Ah shoot, thanks for the reminder, I'll take that link down. It's been a great experience running the site and I'd love to keep it going - ironically, creating it was a catalyst to a career change a few years ago, where football season is now the busiest time of year for me, and I just don't have the time I'd need to devote to it anymore.I was just about to click on the donate link....please reconsider...
Fair enough, but I expect you to still participate in the contest....and audit Steeler and ConstruxBoy potential to maintain live scoring service.Ah shoot, thanks for the reminder, I'll take that link down. It's been a great experience running the site and I'd love to keep it going - ironically, creating it was a catalyst to a career change a few years ago, where football season is now the busiest time of year for me, and I just don't have the time I'd need to devote to it anymore.
That sucks it brought a lot to the contestI don't think I'm going to be able to run the live scoring again this year.
No worries, I'm going to do it this yearThat sucks it brought a lot to the contest
Probably depends on who your first 2 QBs are. If you have Big Ben and Luck (or other guys who are serious risks to miss games) and/or have late byes, I'd go with a 3rd QB (I still remember a few years ago when a Romo injury left me with no QB in week 10 or 11 when my other one was on bye). If you're going with Brees and Prescott who are pretty safe injury-wise and both have early byes, I'd be inclined not to spend on a 3rd QB.Is there any consensus on using a cheap third QB? Worth the money or better spent elsewhere?
Agreed. I don't really understand why people post their team. I'd much rather hear some strategy talk.I'd post a lineup, but what's the point? It'll change 6,437 times before the deadline
Just as a wild guess, I'd assume that the vast majority of winning and losing teams have 2-3 defenses.BoltBacker said:Agreed. I don't really understand why people post their team. I'd much rather hear some strategy talk.
For instance I wonder if the teams that have finished in the top 20 in the past few years typically have 2 defenses? More or fewer?
I make this same plea annually, although I usually wait until after the lineup lock date because that's when most guys post them. I'm not about to sit and read through a list of players to try and.Aanalyze it; it's much more valuable to see a breakdown of the analysis of why guys were taken.BoltBacker said:Agreed. I don't really understand why people post their team. I'd much rather hear some strategy talk.
For instance I wonder if the teams that have finished in the top 20 in the past few years typically have 2 defenses? More or fewer?
There was some interesting analysis in the MFL 10 thread comparing how 1, 2, and 3 defenses compared and I felt like last season teams with 1 or 2 defenses had more success than those with three defenses. Of course, that's cumulative scoring rather than one game elimination and the two scoring systems aren't exactly the same but it had me wondering if the most successful teams over the years typically stayed away from a third defense or not.Just as a wild guess, I'd assume that the vast majority of winning and losing teams have 2-3 defenses.
Do you happen to remember which two defenses they were? Did the expensive defense perform as well as expected?I've always gone with 3 cheap defenses, feeling that scores there are too unpredictable in this scoring system to rely on less or pay for higher rated ones. I changed up last year, going with 1 expensive D and one cheaper "backup". I haven't done a detailed analysis, but my gut feeling thoughout the season was that it was a mistake, so I'm going back to Plan A.
I've found that there is virtually never any strategy discussed here until after the rosters are locked....which is silly and disappointing given the overwhelming odds against any one of us winning.I make this same plea annually, although I usually wait until after the lineup lock date because that's when most guys post them. I'm not about to sit and read through a list of players to try and.Aanalyze it; it's much more valuable to see a breakdown of the analysis of why guys were taken.
I've always gone with 3 cheap defenses, feeling that scores there are too unpredictable in this scoring system to rely on less or pay for higher rated ones. I changed up last year, going with 1 expensive D and one cheaper "backup". I haven't done a detailed analysis, but my gut feeling thoughout the season was that it was a mistake, so I'm going back to Plan A.
I like Rivers, Manning, Mariota and to a lesser extent Wentz and Dalton. I have to keep reminding myself that Bradford and Smith aren't going to score comparable points but they are, relatively, cheap. Its hard for me to pull the pin on any of the "speculative" QBs though I could see Goff or Trubisky working out ok. The two studs I have toyed with taking instead are Brady and Wilson. Nothing wrong with Rodgers of course other than money (I think Brady has a higher ceiling but a lower floor). Can't get behind Luck, Ben, Brees, Ryan, Carr or Cousins this year. I'm not even mentioning Winston, Newton or Stafford....no interest.In terms of strategy I keep going back and forth with the QB position. I have never been a believer in spending big money at QB. This year I find a lot of good values at the position. Mid priced guys I like a lot include Mariota, Stafford and Wentz. What I am toying with now is the idea of going really cheap at QB with a Bradford/Watson/Hoyer/Kizer combo. This combo obviously lacks the upside of a Brady or Brees but I think it's a solid bet for 20+ points a week at a cheap cost, allowing for more money to be spent at more important positions. That strategy has the chance of blowing up spectacularly or it could work quite well if Watson is this years Dak, Hoyer stays healthy, etc.
If it was LeVeon or DJ I'd seriously consider it. I don't consider Elliot enough of an upgrade over someone like McCoy to make it worth him missing half the season.Anyone thinking about still taking Zeke? That's a lot of money sitting on the bench for the first 7 weeks of this contest (six game suspension+bye week). Would it make a difference if it was reduced to say four games?
The only reason I would consider taking Zeke is to try to make my team more unique. I imagine most will avoid him and those who take him will have a more difficult time making the cuts.
That is exactly the view that every Elliot owner hopes the masses take.If it was LeVeon or DJ I'd seriously consider it. I don't consider Elliot enough of an upgrade over someone like McCoy to make it worth him missing half the season.
Uniqueness is very overrated IMO. There is a reason certain guys get heavily owned, because they end up being great values at their prices. Last year it made sense to take a chance on Brady as he was significantly discounted due to the suspension. Elliot was overpriced to begin with and gets no discount for being suspended, so he is not someone I will even be considering for my team.That is exactly the view that every Elliot owner hopes the masses take.
The way I see it is the only reason to roster Elliot is to try to make your roster unique. There are defiantly other RB's out their that will put up similar numbers to Zeke throughout the season.....so the question is if you can survive until week 8 with Zeke on your roster? The best case scenario is surviving the first 7 weeks of the season through superior roster design....then getting the reward of being the lone team left with Zeke on your roster when he averages 150 yards/3tds during the playoffs.
Ok....just looked at his playoff schedule: NYG, Oak, Sea. Not a big fan of that schedule for a RB. So maybe it is a pipe dream to pull this off and make it work in your advantage. But I do believe that bold moves can make a difference when you get to the final 250 teams.
Can't believe I only got 1 like for sharing the winning strategy. I should delete this post!!!Here is my strategy this year.
qb - I usually go with 2 mid tier guys and a flier. This year I love the value at the position. I am leaning towards, Cousins,Stafford, Winston or Rivers and combining them with 3 of these guys Hoyer, Watson, Bradford, Kizer, Goff.
rb - I usually go with one big priced guy like 22 +, then 3 mid priced guys, and then a couple of fliers. This year I am loving the value at 21 and under. Guys I am looking at right now are Montgomery, Cook, Abdullah, Powell, Duke Johnson, Henry, White and Kelly. My lineup right now has 5 of these guys. I don't love the cheap guys at this point, but I do have 2 of them rostered.
wr - sticking with the value theme everyone on my roster right now is 21 under. I really like Allen, Snead, Hill, Pryor, Crowder, Parker, Garcon, Meredith. Right now I have 4 of those guys on my team, I do love quite a few guys at the 6 dollar and under price point. Lee, Anderson, Boldin, Stills, Goodwin, Galloday, Coleman, Agholor. Right now I have 3 of these guys on my team.
Te - It looks like I will have a large roster this year, I only like one of the guys over 15 dollars. Under 15 dollars I like Henry, Ertz, Doyle, James, Cook, Vernon Davis, Watson. Right now I have 4 of these guys rostered.
K - Right now I have 3 kickers that are all cheap. They will probably change a couple of times as injuries or roster cuts. All guys will be under 3 dollars and under unless I have a 1 dollar left over. This is what I do every year.
Defense - I always try to get 3 defenses and at least one 5 dollar defense. Right now I like these defenses, Ravens, Eagles, Rams, Titans, Chargers and Steelers
Same but the Rams are very tempting.I make this same plea annually, although I usually wait until after the lineup lock date because that's when most guys post them. I'm not about to sit and read through a list of players to try and.Aanalyze it; it's much more valuable to see a breakdown of the analysis of why guys were taken.
I've always gone with 3 cheap defenses, feeling that scores there are too unpredictable in this scoring system to rely on less or pay for higher rated ones. I changed up last year, going with 1 expensive D and one cheaper "backup". I haven't done a detailed analysis, but my gut feeling thoughout the season was that it was a mistake, so I'm going back to Plan A.
But if I give you my strategy you might beat me. (I've never made it to the last few weeks)I've found that there is virtually never any strategy discussed here until after the rosters are locked....which is silly and disappointing given the overwhelming odds against any one of us winning.
Yep. But I went with the guys who miss a few weeks last year and that didn't pan out except for Brady. It's tempting for sure but that much guaranteed dead money is going to knock most teams out.Anyone thinking about still taking Zeke? That's a lot of money sitting on the bench for the first 7 weeks of this contest (six game suspension+bye week). Would it make a difference if it was reduced to say four games?
The only reason I would consider taking Zeke is to try to make my team more unique. I imagine most will avoid him and those who take him will have a more difficult time making the cuts.
It's not the quantity of the likes you received, it's the quality of the likes you received Grasshopper.Can't believe I only got 1 like for sharing the winning strategy. I should delete this post!!!
This doesn't explain why people seem eager to post their lineup but rarely talk about strategy.But if I give you my strategy you might beat me. (I've never made it to the last few weeks)
You're assuming there is a strategy beyond taking guys we think are good values.This doesn't explain why people seem eager to post their lineup but rarely talk about strategy.
If you do darn sure you have a large roster no way 20-21 man roster could go with that much dead moneyThat is exactly the view that every Elliot owner hopes the masses take.
The way I see it is the only reason to roster Elliot is to try to make your roster unique. There are defiantly other RB's out their that will put up similar numbers to Zeke throughout the season.....so the question is if you can survive until week 8 with Zeke on your roster? The best case scenario is surviving the first 7 weeks of the season through superior roster design....then getting the reward of being the lone team left with Zeke on your roster when he averages 150 yards/3tds during the playoffs.
Ok....just looked at his playoff schedule: NYG, Oak, Sea. Not a big fan of that schedule for a RB. So maybe it is a pipe dream to pull this off and make it work in your advantage. But I do believe that bold moves can make a difference when you get to the final 250 teams.
Re: RB vs WR studs, after the top 5, the high priced RBs all have lower floors than a corresponding tier WR, almost as if RB scarcity works against itself....the better WRs are going to "get theirs" barring injury but RBBC can give entirely unpredicted results for number of carries. That's a general statement but I might be more comfortable with one elite RB and one elite WR than with a "zero wr" strategy....A little more strategy discussion....
- I think it's a much better idea to spend money on elite players at RB than WR, for one simple reason. The really cheap WRs are much more likely to produce a couple of games that match the higher priced guys at their position. For example, I think it is a lot more likely that a Kenny Stills or Travis Benjamin puts up a 20+ pt game than Robert Turbin or D'Onta Foreman. There are probably 15 or so WRs under $10 that I have considered who I can see putting up multiple starting caliber weeks. RB is much more of a crap shoot. Sure you can get lucky and hit on one cheap RB who blows up but the odds are not in your favor. My current roster only has 3 RBs on it and all are $26+ plus. Mid level RBs are IMO the absolute worst place to spend your money in this contest, followed closely by cheap RBs.
- TEs are the best values in this contest by far. If you compare players on a point to dollar basis across positions you'll see this. Zach Ertz, for example, slots in around the neighborhood of $25 RBs and $20 WRs for the price of $13. If possible I think you should build your roster with the intent of consistently getting your flex plays from TEs. My best contest finish was 2015 when I had Gronk, Olsen, Eifert and Ertz at the position and they absolutely carried me throughout the year despite some untimely injuries at other positions. I'll be loading up at TE again this year. The value this year is in the $10-$20 range.
Like apalmer, I'm a fan of 3 cheap defenses. But then again, I'm a big proponent of the 30 man roster. People see 18-20 man teams winning the competition, but that's because a large % of entries are 18-20 and only a small % are 27-30.Agreed. I don't really understand why people post their team. I'd much rather hear some strategy talk.
For instance I wonder if the teams that have finished in the top 20 in the past few years typically have 2 defenses? More or fewer?
If you move a little from WR to TE, you'll be surprisingly similar to my percentages (12, 36,29,17,3,3), even though I'm not a 30-man roster guy. I agree that smaller rosters get knocked out at a higher rate than larger rosters, but my goal isn't to last a long time, it's to finish first. What difference does it make if only 1% of small rosters make the final 250 while 10% of large rosters do (and, yes, I'm just making those numbers up for demonstration purposes) if, as you say, it's the 18-20 man rosters that win?Like apalmer, I'm a fan of 3 cheap defenses. But then again, I'm a big proponent of the 30 man roster. People see 18-20 man teams winning the competition, but that's because a large % of entries are 18-20 and only a small % are 27-30.
I'm still trying to fine tune it, but my roster spot and cost distribution is currently sitting at:
Considering moving a roster spot (and $$) from WR to TE. With the option of starting 3TE and there being a slight TE bonus, I should probably have a higher % allocated there.
- QB - 3 - 12%
- RB - 6 - 33%
- WR - 10 - 36%
- TE - 5 - 14%
- K - 3 - 3%
- D - 3 - 3%
Like Raback said, I feel the need to spend a little bit more $/player at RB since cheaper WRs have a chance to still have big games - you just have to increase the number to make sure you hit at least two of them per week.
The only thing I disagree with here is the part about 3 defenses. I generally lean two defenses. Sometimes 2 defenses and 2 kickers..... especially if my team got hit by the injury bug the year before and that is why I was eliminated.Like apalmer, I'm a fan of 3 cheap defenses. But then again, I'm a big proponent of the 30 man roster. People see 18-20 man teams winning the competition, but that's because a large % of entries are 18-20 and only a small % are 27-30.
I'm still trying to fine tune it, but my roster spot and cost distribution is currently sitting at:
Considering moving a roster spot (and $$) from WR to TE. With the option of starting 3TE and there being a slight TE bonus, I should probably have a higher % allocated there.
- QB - 3 - 12%
- RB - 6 - 33%
- WR - 10 - 36%
- TE - 5 - 14%
- K - 3 - 3%
- D - 3 - 3%
Like Raback said, I feel the need to spend a little bit more $/player at RB since cheaper WRs have a chance to still have big games - you just have to increase the number to make sure you hit at least two of them per week.
After I posted that I switch John Brown out for Hooper... trying to figure out what to do with my extra $2 or if I want to go with Ertz instead of Hooper.If you move a little from WR to TE, you'll be surprisingly similar to my percentages (12, 36,29,17,3,3), even though I'm not a 30-man roster guy. I agree that smaller rosters get knocked out at a higher rate than larger rosters, but my goal isn't to last a long time, it's to finish first. What difference does it make if only 1% of small rosters make the final 250 while 10% of large rosters do (and, yes, I'm just making those numbers up for demonstration purposes) if, as you say, it's the 18-20 man rosters that win?
Of course, I generally have a 23-25 man roster, and am probably getting the worst of both situations, so what do I know?.
Well, we're talking about a $2 defense replacing a $2 player. I think the $2 defense has a 33% chance of scoring any given week. I'd say the odds of a $2 player scoring are pretty slim.The only thing I disagree with here is the part about 3 defenses. I generally lean two defenses. Sometimes 2 defenses and 2 kickers..... especially if my team got hit by the injury bug the year before and that is why I was eliminated.
I'm also a pretty big believer in the 30 man roster just as you say. It's the same reason I love playing in DEEP leagues where you get to pan for gold at the end of the draft. Every year there are so many players under $5-7 that can make a big difference. The trick is finding them, and the more roster spots you use the more darts you have to throw. But I have never won the contest so I may be doing it wrong. I find it's completely different than draftmaster leagues I generally play in. Which makes the contest a great, unique challenge.
Are you quoting mine or yours?Scenario analysis:
You've got 6 RBs, 6WRs and 2 tier 2/3 QBs. RB#6 is $3. WRs #5 and #6 are $7 and $5. Are you making a mistake not taking a 3rd QB?
One of my thousands of iterations.Are you quoting mine or yours?
Depends on you guys. Hard to tell if you should drop a back and a receiver, when I don't know how good your other 5 are and what the byes are. The byes of the qbs are important too.Hell even you tight ends are important to know to see how often you will be flexing receivers or running backs.One of my thousands of iterations.