2014 Subscriber Contest is LIVE (1 Viewer)

[FUBAR]

Historically, guys don't post entire roosters. Generally just allocations by positions. We are competing with eachother, so why tip your hand even with early submissions?

I will give you my rationale:

1) My final rooster will look much different, it is a grower not a shower.

2) Small % of contest participants even look at this thread let alone actively read it.

3) I am interested in some fliers that others are noticing, only works if enough people are willing to share some information. Effectively think the wisdom of the crowd is probably better than my initial takes.

4) I've had enough historical success in this contest

Same. Except for 4. I've never finished in the money and have no reason to think it's likely this year. Feel free to copy what I posted, I've already changed it 7 times since then.

Same here. Go ahead, take my roster. Win with it (I'll have changed it anyway). Gloat, maybe send me a free subscription next year.

 

[BillyJoeBob]

Do we have a link to the top 10 teams from last year?

Results from last year http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2013/week-16.php

 

[mphtrilogy]

why are TE's so heavily skewed with the extra .5 for a 1.5 per reception?

 

[Monsters of the Midway]

Meh at best. I love this contest, so much fun even though I've never made it past week 9 or so. The contest is worth the subscription price, and as a bonus you get about 4 million pages of great fantasy football analysis

Here's my initial squad which, like most, will change 234134 times before now and Week 1. I'm not impressed with it.

QB - Robert Griffin III - WAS/10 - $18
QB - Ben Roethlisberger - PIT/12 - $10
QB - Eli Manning - NYG/8 - $9
RB - Adrian Peterson - MIN/10 - $30
RB - LeVeon Bell - PIT/12 - $24
RB - C.J. Spiller - BUF/9 - $23
RB - Jeremy Hill - CIN/4 - $13
RB - Knile Davis - KC/6 - $9
RB - James White - NE/10 - $4
RB - Theo Riddick - DET/9 - $3
RB - Robert Turbin - SEA/4 - $2
WR - Julio Jones - ATL/9 - $25
WR - Rueben Randle - NYG/8 - $14
WR - Greg Jennings - MIN/10 - $9
WR - Marqise Lee - JAX/11 - $6
WR - Kelvin Benjamin - CAR/12 - $5
WR - Brian Quick - STL/4 - $4
WR - Malcom Floyd - SD/10 - $4
WR - Lance Moore - PIT/12 - $3
TE - Levine Toilolo - ATL/9 - $5
TE - Brandon Bostick - GB/9 - $4
TE - Scott Chandler - BUF/9 - $4
PK - Adam Vinatieri - IND/10 - $3
PK - Shayne Graham - NO/6 - $3
PK - Blair Walsh - MIN/10 - $3
PK - Greg Zuerlein - STL/4 - $3
TD - New Orleans Saints - NO/6 - $4
TD - Detroit Lions - DET/9 - $3
TD - New York Jets - NYJ/11 - $3

 

[iamkoza]

this was just brutal pairing it down to $250 this year... the only thing i'm not happy about is i only have 2 PK's and not 3... but i literally didnt see anywhere i could cut to get the extra kicker back

 

[QuizGuy66]

So no one else is posting rosters that they'll undoubtedly change between now and then?

Nopers - don't wanna give away my secret losing formula.

-QG

 

[BroadwayG]

 

[Don Quixote]

It's probably not a coincidence that my first crack with a bunch of players that I thought had good value included many with a week 10 bye.

 

[Lord Fantasy]

Last year's winner is still a thing of beauty.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

It's probably not a coincidence that my first crack with a bunch of players that I thought had good value included many with a week 10 bye.

Whole bunch of week 9-12 Bye guys on my first team. Guess I can't go for so much value.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Do we have a link to the top 10 teams from last year?

Results from last year http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2013/week-16.php

There was an ongoing debate at the start of the season about optimal roster size, with a prevailing thought that something in the 23 - 25 range represents the sweet spot. I mention this having looked at last year's top 10 and observing roster sizes in the top 10 as such:

1. 18

2. 18

3. 21

4. 19

5. 19

6. 22

7. 21

8. 23

9. 25

10. 20

Question the statistical significance if you like, but this will color my thinking this year....

 

[maf005]

Do we have a link to the top 10 teams from last year?

Results from last year http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2013/week-16.php

There was an ongoing debate at the start of the season about optimal roster size, with a prevailing thought that something in the 23 - 25 range represents the sweet spot. I mention this having looked at last year's top 10 and observing roster sizes in the top 10 as such:

1. 18

2. 18

3. 21

4. 19

5. 19

6. 22

7. 21

8. 23

9. 25

10. 20

Question the statistical significance if you like, but this will color my thinking this year....

Are the player values proportional to total cap available across years?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think I'm going with the smaller stud lineup, but I don't see many studs.

 

[Mister CIA]

Do we have a link to the top 10 teams from last year?

Results from last year http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2013/week-16.php

There was an ongoing debate at the start of the season about optimal roster size, with a prevailing thought that something in the 23 - 25 range represents the sweet spot. I mention this having looked at last year's top 10 and observing roster sizes in the top 10 as such:

1. 18

2. 18

3. 21

4. 19

5. 19

6. 22

7. 21

8. 23

9. 25

10. 20

Question the statistical significance if you like, but this will color my thinking this year....

Opting for a whole lotta low cost players will probably pay off once every few years - I'm due.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I keep settling on an 18 player roster and that is with no RBs in the top 10.

 

[FUBAR]

I keep settling on an 18 player roster and that is with no RBs in the top 10.

yep. seems they went out of their way to discourage taking stud RBs while there are a lot of values to be had at QB.

 

[(HULK)]

I think this has been said before, but larger rosters help you make the final 250, and smaller rosters (more studs) help you win if you manage to get there.

You need to hit on pretty much every player to make the finals with 18 players. No room for error there.

 

[Modog814]

Do we have a link to the top 10 teams from last year?

Results from last year http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2013/week-16.php

There was an ongoing debate at the start of the season about optimal roster size, with a prevailing thought that something in the 23 - 25 range represents the sweet spot. I mention this having looked at last year's top 10 and observing roster sizes in the top 10 as such:

1. 18

2. 18

3. 21

4. 19

5. 19

6. 22

7. 21

8. 23

9. 25

10. 20

Question the statistical significance if you like, but this will color my thinking this year....

IIRC this happens pretty much every year. The top "winners" generally have closer to 20 players. However, most teams that select fewer players don't make it to the top 250 (relatively speaking compared to teams that have closer to 28). The 23-25 ranges seemed to be a happy medium where you get the best of both worlds (enough depth to survive to the top 250, and enough stud fire power to put up huge scores).

Going with a smaller lineup is basically saying I want to maximize my chances at winning it all, even if it ends up meaning I mostly likely will get nothing.

Going with a larger lineup is saying I want to maximize my chances of getting into the top 250 and we'll see what happens.

Going with a 23-26 roster can give you an advantage over the other two (better chance to make top 250 than 18 man roster, more "firepower" than 30 man roster), but it's also a disadvantage (less firepower than the 18 man rosters that make the top 250, less chance to make the top 250 than the 30 man rosters).

 

[BroadwayG]

I think I'm going with the smaller stud lineup, but I don't see many studs.

They are at the top of the list.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Do we have a link to the top 10 teams from last year?

Results from last year http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2013/week-16.php

There was an ongoing debate at the start of the season about optimal roster size, with a prevailing thought that something in the 23 - 25 range represents the sweet spot. I mention this having looked at last year's top 10 and observing roster sizes in the top 10 as such:

1. 18

2. 18

3. 21

4. 19

5. 19

6. 22

7. 21

8. 23

9. 25

10. 20

Question the statistical significance if you like, but this will color my thinking this year....

IIRC this happens pretty much every year. The top "winners" generally have closer to 20 players. However, most teams that select fewer players don't make it to the top 250 (relatively speaking compared to teams that have closer to 28). The 23-25 ranges seemed to be a happy medium where you get the best of both worlds (enough depth to survive to the top 250, and enough stud fire power to put up huge scores).

Going with a smaller lineup is basically saying I want to maximize my chances at winning it all, even if it ends up meaning I mostly likely will get nothing.

Going with a larger lineup is saying I want to maximize my chances of getting into the top 250 and we'll see what happens.

Going with a 23-26 roster can give you an advantage over the other two (better chance to make top 250 than 18 man roster, more "firepower" than 30 man roster), but it's also a disadvantage (less firepower than the 18 man rosters that make the top 250, less chance to make the top 250 than the 30 man rosters).

There's also some sample bias. A huge majority of the entries will end up with 18, 19 or 20 players (If I recall it's something like 90% - Iggy'll have the actual numbers). Roster sizes like 25, 26, 27 are much less common so won't be represented big in the final standings no matter what.

-QG

 

[Modog814]

Do we have a link to the top 10 teams from last year?

Results from last year http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2013/week-16.php

There was an ongoing debate at the start of the season about optimal roster size, with a prevailing thought that something in the 23 - 25 range represents the sweet spot. I mention this having looked at last year's top 10 and observing roster sizes in the top 10 as such:

1. 18

2. 18

3. 21

4. 19

5. 19

6. 22

7. 21

8. 23

9. 25

10. 20

Question the statistical significance if you like, but this will color my thinking this year....

IIRC this happens pretty much every year. The top "winners" generally have closer to 20 players. However, most teams that select fewer players don't make it to the top 250 (relatively speaking compared to teams that have closer to 28). The 23-25 ranges seemed to be a happy medium where you get the best of both worlds (enough depth to survive to the top 250, and enough stud fire power to put up huge scores).

Going with a smaller lineup is basically saying I want to maximize my chances at winning it all, even if it ends up meaning I mostly likely will get nothing.

Going with a larger lineup is saying I want to maximize my chances of getting into the top 250 and we'll see what happens.

Going with a 23-26 roster can give you an advantage over the other two (better chance to make top 250 than 18 man roster, more "firepower" than 30 man roster), but it's also a disadvantage (less firepower than the 18 man rosters that make the top 250, less chance to make the top 250 than the 30 man rosters).

There's also some sample bias. A huge majority of the entries will end up with 18, 19 or 20 players (If I recall it's something like 90% - Iggy'll have the actual numbers). Roster sizes like 25, 26, 27 are much less common so won't be represented big in the final standings no matter what.

-QG

I could be wrong, but I thought the sampling bias pretty much evened out by the time you get to the top 250. Yes in past years larger rosters were less common, but they also survived at a larger rate.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Do we have a link to the top 10 teams from last year?

Results from last year http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2013/week-16.php

There was an ongoing debate at the start of the season about optimal roster size, with a prevailing thought that something in the 23 - 25 range represents the sweet spot. I mention this having looked at last year's top 10 and observing roster sizes in the top 10 as such:

1. 18

2. 18

3. 21

4. 19

5. 19

6. 22

7. 21

8. 23

9. 25

10. 20

Question the statistical significance if you like, but this will color my thinking this year....

IIRC this happens pretty much every year. The top "winners" generally have closer to 20 players. However, most teams that select fewer players don't make it to the top 250 (relatively speaking compared to teams that have closer to 28). The 23-25 ranges seemed to be a happy medium where you get the best of both worlds (enough depth to survive to the top 250, and enough stud fire power to put up huge scores).

Going with a smaller lineup is basically saying I want to maximize my chances at winning it all, even if it ends up meaning I mostly likely will get nothing.

Going with a larger lineup is saying I want to maximize my chances of getting into the top 250 and we'll see what happens.

Going with a 23-26 roster can give you an advantage over the other two (better chance to make top 250 than 18 man roster, more "firepower" than 30 man roster), but it's also a disadvantage (less firepower than the 18 man rosters that make the top 250, less chance to make the top 250 than the 30 man rosters).

There's also some sample bias. A huge majority of the entries will end up with 18, 19 or 20 players (If I recall it's something like 90% - Iggy'll have the actual numbers). Roster sizes like 25, 26, 27 are much less common so won't be represented big in the final standings no matter what.-QG

I could be wrong, but I thought the sampling bias pretty much evened out by the time you get to the top 250. Yes in past years larger rosters were less common, but they also survived at a larger rate.

I don't have the past years' data with me today, but IIRC it does not even out by the end. Yes, larger rosters survive at a higher rate, but there are SO MANY more small rosters to start the contest that even by the time you get to the final 250, it's still mostly made up of smaller rosters. I think historically the larger rosters have survived at something in the ballpark of 3-4x better than small rosters, but when the contest starts there will be like 20x as many 18-man rosters as there are 30-man rosters. The final 250 will have like 50 18-man rosters in it, just because there are so many to start with.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I guess my point was if there were an equal number of rosters of each size then perhaps at the end of the contest the larger rosters would win out.

-QG

 

[Phenomena]

There doesn't seem to be nearly as many cheap upside players as last year. Gordon and Julius Thomas were locks on just about every roster due to their upside and price. I'm not seeing anyone like that this year.

 

[Modog814]

I guess my point was if there were an equal number of rosters of each size then perhaps at the end of the contest the larger rosters would win out.

-QG

I see what you're saying and stand corrected on them evening out by the end. I do continue to think that having a smaller stud lineup is more advantageous in the top 250 than having a larger depth lineup.

 

[jdoggydogg]

So no one else is posting rosters that they'll undoubtedly change between now and then?

Ah heck why not?

QB - Robert Griffin III - WAS/10 - $18

QB - Jay Cutler - CHI/9 - $12

QB - Teddy Bridgewater - MIN/10 - $6

RB - Eddie Lacy - GB/9 - $28

RB - Alfred Morris - WAS/10 - $20

RB - Frank Gore - SF/8 - $16

RB - Carlos Hyde - SF/8 - $10

RB - Roy Helu - WAS/10 - $7

RB - Robert Turbin - SEA/4 - $2

WR - Pierre Garcon - WAS/10 - $22

WR - Roddy White - ATL/9 - $19

WR - Terrance Williams - DAL/11 - $14

WR - Golden Tate - DET/9 - $13

WR - Hakeem Nicks - IND/10 - $9

WR - Kelvin Benjamin - CAR/12 - $5

WR - Mohamed Sanu - CIN/4 - $3

TE - Kyle Rudolph - MIN/10 - $15

TE - Delanie Walker - TEN/9 - $12

TE - Timothy Wright - TB/7 - $5

PK - Kai Forbath - WAS/10 - $3

PK - Mike Nugent - CIN/4 - $3

TD - Baltimore Ravens - BAL/11 - $4

TD - Cleveland Browns - CLE/4 - $4

 

[jdoggydogg]

I've changed my team like 5 times since posting it yesterday.

Welcome to my private hell.

 

[maf005]

For a competition like this I really like the idea of pairing RB and their obvious handcuffs, Gore and Hyde for example.

You get RB1 #s and injury insurance. $26 for the SF backfield seems reasonable

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think I'm going with the smaller stud lineup, but I don't see many studs.

They are at the top of the list.

Sorry, I meant on my initial 21 man rooster. It just doesn't seem that studly.

 

[Bankerguy]

Betting we see a lot of teams with just Peyton as their QB.

 

[Organized Chaos]

Hey all, I just wanted to put this out there so hopefully someone else can run with something similar. I wont be doing the gameday scoring thing that I've done in the past. I appreciate those that have supported it over the years, but with 2 young kids and a busy consulting job, it's just too much extra work for me to take on this year.

This dude wrote some software that a tech savvy person could use to integrate into a website or google spreadsheet or something.. https://github.com/BurntSushi/nflgame

The last two years, I wrote custom code to access and convert stats from the same source he was (NFL Gameday JSON API) to run the FBG35K Gameday Tracker.

I'm still looking forward to this contest, I just cant invest the time in this software again. Best of luck to everyone.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

I can't believe they finally made my lucky charm, McCluster, more than $3 when he's almost certainly going to be worse.

 

[Steeler]

Hey all, I just wanted to put this out there so hopefully someone else can run with something similar. I wont be doing the gameday scoring thing that I've done in the past.

I'm looking for a new side project to work on so I'll look into building a site for this.

 

[Maggot Brain]

Hey all, I just wanted to put this out there so hopefully someone else can run with something similar. I wont be doing the gameday scoring thing that I've done in the past. I appreciate those that have supported it over the years, but with 2 young kids and a busy consulting job, it's just too much extra work for me to take on this year.

This dude wrote some software that a tech savvy person could use to integrate into a website or google spreadsheet or something.. https://github.com/BurntSushi/nflgame

The last two years, I wrote custom code to access and convert stats from the same source he was (NFL Gameday JSON API) to run the FBG35K Gameday Tracker.

I'm still looking forward to this contest, I just cant invest the time in this software again. Best of luck to everyone.

Completely understand OC and I think I speak for the entire crowd in expressing our deep gratitude for the contributions you've made. Keep it real, GB.

 

[FF Ninja]

I can't believe they finally made my lucky charm, McCluster, more than $3 when he's almost certainly going to be worse.

You think he'll be worse? Did you not witness Danny Woodhead's success last season under Whiz? Woodhead is a physical specimen (straight line speed, bench press) but he can't block a lick and has absolutely no elusiveness. I think McCluster is a decent play here thanks to the 1ppr.

 

[FF Ninja]

Last year's winner is still a thing of beauty.

I think this has been said before, but larger rosters help you make the final 250, and smaller rosters (more studs) help you win if you manage to get there.

You need to hit on pretty much every player to make the finals with 18 players. No room for error there.

You are generally correct, but check out last year's winner. He could've done it without Vick, Michael, and Wheaton. Insane.

 

[Bankerguy]

Aside from major injuries, or pre season studs emerging I am going to keep what I have. I have spent several hours on it...but feel content now. I think the years of playing this contest and reading the contest threads have really helped focus my strategy. I have cracked the top 1000 3 straight years and the Top 500 once. I feel like I am getting closer....

Here is my basic breakdown:

3 QB's costing $28

3 RB's costing $72

5 WR's costing $89

2 TE's costing $43

3 K's costing $9

3 D's costing $9

-Debated heavily between 2 or 3 QB's this year. I just see too much value here, small roll of the dice here.

-I cannot miss with a RB choice or i am toast

-Love my WR's, feel great about the $ and value here.

-I wanted one more TE, but something has to give. That's what makes this contest great.

-No bye week overlaps by position

-Very little bye week overlap by key scoring positions QB/RB/WR/TE

Love this contest.

 

[Monsters of the Midway]

Great stuff here guys, thanks for sharing insights/strategy. My head is spinning more than usual. I have always been a 30 man roster type, I'm going to try a smaller one this year. Why not? I haven't done very well in the past anyway.

 

[17seconds]

I don't see why you'd want 3 QBs with all of the relatively equivalent and consistent producers at the position (QB5-QB15). You don't really raise your pts ceiling vs. 2 QBs. I'd rather have another WR to reduce variance there.

 

[apalmer]

I don't see why you'd want 3 QBs with all of the relatively equivalent and consistent producers at the position (QB5-QB15). You don't really raise your pts ceiling vs. 2 QBs. I'd rather have another WR to reduce variance there.

I think the only justification for a 3rd QB is guarding against getting a 0 in a week where one QB has the bye and the other is injured. I'm generally a 2 QB guy, but I've had that situation twice in the last 3 years. I survived one and died in the other. the 3rd QB may not help often, but when you need it, it's good to have.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I don't see why you'd want 3 QBs with all of the relatively equivalent and consistent producers at the position (QB5-QB15). You don't really raise your pts ceiling vs. 2 QBs. I'd rather have another WR to reduce variance there.

I think the only justification for a 3rd QB is guarding against getting a 0 in a week where one QB has the bye and the other is injured. I'm generally a 2 QB guy, but I've had that situation twice in the last 3 years. I survived one and died in the other. the 3rd QB may not help often, but when you need it, it's good to have.

A defense of three QBs: As long as you're not spending big bucks on a Manning or Brees, it feels like there are some really good cheap QBs under $10 that could really save your season if one of your two mid tier QBs is lost for the season.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

I can't believe they finally made my lucky charm, McCluster, more than $3 when he's almost certainly going to be worse.

You think he'll be worse?

I can't not pick him, so I guess it doesn't matter what I think.

 

[LBH]

QB - Tony Romo - DAL/11 - $14

QB - Philip Rivers - SD/10 - $12

RB - Jamaal Charles - KC/6 - $36

RB - Adrian Peterson - MIN/10 - $30

RB - Khiry Robinson - NO/6 - $10

RB - LeGarrette Blount - PIT/12 - $6

RB - James White - NE/10 - $4

WR - Dez Bryant - DAL/11 - $27

WR - Antonio Brown - PIT/12 - $22

WR - Roddy White - ATL/9 - $19

WR - Greg Jennings - MIN/10 - $9

WR - Jordan Matthews - PHI/7 - $9

WR - Kenny Britt - STL/4 - $8

WR - Kelvin Benjamin - CAR/12 - $5

TE - Kyle Rudolph - MIN/10 - $15

TE - Travis Kelce - KC/6 - $8

PK - Nick Folk - NYJ/11 - $3

PK - Adam Vinatieri - IND/10 - $3

TD - New England Patriots - NE/10 - $6

TD - New Orleans Saints - NO/6 - $4

Total value: 250

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Hey all, I just wanted to put this out there so hopefully someone else can run with something similar. I wont be doing the gameday scoring thing that I've done in the past. I appreciate those that have supported it over the years, but with 2 young kids and a busy consulting job, it's just too much extra work for me to take on this year.

This dude wrote some software that a tech savvy person could use to integrate into a website or google spreadsheet or something.. https://github.com/BurntSushi/nflgame

The last two years, I wrote custom code to access and convert stats from the same source he was (NFL Gameday JSON API) to run the FBG35K Gameday Tracker.

I'm still looking forward to this contest, I just cant invest the time in this software again. Best of luck to everyone.

Iggy's got this. Thanks OC.

 

[Ever Present Lurker]

Man, I'm having a heck of a time this year getting what I want for under $250... and my rosters are trending much closer to the 18 player end than the 30 player end. Yikes!

QB: $36

RB: $75

WR: $70

TE: $56

K: $6

D: $7

20 Players

Obviously I've gone with 2 kickers. I'd really like 3 but just can't find it at this point. I've probably spent 3 hours on this already, and I'm sure I'll continue to screw it up until the roster lock.

 

[FF Ninja]

I don't see why you'd want 3 QBs with all of the relatively equivalent and consistent producers at the position (QB5-QB15). You don't really raise your pts ceiling vs. 2 QBs. I'd rather have another WR to reduce variance there.

Depends on if you think you can find some QB5-QB15 guys outside of those actual rankings. Right now I've got 3 QBs for a grand total of $26. It'll be interesting to see how they fare against Manning or Brees this year. Last year obviously Manning's record setting year probably trumped all 2 and 3 QB combos, but on an average year I feel confident in my approach despite never actually checking the numbers.

I'm normally a 30 man team, but I'm sitting at 29 now:

3QB - $26

7RB - $81

10WR - $94

3TE - $30

3K - $9

3D - $10

Would like to invest in more TEs, but I don't see any cheap guys I like this year. I went 3TE last year with a 30 man roster and it would've worked fine if not for the Finley injury.

Missing $84 in week 10, though. Might be a problem.

 

[FUBAR]

3TE - $30

Would like to invest in more TEs, but I don't see any cheap guys I like this year. I went 3TE last year with a 30 man roster and it would've worked fine if not for the Finley injury.

I'm pretty much locked in at 3 TEs at $42 or $46, depending on my 3rd guy. Maybe a bit high for TEs but I've always been a fan of using TE for flex.

 

[Bankerguy]

I don't see why you'd want 3 QBs with all of the relatively equivalent and consistent producers at the position (QB5-QB15). You don't really raise your pts ceiling vs. 2 QBs. I'd rather have another WR to reduce variance there.

I am normally a 2 QB guy...but I am buying the Vick lottery ticket for $4 bucks.

 

[FF Ninja]

3TE - $30

Would like to invest in more TEs, but I don't see any cheap guys I like this year. I went 3TE last year with a 30 man roster and it would've worked fine if not for the Finley injury.

I'm pretty much locked in at 3 TEs at $42 or $46, depending on my 3rd guy. Maybe a bit high for TEs but I've always been a fan of using TE for flex.

As you should be. When I can find enough value plays there, I love me some 5TE lineups inside my 30 man roster due to the extra points they get per reception (didn't it used to be 0RB, 1WR, 2TE a few years ago and then .5RB, 1WR, 1.5TE?). But I just don't see any obvious values this year. I actually just swapped out a week 10 bye week guy for a different TE and swapped a WR for a TE, so I'm up to 4TE for $33.

 

[Ever Present Lurker]

3TE - $30

Would like to invest in more TEs, but I don't see any cheap guys I like this year. I went 3TE last year with a 30 man roster and it would've worked fine if not for the Finley injury.

I'm pretty much locked in at 3 TEs at $42 or $46, depending on my 3rd guy. Maybe a bit high for TEs but I've always been a fan of using TE for flex.

As you should be. When I can find enough value plays there, I love me some 5TE lineups inside my 30 man roster due to the extra points they get per reception (didn't it used to be 0RB, 1WR, 2TE a few years ago and then .5RB, 1WR, 1.5TE?). But I just don't see any obvious values this year. I actually just swapped out a week 10 bye week guy for a different TE and swapped a WR for a TE, so I'm up to 4TE for $33.

I've got a couple "kind of" value players that are on my radar, but there aren't those couple of players that scream value. Then again, those players end up on everyone's roster, so perhaps the lack of "gift" players will make this thing even harder.

My latest incarnation is at 18 players. I feel like it's strong, but MAN, it's only 18. I've never had such issues getting 25+!