough! (please tell me there's a postseason contest, Turk )

-QG

 

[BassNBrew]

Still, the postseason contest can't come fast enough! (please tell me there's a postseason contest, Turk )-QG

And please make it more like this contest (salary cap) rather than pick a player from each team. It will open up a huge number of different strategies.

 

[levinakl]

i missed suggestion day, but I love the contest how it is...... but agree a deeper $1/$2 player pool would open things up for more knowledge and the roster diversity people have craved. Other then that if you add a second flex, (which I'd prefer you didn't), you may want to consider opening one of those to the QB spot. But again, that's only IF you are hell bent on adding the second flex.

Other then that, I love it, except that I got eliminated by 1.5 points a couple weeks back on that TD Gaffney dropped against Indy (and would've still lasted the last two weeks too)

 

[Alberta Clipper]

Thanks DD. You forgot to note how Big Ben owners moved on average? I'm one and I went from 46.1% to 53.5%. My ave score only went up about 4 pts but I see it as some huge Warner insurance. Nice to have when the Giants D comes to town. If any team could knock him out of a game it would be PIT or NYG IMO.

Utecht catching a couple passes helps too I suppose. I've had some weeks with 0 from TE so 8.1 inda bank might be a difference maker. U seems to reinjure himself every time he steps on the field. With Fitz not finding much time I'd like to see more dumps to him.

The biggest mover (up) is this guy, who had Jeff Reed and Heath Miller. He moved from 40% to 56.8%.

Overall, teams with Miller gained 8.1 percentage points on average. Teams with Marion Barber, for some reason, gained 1.6 percentage points on average. Teams with Hines Ward lost 13

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I have Holmes and Steelers D. I went down from 43.4 to 38.4