I have survival rate data for 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021*, and 2022 in this spreadsheet. Larger rosters always made it to the finals more often than smaller rosters, with the lowest survival rate usually for 18-19 player rosters and the highest survival rate usually for 27-28 player rosters.Could be wrong but this usually evens out as the season progresses. But at the same time I don’t remember the last time so many $3 and $4 players have done so well.Large rosters destroying the small roosters. These $3 guys are making Chase look like a practice squad palyer.That trio of $3 WRs, M. Wilson, T. Dell and Nacua really lighting up the scoreboard. Keep it up guys!
As long as I've tracked survival statistics, larger roster teams have always had higher survival rates overall, than smaller roster teams.
Below are some statistics to support this...
In 2022, (full season) .... 18 player rosters had the lowest survival rate at 1.19%, while 28 player rosters had the highest survival rate at 4.07%.
ALL rosters with 23 or more players had higher survival rates that ALL teams with 18 - 22 players.
I do not have statistics for 2021
In 2020, (weeks 1-9) .... 18 player rosters had the lowerst survival rate at 4.34% , while 27 player rosters had the highest survival rate throuhg week 9, at 14.29%.
ALL rosters with 24 or more players had higher survival rates than ALL teams with 18 - 23 players. (I was eliminated in week 5 and only recored stats through week 9)
In 2019, (full season).... 18 player rosters had the lowest survival rate at 1.20%, while 28 player rosters had the highest survival rate at 3.18%
All rosters with 24 or more players had higher survival rates than ALL teams with 18 - 23 players.
In 2018, (weeks 1-12).... 18 player rosters had the lowest survival rate at 6.60%, while 28 player rosters had the highest survival rate at 6.60%.
ALL rosters with 23 or more players had higher survival rates than ALL teams with 18-22 players. (I was eliminated in week 9 and only tracked stats through week 12)
So far this season (through 3 weeks), the lowest survival rate is with 18 player teams at 69.45%, and the highest is with 29 player teams at 89.55%,
So far this season, all teams with 25 or more players have higher survival rates than all teams with between 18 and 24 players.
It's anybody's guess how this year ends up, but I think we can all see a pretty solid pattern favoring larger roster teams for the last 5 years or so.
Good news. Need him back week 10.From NBC News....
No ACL injury for Kenny PIckett
Steelers quarterback Kenny Pickett was knocked out of Sunday’s game with a knee injury and head coach Mike Tomlin said at his press conference that Pickett would need further evaluation before the team had a firm update on his condition.
Mike Florio of PFT reported on Sunday night that the Steelers were hopeful that Pickett suffered an MCL sprain and Mike Garafolo of NFL Media reports on Monday morning that initial testing on Pickett’s knee showed no injury to his ACL.
Pickett is still expected to miss time as a result of the injury, but an MCL sprain would likely mean they’re looking at a matter of weeks rather than a season-ending injury. The Steelers face the Ravens in Week Five and they have a bye in Week Six.
Mitch Trubisky replaced Pickett in Sunday’s loss to the Texans and would be the starter for however long Pickett is out of action.
So far, Waller and Walker have 1.9 total points. Not looking good sitting 1.3 under the cut line and need about 10 points each. The RB utilization by Seattle in the first half is mind-boggling. Waller seems to be more of a decoy than a pass-catcher.
Enough to get me over the current cut line. Not panicking yet, but it's not trending the right way.So far, Waller and Walker have 1.9 total points. Not looking good sitting 1.3 under the cut line and need about 10 points each. The RB utilization by Seattle in the first half is mind-boggling. Waller seems to be more of a decoy than a pass-catcher.
Walker up to 7.9 so don't give up hope just yet
-QG
lol, up 18 and 3 passing plays. There goes that idea.Seattle D up to 17. Think my status depends on Walker at this point. Could use another 40-50 yards.

It may be 23. ESPN at least is calling it 11 sacks, with one against Campbell on the trick play.Seattle finishes with 22 points. Not bad for a $4 D.
Could be wrong but this usually evens out as the season progresses. But at the same time I don’t remember the last time so many $3 and $4 players have done so well.Large rosters destroying the small roosters. These $3 guys are making Chase look like a practice squad palyer.That trio of $3 WRs, M. Wilson, T. Dell and Nacua really lighting up the scoreboard. Keep it up guys!
As long as I've tracked survival statistics, larger roster teams have always had higher survival rates overall, than smaller roster teams.
Below are some statistics to support this...
In 2022, (full season) .... 18 player rosters had the lowest survival rate at 1.19%, while 28 player rosters had the highest survival rate at 4.07%.
ALL rosters with 23 or more players had higher survival rates that ALL teams with 18 - 22 players.
I do not have statistics for 2021
In 2020, (weeks 1-9) .... 18 player rosters had the lowerst survival rate at 4.34% , while 27 player rosters had the highest survival rate throuhg week 9, at 14.29%.
ALL rosters with 24 or more players had higher survival rates than ALL teams with 18 - 23 players. (I was eliminated in week 5 and only recored stats through week 9)
In 2019, (weeks 1-8).... 18 player rosters had the lowest survival rate through 8 weeks at 17.35%, while 28 player rosters had the higherst survival rate at 41.59%
All but 1 roster size with 23 players or more had better surival rates than teams with 22 or fewer players.
In 2018, (weeks 1-12).... 18 player rosters had the lowest survival rate at 6.60%, while 28 player rosters had the highest survival rate at 6.60%.
ALL rosters with 23 or more players had higher survival rates than ALL teams with 18-22 players. (I was eliminated in week 9 and only tracked stats through week 12)
In 2016, (full season).... 18 player rosters had the lowest survival rate at 1.20%, while 28 player rosters had the highest survival rate at 3.18%
All rosters with 24 or more players had higher survival rates than ALL teams with 18 - 23 players.
So far this season (through 3 weeks), the lowest survival rate is with 18 player teams at 69.45%, and the highest is with 29 player teams at 89.55%,
So far this season, all teams with 25 or more players have higher survival rates than all teams with between 18 and 24 players.
It's anybody's guess how this year ends up, but I think we can all see a pretty solid pattern favoring larger roster teams for the last 5 years or so.
Your WRs Puka?onto week 5 put up a cool 192.6 this week. 27 man roster. my RBs are junk though.
No. Large rosters roll in the regular season due to injuries and bye weeks. By the time we are in the finals the byes are over and the 18 player Chubb teams have been eliminated. The remaining 18 player teams are pretty healthy.Could be wrong but this usually evens out as the season progresses. But at the same time I don’t remember the last time so many $3 and $4 players have done so well.Large rosters destroying the small roosters. These $3 guys are making Chase look like a practice squad palyer.That trio of $3 WRs, M. Wilson, T. Dell and Nacua really lighting up the scoreboard. Keep it up guys!
As long as I've tracked survival statistics, larger roster teams have always had higher survival rates overall, than smaller roster teams.
Below are some statistics to support this...
In 2022, (full season) .... 18 player rosters had the lowest survival rate at 1.19%, while 28 player rosters had the highest survival rate at 4.07%.
ALL rosters with 23 or more players had higher survival rates that ALL teams with 18 - 22 players.
I do not have statistics for 2021
In 2020, (weeks 1-9) .... 18 player rosters had the lowerst survival rate at 4.34% , while 27 player rosters had the highest survival rate throuhg week 9, at 14.29%.
ALL rosters with 24 or more players had higher survival rates than ALL teams with 18 - 23 players. (I was eliminated in week 5 and only recored stats through week 9)
In 2019, (weeks 1-8).... 18 player rosters had the lowest survival rate through 8 weeks at 17.35%, while 28 player rosters had the higherst survival rate at 41.59%
All but 1 roster size with 23 players or more had better surival rates than teams with 22 or fewer players.
In 2018, (weeks 1-12).... 18 player rosters had the lowest survival rate at 6.60%, while 28 player rosters had the highest survival rate at 6.60%.
ALL rosters with 23 or more players had higher survival rates than ALL teams with 18-22 players. (I was eliminated in week 9 and only tracked stats through week 12)
In 2016, (full season).... 18 player rosters had the lowest survival rate at 1.20%, while 28 player rosters had the highest survival rate at 3.18%
All rosters with 24 or more players had higher survival rates than ALL teams with 18 - 23 players.
So far this season (through 3 weeks), the lowest survival rate is with 18 player teams at 69.45%, and the highest is with 29 player teams at 89.55%,
So far this season, all teams with 25 or more players have higher survival rates than all teams with between 18 and 24 players.
It's anybody's guess how this year ends up, but I think we can all see a pretty solid pattern favoring larger roster teams for the last 5 years or so.
Would love to see the results by roster size for those who made it to the final 250 each year… the larger rosters have better odds of making the finals, but do they continue to outperform once they get there?
| Team | Size | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Total | Average | ||
1 | rzrback77 | 26 | 191.10 | 186.95 | 207.30 | 193.05 | 778.40 | 194.60 | |
2 | ZWK | 26 | 165.25 | 182.25 | 191.50 | 216.30 | 755.30 | 188.83 | |
3 | The Stray Doug | 19 | 186.90 | 153.25 | 178.25 | 210.55 | 728.95 | 182.24 | |
4 | cStruck | 21 | 152.40 | 189.25 | 177.95 | 206.85 | 726.45 | 181.61 | |
5 | BrncosFan07 | 28 | 126.15 | 207.24 | 207.85 | 169.70 | 710.94 | 177.74 | |
6 | PIK95 | 21 | 170.90 | 197.70 | 168.40 | 173.20 | 710.20 | 177.55 | |
7 | Sooted72 | 30 | 179.80 | 180.75 | 128.60 | 209.60 | 698.75 | 174.69 | |
8 | Twin Turbo | 23 | 186.85 | 174.85 | 155.90 | 180.80 | 698.40 | 174.60 | |
9 | QuizGuy66 | 25 | 140.50 | 168.10 | 192.35 | 194.55 | 695.50 | 173.88 | |
10 | Deamon | 21 | 132.80 | 191.60 | 190.85 | 176.25 | 691.50 | 172.88 | |
11 | Puppies | 24 | 154.90 | 169.55 | 192.30 | 155.05 | 671.80 | 167.95 | |
12 | Dacomish | 24 | 122.65 | 163.55 | 198.00 | 178.20 | 662.40 | 165.60 | |
13 | Army Eye | 22 | 143.60 | 164.85 | 185.35 | 167.80 | 661.60 | 165.40 | |
14 | Scottybo | 20 | 125.90 | 182.45 | 216.75 | 133.85 | 658.95 | 164.74 | |
15 | Senior VDB Student | 22 | 140.75 | 193.05 | 181.25 | 141.10 | 656.15 | 164.04 | |
16 | Angry Beavers | 22 | 171.25 | 176.05 | 132.65 | 171.40 | 651.35 | 162.84 | |
17 | Bill Dauterive | 25 | 183.05 | 171.85 | 141.70 | 153.90 | 650.50 | 162.63 | |
18 | jdoggydogg | 21 | 171.10 | 160.85 | 147.25 | 169.95 | 649.15 | 162.29 | |
19 | Mister CIA Fan | 20 | 141.70 | 157.45 | 149.70 | 194.50 | 643.35 | 160.84 | |
20 | Woolac | 30 | 173.40 | 157.05 | 165.20 | 142.95 | 638.60 | 159.65 | |
21 | Stubby | 22 | 148.20 | 160.25 | 155.85 | 161.15 | 625.45 | 156.36 | |
22 | aPalmer | 22 | 146.60 | 144.45 | 152.80 | 178.55 | 622.40 | 155.60 | |
23 | Bloom (staff) | 26 | 140.85 | 152.75 | 143.25 | 182.70 | 619.55 | 154.89 | |
24 | fear the bald | 20 | 153.80 | 169.70 | 131.80 | 162.50 | 617.80 | 154.45 | |
25 | Ruffroddys | 21 | 187.60 | 152.15 | 160.10 | 116.75 | 616.60 | 154.15 | |
26 | The Winz | 23 | 152.00 | 152.35 | 167.15 | 139.35 | 610.85 | 152.71 | |
27 | Galileo | 19 | 148.55 | 142.15 | 173.95 | 142.65 | 607.30 | 151.83 | |
28 | Irelad | 21 | 138.80 | 147.15 | 156.55 | 160.20 | 602.70 | 150.68 | |
29 | dzambo | 22 | 146.35 | 150.95 | 155.25 | 147.50 | 600.05 | 150.01 | |
30 | Menobrown | 24 | 138.15 | 149.35 | 129.25 | 158.85 | 575.60 | 143.90 | |
31 | Monty Burns | 22 | 142.35 | 150.35 | 127.80 | 149.25 | 569.75 | 142.44 | |
32 | Gottabesweet | 22 | 124.00 | 155.85 | 140.35 | 143.35 | 563.55 | 140.89 |
| Team | Size | Week 1 | Week 2 | Week 3 | Week 4 | Total | Average | |
| Nittany Lion | 22 | 152.30 | 190.60 | 203.10 | 121.15 | 667.15 | 166.79 | |
| FormerFourDigit | 20 | 163.50 | 175.80 | 181.15 | 118.50 | 638.95 | 159.74 | |
| The Turk (staff) | 21 | 130.30 | 182.45 | 169.65 | 122.75 | 605.15 | 151.29 | |
| RustyColts | 20 | 132.65 | 185.50 | 155.85 | 125.65 | 599.65 | 149.91 | |
| ChurchOfIggyPop | 20 | 148.45 | 145.00 | 128.95 | 130.65 | 553.05 | 138.26 |
But it wouldn't meet minimum roster requirements, so you need to add a few more $3 studsI like doing these stupid teams. This team would still be alive:
QB - Bailey Zappe - NE/11 - $3
RB - Kyren Williams - LAR/10 - $4
RB - Zack Moss - IND/11 - $4
WR - Tutu Atwell - LAR/10 - $3
WR - Puka Nacua - LAR/10 - $3
WR - Michael Wilson - ARI/14 - $3
WR - Tank Dell - HOU/7 - $3
WR - Josh Reynolds - DET/9 - $3
TE - Donald Parham - LAC/5 - $3
TE - Jonnu Smith - ATL/11 - $3
PK - Brett Maher - LAR/10 - $3
TD - Arizona Cardinals - ARI/14 - $3
Total spent - $38
Happy we're on to week 5.
I do have a concern. My 2 highest priced players, Mixon & Etienne, have contributed very little. Others have made for this by producing above expectations and I don't know how long they will continue to do so.
Congrats to those still in it and sympathies to those who are not.
Yes, and M Wilson who put up like 27.Your WRs Puka?onto week 5 put up a cool 192.6 this week. 27 man roster. my RBs are junk though.
Mr. Waller, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Zuerline....please report to the coaches office....My site is now loaded with Week 4 stats. See your team's entire season performance in one handy overview.
How else are you going to see Darren Waller's numbers in all their glory?
Last week 209 crush it this week barely squeak by with a 138 (131 cut).
Hail to Tyler Conklin for pulling it out for me on Sunday night.
This team is not long for this contest