21 Player Roster survivors, unite!Survival rate snapshot by roster size...
For 5 weeks in a row, the best overall surivival rate was enjoyed by teams rostering 29 players. Season-to-date survival rate is 76.12%.
For 5 weeks in a row, the worst overall survival rate was suffered by teams rostering 18 players. Season-to-date survival rate is 40.07%.
Season-to-date overall survival rate for all teams in the contest is 46.73%
The best survival rate ranking through 5 weeks is (by roster size) is: 29, 28, 25, 27, 26, in that order.
The worst survival rate ranking through 5 weeks (by roster size) is: 18, 19, 21, 20, and 22, in that order.
Good luck in week 6 to all the survivors!

1 out of every 8 teams remaining has Justin Jefferson.![]()
One of these things is not like the othersWeek 5 Scores / Season Totals / and Season Averages
 Rank This Week Rank Last weekTeam  Roster SizeWeek 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week5 Total Average 1 2 ZWK 26 165.25 182.25 191.50 216.30 223.55 978.85 195.77 2 1 rzrback77 26 191.10 186.95 207.30 193.05 152.25 930.65 186.13 3 3 The Stray Doug 19 186.90 153.25 178.25 210.55 192.00 920.95 184.19 4 5 BrncosFan07 28 126.15 207.24 207.85 169.70 208.90 919.84 183.97 5 4 cStruck 21 152.40 189.25 177.95 206.85 183.70 910.15 182.03 6 6 PIK95 21 170.90 197.70 168.40 173.20 199.25 909.45 181.89 7 9 QuizGuy66 25 140.50 168.10 192.35 194.55 195.15 890.65 178.13 8 8 Twin Turbo 23 186.85 174.85 155.90 180.80 188.75 887.15 177.43 9 14 Scottybo 20 125.90 182.45 216.75 133.85 209.55 868.50 173.70 10 12 Dacomish 24 122.65 163.55 198.00 178.20 197.60 860.00 172.00 11 10 Deamon 21 132.80 191.60 190.85 176.25 155.65 847.15 169.43 12 13 Army Eye 22 143.60 164.85 185.35 167.80 185.20 846.80 169.36 13 15 Senior VDB Student 22 140.75 193.05 181.25 141.10 189.00 845.15 169.03 14 18 jdoggydogg 21 171.10 160.85 147.25 169.95 188.35 837.50 167.50 15 23 Bloom (staff) 26 140.85 152.75 143.25 182.70 208.70 828.25 165.65 16 24 fear the bald 20 153.80 169.70 131.80 162.50 201.80 819.60 163.92 17 17 Bill Dauterive 25 183.05 171.85 141.70 153.90 165.60 816.10 163.22 19 11 Puppies 24 154.90 169.55 192.30 155.05 138.75 810.55 162.11 20 20 Woolac 30 173.40 157.05 165.20 142.95 153.25 791.85 158.37 21 16 Angry Beavers 22 171.25 176.05 132.65 171.40 140.20 791.55 158.31 22 26 The Winz 23 152.00 152.35 167.15 139.35 171.20 782.05 156.41 23 22 aPalmer 22 146.60 144.45 152.80 178.55 151.65 774.05 154.81 24 21 Stubby 22 148.20 160.25 155.85 161.15 142.40 767.85 153.57 25 30 Menobrown 24 138.15 149.35 129.25 158.85 190.15 765.75 153.15 27 27 Galileo 19 148.55 142.15 173.95 142.65 148.60 755.90 151.18 28 28 Irelad 21 138.80 147.15 156.55 160.20 146.40 749.10 149.82 29 31 Monty Burns 22 142.35 150.35 127.80 149.25 158.25 728.00 145.60 Eliminated in Week 5: 18 7 Sooted72 30 179.80 180.75 128.60 209.60 115.10 813.85 162.77 26 19 Mister CIA Fan 20 141.70 157.45 149.70 194.50 122.30 765.65 153.13 30 29 dzambo 22 146.35 150.95 155.25 147.50 113.45 713.50 142.70 31 32 Gottabesweet 22 124.00 155.85 140.35 143.35 125.35 688.90 137.78 
You'd think this would mean the 18-man rosters are in bad shape. But almost half the contestants build an 18-man roster. I'd never looked at that before, so I didn't appreciate just how skewed the teams are toward smaller rosters.Survival rate snapshot by roster size...
For 5 weeks in a row, the best overall surivival rate was enjoyed by teams rostering 29 players. Season-to-date survival rate is 76.12%.
For 5 weeks in a row, the worst overall survival rate was suffered by teams rostering 18 players. Season-to-date survival rate is 40.07%.
Season-to-date overall survival rate for all teams in the contest is 46.73%
The best survival rate ranking through 5 weeks is (by roster size) is: 29, 28, 25, 27, 26, in that order.
The worst survival rate ranking through 5 weeks (by roster size) is: 18, 19, 21, 20, and 22, in that order.
Good luck in week 6 to all the survivors!
Lots of ways to look at it. With the frequency of injuries, survival rates will probably always be higher with larger roster teams. But a smaller roster that is fortunate enough to avoid injuries might have a higher ceiling if it survives to the playoffs.You'd think this would mean the 18-man rosters are in bad shape. But almost half the contestants build an 18-man roster. I'd never looked at that before, so I didn't appreciate just how skewed the teams are toward smaller rosters.Survival rate snapshot by roster size...
For 5 weeks in a row, the best overall surivival rate was enjoyed by teams rostering 29 players. Season-to-date survival rate is 76.12%.
For 5 weeks in a row, the worst overall survival rate was suffered by teams rostering 18 players. Season-to-date survival rate is 40.07%.
Season-to-date overall survival rate for all teams in the contest is 46.73%
The best survival rate ranking through 5 weeks is (by roster size) is: 29, 28, 25, 27, 26, in that order.
The worst survival rate ranking through 5 weeks (by roster size) is: 18, 19, 21, 20, and 22, in that order.
Good luck in week 6 to all the survivors!
Even with the low survival rate, there are more 18-man teams left than there are 21-to-30-man teams combined. When the contest started, 44% of all teams rostered 18 players, and the median roster size was 19. Today, 37% of all living teams have 18-man rosters, and the median roster size is...19. One more week with similar survival trends might push the median up to 20, though.
I guess the argument is that 18-man rosters will be better in the endgame, if you're lucky enough to make it that far? Or do people just find it too hard to resist those shiny expensive players?
I should add that I hope that is enough for them to evade The TurkBased on the trend line I expect Entry #104502 to score 800 points by week 12
-QG
 Here’s another way to look at it. Knowing that virtually half of the rosters have only 18 players, should you also limit yourself to 18 and expect to come up with a better player combination on your roster than 5,000 other teams that also have 18 players?I think the preponderance of 18-man roosters is probably a function of how much time most people put into it. They get the big guns they want and back fill with guys they know and end up at 18. I would be curious if there was any metrics on number of rooster versions submitted by rooster size. I would guess that a lot of 18s are one or two submits and done.
If there was an even distribution of entries of all sizes the 18s would get swamped but their sheer volume keeps 'em around in great numbers longer.
-QG
LOL....isn't 3.84 points what Drake London and Kyle Pitts average.Some relief for Van Jefferson owners![]()
It looks like WR Van Jefferson is being traded to the Atlanta Falcons for an exchange of draft picks.
He has been a disappointment so far this year for his $8 cap cost, so from where I'm sitting, this is good news.
He has only averaged 3.84 points per week, which would be brutal even for a $3 player, let alone his $8 cap cost.
When he was listed as the #2 WR on pre-season depth charts, and we were all searching for value players while going though dozens of roster iterations....I rostered him due to the uncertainty, and the mysterious nature of Cooper Kupp's situation. I was correct to be suspicious of what was really going on with Kupp, and I thought if Kupp missed time, Jefferson would get a decent target share. When Kupp went on IR, I thought I had found a lottery ticket. BIG mistake
The realization that I could have rostered both Puka Nacua and Tutu Atwell instead, and had $2 left over, makes me sick.
Since it can't get much worse, this is probably a good development.
Maybe, and maybe not.LOL....isn't 3.84 points what Drake London and Kyle Pitts average.Some relief for Van Jefferson owners![]()
It looks like WR Van Jefferson is being traded to the Atlanta Falcons for an exchange of draft picks.
He has been a disappointment so far this year for his $8 cap cost, so from where I'm sitting, this is good news.
He has only averaged 3.84 points per week, which would be brutal even for a $3 player, let alone his $8 cap cost.
When he was listed as the #2 WR on pre-season depth charts, and we were all searching for value players while going though dozens of roster iterations....I rostered him due to the uncertainty, and the mysterious nature of Cooper Kupp's situation. I was correct to be suspicious of what was really going on with Kupp, and I thought if Kupp missed time, Jefferson would get a decent target share. When Kupp went on IR, I thought I had found a lottery ticket. BIG mistake
The realization that I could have rostered both Puka Nacua and Tutu Atwell instead, and had $2 left over, makes me sick.
Since it can't get much worse, this is probably a good development.
This is like a trade from purgatory to hell.
I hope it works out for you. I just think Atlanta is the worst possible destiantion.Maybe, and maybe not.LOL....isn't 3.84 points what Drake London and Kyle Pitts average.Some relief for Van Jefferson owners![]()
It looks like WR Van Jefferson is being traded to the Atlanta Falcons for an exchange of draft picks.
He has been a disappointment so far this year for his $8 cap cost, so from where I'm sitting, this is good news.
He has only averaged 3.84 points per week, which would be brutal even for a $3 player, let alone his $8 cap cost.
When he was listed as the #2 WR on pre-season depth charts, and we were all searching for value players while going though dozens of roster iterations....I rostered him due to the uncertainty, and the mysterious nature of Cooper Kupp's situation. I was correct to be suspicious of what was really going on with Kupp, and I thought if Kupp missed time, Jefferson would get a decent target share. When Kupp went on IR, I thought I had found a lottery ticket. BIG mistake
The realization that I could have rostered both Puka Nacua and Tutu Atwell instead, and had $2 left over, makes me sick.
Since it can't get much worse, this is probably a good development.
This is like a trade from purgatory to hell.
With Kupp back, plus Nacua and Atwel getting all the looks, there are too many mouths to feed in LA. And Jefferson put up a donut there this week. That was probably a fairly indicative representation of his target share going forward, had he stayed in LA.
Perhaps he can get a larger target share in Atlanta with the underachievers you already mentioned. We probably won’t know anything in week 6, but I feel better about his chances going forward in Atlanta, than having him ride the bench in LA. The bad thing for me is I’ll likely get eliminated before we find out if this was a good move or not.
I hope it works out for you. I just think Atlanta is the worst possible destiantion.Maybe, and maybe not.LOL....isn't 3.84 points what Drake London and Kyle Pitts average.Some relief for Van Jefferson owners![]()
It looks like WR Van Jefferson is being traded to the Atlanta Falcons for an exchange of draft picks.
He has been a disappointment so far this year for his $8 cap cost, so from where I'm sitting, this is good news.
He has only averaged 3.84 points per week, which would be brutal even for a $3 player, let alone his $8 cap cost.
When he was listed as the #2 WR on pre-season depth charts, and we were all searching for value players while going though dozens of roster iterations....I rostered him due to the uncertainty, and the mysterious nature of Cooper Kupp's situation. I was correct to be suspicious of what was really going on with Kupp, and I thought if Kupp missed time, Jefferson would get a decent target share. When Kupp went on IR, I thought I had found a lottery ticket. BIG mistake
The realization that I could have rostered both Puka Nacua and Tutu Atwell instead, and had $2 left over, makes me sick.
Since it can't get much worse, this is probably a good development.
This is like a trade from purgatory to hell.
With Kupp back, plus Nacua and Atwel getting all the looks, there are too many mouths to feed in LA. And Jefferson put up a donut there this week. That was probably a fairly indicative representation of his target share going forward, had he stayed in LA.
Perhaps he can get a larger target share in Atlanta with the underachievers you already mentioned. We probably won’t know anything in week 6, but I feel better about his chances going forward in Atlanta, than having him ride the bench in LA. The bad thing for me is I’ll likely get eliminated before we find out if this was a good move or not.
He was healthy and played 2 snaps in week 5 when Kupp returned. I'd rather have the worst High School QB throwing to him than the best NFL QB not throwing to him.I hope it works out for you. I just think Atlanta is the worst possible destiantion.Maybe, and maybe not.LOL....isn't 3.84 points what Drake London and Kyle Pitts average.Some relief for Van Jefferson owners![]()
It looks like WR Van Jefferson is being traded to the Atlanta Falcons for an exchange of draft picks.
He has been a disappointment so far this year for his $8 cap cost, so from where I'm sitting, this is good news.
He has only averaged 3.84 points per week, which would be brutal even for a $3 player, let alone his $8 cap cost.
When he was listed as the #2 WR on pre-season depth charts, and we were all searching for value players while going though dozens of roster iterations....I rostered him due to the uncertainty, and the mysterious nature of Cooper Kupp's situation. I was correct to be suspicious of what was really going on with Kupp, and I thought if Kupp missed time, Jefferson would get a decent target share. When Kupp went on IR, I thought I had found a lottery ticket. BIG mistake
The realization that I could have rostered both Puka Nacua and Tutu Atwell instead, and had $2 left over, makes me sick.
Since it can't get much worse, this is probably a good development.
This is like a trade from purgatory to hell.
With Kupp back, plus Nacua and Atwel getting all the looks, there are too many mouths to feed in LA. And Jefferson put up a donut there this week. That was probably a fairly indicative representation of his target share going forward, had he stayed in LA.
Perhaps he can get a larger target share in Atlanta with the underachievers you already mentioned. We probably won’t know anything in week 6, but I feel better about his chances going forward in Atlanta, than having him ride the bench in LA. The bad thing for me is I’ll likely get eliminated before we find out if this was a good move or not.
And what are your thoughts about the worst high school QB not throwing to him?He was healthy and played 2 snaps in week 5 when Kupp returned. I'd rather have the worst High School QB throwing to him than the best NFL QB not throwing to him.I hope it works out for you. I just think Atlanta is the worst possible destiantion.Maybe, and maybe not.LOL....isn't 3.84 points what Drake London and Kyle Pitts average.Some relief for Van Jefferson owners![]()
It looks like WR Van Jefferson is being traded to the Atlanta Falcons for an exchange of draft picks.
He has been a disappointment so far this year for his $8 cap cost, so from where I'm sitting, this is good news.
He has only averaged 3.84 points per week, which would be brutal even for a $3 player, let alone his $8 cap cost.
When he was listed as the #2 WR on pre-season depth charts, and we were all searching for value players while going though dozens of roster iterations....I rostered him due to the uncertainty, and the mysterious nature of Cooper Kupp's situation. I was correct to be suspicious of what was really going on with Kupp, and I thought if Kupp missed time, Jefferson would get a decent target share. When Kupp went on IR, I thought I had found a lottery ticket. BIG mistake
The realization that I could have rostered both Puka Nacua and Tutu Atwell instead, and had $2 left over, makes me sick.
Since it can't get much worse, this is probably a good development.
This is like a trade from purgatory to hell.
With Kupp back, plus Nacua and Atwel getting all the looks, there are too many mouths to feed in LA. And Jefferson put up a donut there this week. That was probably a fairly indicative representation of his target share going forward, had he stayed in LA.
Perhaps he can get a larger target share in Atlanta with the underachievers you already mentioned. We probably won’t know anything in week 6, but I feel better about his chances going forward in Atlanta, than having him ride the bench in LA. The bad thing for me is I’ll likely get eliminated before we find out if this was a good move or not.
just a matter of time as I’m down to Kamara and pollard at rbWeek 5 started with 34 folks still eligible for @Joe Bryant extra $100 prize. Today we mourn the loss of @dzambo @msudaisy26 @Steeler
Let's congratulate the following for advancing to week 6:
Page 10 - @TwinTurbo @QuizGuy66 @JaBoo @Angry Beavers @Puppies @cstruk @ZWK @IHEARTFF @Kruegs @scottybo @Balco @TrishaRita
Page 9 - @apalmer @Galileo @steelerfan1 @firstseason1988 @Parmcat @Shaunz33 @wollac @SeniorVBDStudent @Monty Burns @bamabuddha @Hatch
Page 8 - @joey @BroncosFan07 @(HULK) @a_troll00 @themeanmachine @Deamon
Of note
- Our highest score of the week was @steelerfan1 with 227.35 points (would've made the cut without a QB, RB's, TE's, or D)
- After 5 weeks, the overall contest survival rate is about 46.6% (4657/9994). The survival rate for folks who entered this contest is 79.5% (31/39)
Bring on week 6!
Haha, I don't think it matters if no one is throwing to him, but at least he isn't WR9 on his own team anymore. Even 1 target over the next 12 games is an improvement at this point, and I am pretty sure he will get that in ATL.And what are your thoughts about the worst high school QB not throwing to him?He was healthy and played 2 snaps in week 5 when Kupp returned. I'd rather have the worst High School QB throwing to him than the best NFL QB not throwing to him.I hope it works out for you. I just think Atlanta is the worst possible destiantion.Maybe, and maybe not.LOL....isn't 3.84 points what Drake London and Kyle Pitts average.Some relief for Van Jefferson owners![]()
It looks like WR Van Jefferson is being traded to the Atlanta Falcons for an exchange of draft picks.
He has been a disappointment so far this year for his $8 cap cost, so from where I'm sitting, this is good news.
He has only averaged 3.84 points per week, which would be brutal even for a $3 player, let alone his $8 cap cost.
When he was listed as the #2 WR on pre-season depth charts, and we were all searching for value players while going though dozens of roster iterations....I rostered him due to the uncertainty, and the mysterious nature of Cooper Kupp's situation. I was correct to be suspicious of what was really going on with Kupp, and I thought if Kupp missed time, Jefferson would get a decent target share. When Kupp went on IR, I thought I had found a lottery ticket. BIG mistake
The realization that I could have rostered both Puka Nacua and Tutu Atwell instead, and had $2 left over, makes me sick.
Since it can't get much worse, this is probably a good development.
This is like a trade from purgatory to hell.
With Kupp back, plus Nacua and Atwel getting all the looks, there are too many mouths to feed in LA. And Jefferson put up a donut there this week. That was probably a fairly indicative representation of his target share going forward, had he stayed in LA.
Perhaps he can get a larger target share in Atlanta with the underachievers you already mentioned. We probably won’t know anything in week 6, but I feel better about his chances going forward in Atlanta, than having him ride the bench in LA. The bad thing for me is I’ll likely get eliminated before we find out if this was a good move or not.
What if you try Army Eyes' page...link in first postOut of curiosity, I was eliminated last week, is there a way to see my old team? All I get is a "This entry was eliminated"!
A few things...That was close - I took Jordan Love as my number 2 behind Justin Herbert because I felt like he would be the starter all year in Green Bay even through struggles. Rethinking that now - I can definitely see him losing his job.
Makes me think that the 1 QB strategy is not a bad one - selecting one stud with an early bye and ensuring most, if not all, of roster does not share that bye. Would free up valuable money.
- Selecting only 1 QB and choosing to take a guaranteed zero at QB in a given week is insane. [emphasis mine]
- Every QB has bad weeks. If you had chosen any of the 6 QB's for $20+ along with Love as your backup, you would've used Love's score 17 out of 35 times.
- Contest teams with 1 QB have a 31.8% survival rate vs 47.09% for all others.
- If Love does lose his job, who is he losing it to? Rookie, Sean Clifford? I think not!
OK, of course I didn't really mean insane, and I understand it's a risk. And yes, it is more fun to have a smaller roster full of studs, like you did this year. I was more replying to @Balco post because he said he could definitely see Love losing his job, which I don't see happening. I would've jumped on board if he said Mac Jones!A few things...That was close - I took Jordan Love as my number 2 behind Justin Herbert because I felt like he would be the starter all year in Green Bay even through struggles. Rethinking that now - I can definitely see him losing his job.
Makes me think that the 1 QB strategy is not a bad one - selecting one stud with an early bye and ensuring most, if not all, of roster does not share that bye. Would free up valuable money.
- Selecting only 1 QB and choosing to take a guaranteed zero at QB in a given week is insane. [emphasis mine]
- Every QB has bad weeks. If you had chosen any of the 6 QB's for $20+ along with Love as your backup, you would've used Love's score 17 out of 35 times.
- Contest teams with 1 QB have a 31.8% survival rate vs 47.09% for all others.
- If Love does lose his job, who is he losing it to? Rookie, Sean Clifford? I think not!
Not insane... just a calculated risk. I did exactly what Balco suggested, and so far so good (bye week is behind me with Herbert, and I cleared the cut line easily this week). Only difference from his suggestion is that I also had a second stud on bye (Ekeler). Get the pain over with early on (while the cut % is still low, and there's still a higher proportion of "weak teams who've been lucky so far"). My theory is that as the season progresses of the weak-but-lucky-so-far teams get more and more weeded out and the caliber of remaining teams increase (along with the cut %). Week 5 is early enough that there's still some chaff left in the contest.
And yes, QBs have bad weeks, but the top QBs are usually pretty consistently high-floor. You gave the example with Love... but I'm sure there are counter-examples with similar lower-ranked/priced QB2s who wind up as basically dead money other than the bye weeks. I can share my own experience last year I had Davis Mills ($7) as QB2 behind Josh Allen. I tracked my entry for 13 weeks (was eliminated week 8) and Mills ONLY counted for me in week 7 when Allen was on bye, and I didn't need him (still would have cleared the line by 25 with a QB goose egg that week). Allen only had one week sub-20 (week 11 with 16.55) and Mills put up 14.45 that week. Basically, the $7 on my QB2 was dead money last year. This year with the week 5 QB goose egg I still cleared the line by 58.5. So it's not unreasonable to avoid that dead money if you've got a stud QB.
You have to also consider the opportunity cost of the points you are giving up at other positions by tying up money in your QB2 safety net. And ultimately it depends on your overall philosophy/strategy/goal in the contest. Personally I'd rather have a hypothetical 10% chance of making the finals (with a 3% chance of winning if I do) than a 20% chance of making the finals (with a 1% chance of winning if I do). Percentages here obviously just for illustrative purposes of the perceived tradeoffs.
I just wanted to add a few more for tonightLooking ahead to the Thursday night game.... Here are the ownership numbers:
Mahomes -390
Pacheco - 431
McKinnon - 155
Edwards-Helaire - 90
MVS- 221
S.Moore - 605
K.Toney - 266
R.Rice - 97
Kelce - 289
Butker - 370
CHIEFS - 129
R.Wilson - 151
J Williams - 238
Perine - 116
Jeudy - 27
Sutton - 613
Mims - 627
Lutz - 498
BRONCOS - 325
Where did you spend the $$$ that you saved on QB2? I think this is a sound strategy but it all hinges on what additional value was gained across the other positions.A few things...That was close - I took Jordan Love as my number 2 behind Justin Herbert because I felt like he would be the starter all year in Green Bay even through struggles. Rethinking that now - I can definitely see him losing his job.
Makes me think that the 1 QB strategy is not a bad one - selecting one stud with an early bye and ensuring most, if not all, of roster does not share that bye. Would free up valuable money.
- Selecting only 1 QB and choosing to take a guaranteed zero at QB in a given week is insane. [emphasis mine]
- Every QB has bad weeks. If you had chosen any of the 6 QB's for $20+ along with Love as your backup, you would've used Love's score 17 out of 35 times.
- Contest teams with 1 QB have a 31.8% survival rate vs 47.09% for all others.
- If Love does lose his job, who is he losing it to? Rookie, Sean Clifford? I think not!
Not insane... just a calculated risk. I did exactly what Balco suggested, and so far so good (bye week is behind me with Herbert, and I cleared the cut line easily this week). Only difference from his suggestion is that I also had a second stud on bye (Ekeler). Get the pain over with early on (while the cut % is still low, and there's still a higher proportion of "weak teams who've been lucky so far"). My theory is that as the season progresses of the weak-but-lucky-so-far teams get more and more weeded out and the caliber of remaining teams increase (along with the cut %). Week 5 is early enough that there's still some chaff left in the contest.
And yes, QBs have bad weeks, but the top QBs are usually pretty consistently high-floor. You gave the example with Love... but I'm sure there are counter-examples with similar lower-ranked/priced QB2s who wind up as basically dead money other than the bye weeks. I can share my own experience last year I had Davis Mills ($7) as QB2 behind Josh Allen. I tracked my entry for 13 weeks (was eliminated week 8) and Mills ONLY counted for me in week 7 when Allen was on bye, and I didn't need him (still would have cleared the line by 25 with a QB goose egg that week). Allen only had one week sub-20 (week 11 with 16.55) and Mills put up 14.45 that week. Basically, the $7 on my QB2 was dead money last year. This year with the week 5 QB goose egg I still cleared the line by 58.5. So it's not unreasonable to avoid that dead money if you've got a stud QB.
You have to also consider the opportunity cost of the points you are giving up at other positions by tying up money in your QB2 safety net. And ultimately it depends on your overall philosophy/strategy/goal in the contest. Personally I'd rather have a hypothetical 10% chance of making the finals (with a 3% chance of winning if I do) than a 20% chance of making the finals (with a 1% chance of winning if I do). Percentages here obviously just for illustrative purposes of the perceived tradeoffs.
Looks pretty grim. I'd be sweating if I was you.After tonight:
0+(Everyone - 0.00)
-QG
Where did you spend the $$$ that you saved on QB2? I think this is a sound strategy but it all hinges on what additional value was gained across the other positions.A few things...That was close - I took Jordan Love as my number 2 behind Justin Herbert because I felt like he would be the starter all year in Green Bay even through struggles. Rethinking that now - I can definitely see him losing his job.
Makes me think that the 1 QB strategy is not a bad one - selecting one stud with an early bye and ensuring most, if not all, of roster does not share that bye. Would free up valuable money.
- Selecting only 1 QB and choosing to take a guaranteed zero at QB in a given week is insane. [emphasis mine]
- Every QB has bad weeks. If you had chosen any of the 6 QB's for $20+ along with Love as your backup, you would've used Love's score 17 out of 35 times.
- Contest teams with 1 QB have a 31.8% survival rate vs 47.09% for all others.
- If Love does lose his job, who is he losing it to? Rookie, Sean Clifford? I think not!
Not insane... just a calculated risk. I did exactly what Balco suggested, and so far so good (bye week is behind me with Herbert, and I cleared the cut line easily this week). Only difference from his suggestion is that I also had a second stud on bye (Ekeler). Get the pain over with early on (while the cut % is still low, and there's still a higher proportion of "weak teams who've been lucky so far"). My theory is that as the season progresses of the weak-but-lucky-so-far teams get more and more weeded out and the caliber of remaining teams increase (along with the cut %). Week 5 is early enough that there's still some chaff left in the contest.
And yes, QBs have bad weeks, but the top QBs are usually pretty consistently high-floor. You gave the example with Love... but I'm sure there are counter-examples with similar lower-ranked/priced QB2s who wind up as basically dead money other than the bye weeks. I can share my own experience last year I had Davis Mills ($7) as QB2 behind Josh Allen. I tracked my entry for 13 weeks (was eliminated week 8) and Mills ONLY counted for me in week 7 when Allen was on bye, and I didn't need him (still would have cleared the line by 25 with a QB goose egg that week). Allen only had one week sub-20 (week 11 with 16.55) and Mills put up 14.45 that week. Basically, the $7 on my QB2 was dead money last year. This year with the week 5 QB goose egg I still cleared the line by 58.5. So it's not unreasonable to avoid that dead money if you've got a stud QB.
You have to also consider the opportunity cost of the points you are giving up at other positions by tying up money in your QB2 safety net. And ultimately it depends on your overall philosophy/strategy/goal in the contest. Personally I'd rather have a hypothetical 10% chance of making the finals (with a 3% chance of winning if I do) than a 20% chance of making the finals (with a 1% chance of winning if I do). Percentages here obviously just for illustrative purposes of the perceived tradeoffs.

Sounds like you crushed it. $3 on Puka was worth it all. For me, I didn't land on Puka but did spend the extra $3 on Josh Reynolds. For QB, I moved to Burrow and Baker. $5 for another QB was as high as I wanted to goWhere did you spend the $$$ that you saved on QB2? I think this is a sound strategy but it all hinges on what additional value was gained across the other positions.A few things...That was close - I took Jordan Love as my number 2 behind Justin Herbert because I felt like he would be the starter all year in Green Bay even through struggles. Rethinking that now - I can definitely see him losing his job.
Makes me think that the 1 QB strategy is not a bad one - selecting one stud with an early bye and ensuring most, if not all, of roster does not share that bye. Would free up valuable money.
- Selecting only 1 QB and choosing to take a guaranteed zero at QB in a given week is insane. [emphasis mine]
- Every QB has bad weeks. If you had chosen any of the 6 QB's for $20+ along with Love as your backup, you would've used Love's score 17 out of 35 times.
- Contest teams with 1 QB have a 31.8% survival rate vs 47.09% for all others.
- If Love does lose his job, who is he losing it to? Rookie, Sean Clifford? I think not!
Not insane... just a calculated risk. I did exactly what Balco suggested, and so far so good (bye week is behind me with Herbert, and I cleared the cut line easily this week). Only difference from his suggestion is that I also had a second stud on bye (Ekeler). Get the pain over with early on (while the cut % is still low, and there's still a higher proportion of "weak teams who've been lucky so far"). My theory is that as the season progresses of the weak-but-lucky-so-far teams get more and more weeded out and the caliber of remaining teams increase (along with the cut %). Week 5 is early enough that there's still some chaff left in the contest.
And yes, QBs have bad weeks, but the top QBs are usually pretty consistently high-floor. You gave the example with Love... but I'm sure there are counter-examples with similar lower-ranked/priced QB2s who wind up as basically dead money other than the bye weeks. I can share my own experience last year I had Davis Mills ($7) as QB2 behind Josh Allen. I tracked my entry for 13 weeks (was eliminated week 8) and Mills ONLY counted for me in week 7 when Allen was on bye, and I didn't need him (still would have cleared the line by 25 with a QB goose egg that week). Allen only had one week sub-20 (week 11 with 16.55) and Mills put up 14.45 that week. Basically, the $7 on my QB2 was dead money last year. This year with the week 5 QB goose egg I still cleared the line by 58.5. So it's not unreasonable to avoid that dead money if you've got a stud QB.
You have to also consider the opportunity cost of the points you are giving up at other positions by tying up money in your QB2 safety net. And ultimately it depends on your overall philosophy/strategy/goal in the contest. Personally I'd rather have a hypothetical 10% chance of making the finals (with a 3% chance of winning if I do) than a 20% chance of making the finals (with a 1% chance of winning if I do). Percentages here obviously just for illustrative purposes of the perceived tradeoffs.
I spent it on WR darts... my last two players added so that I'd have enough bye week depth were I Hodgins and P Nacua... J Reed and M Wilson were also in/out of variations. Alternately might have stuck with Olave instead of Chase as my #1 WR. Or dropped Dotson, though I was pretty high on him (still time...).
But either way, I was pretty locked in on my top 3 choices at both RB and TE (I also cut J Warren for $11 late in the process that also went to WR... I think that was more the Olave->Chase upgrade), so WR was where I was still futzing around up to the deadline and where I'd say that QB2 $ went. I also went with only 2 Ds instead of my preferred 3 to contribute $3 to the pool available at WR... liking $3 Nacua over having a 3rd D so far this year.![]()
Crushed it is an understatement! Look at this...Sounds like you crushed it.Where did you spend the $$$ that you saved on QB2? I think this is a sound strategy but it all hinges on what additional value was gained across the other positions.A few things...That was close - I took Jordan Love as my number 2 behind Justin Herbert because I felt like he would be the starter all year in Green Bay even through struggles. Rethinking that now - I can definitely see him losing his job.
Makes me think that the 1 QB strategy is not a bad one - selecting one stud with an early bye and ensuring most, if not all, of roster does not share that bye. Would free up valuable money.
- Selecting only 1 QB and choosing to take a guaranteed zero at QB in a given week is insane. [emphasis mine]
- Every QB has bad weeks. If you had chosen any of the 6 QB's for $20+ along with Love as your backup, you would've used Love's score 17 out of 35 times.
- Contest teams with 1 QB have a 31.8% survival rate vs 47.09% for all others.
- If Love does lose his job, who is he losing it to? Rookie, Sean Clifford? I think not!
Not insane... just a calculated risk. I did exactly what Balco suggested, and so far so good (bye week is behind me with Herbert, and I cleared the cut line easily this week). Only difference from his suggestion is that I also had a second stud on bye (Ekeler). Get the pain over with early on (while the cut % is still low, and there's still a higher proportion of "weak teams who've been lucky so far"). My theory is that as the season progresses of the weak-but-lucky-so-far teams get more and more weeded out and the caliber of remaining teams increase (along with the cut %). Week 5 is early enough that there's still some chaff left in the contest.
And yes, QBs have bad weeks, but the top QBs are usually pretty consistently high-floor. You gave the example with Love... but I'm sure there are counter-examples with similar lower-ranked/priced QB2s who wind up as basically dead money other than the bye weeks. I can share my own experience last year I had Davis Mills ($7) as QB2 behind Josh Allen. I tracked my entry for 13 weeks (was eliminated week 8) and Mills ONLY counted for me in week 7 when Allen was on bye, and I didn't need him (still would have cleared the line by 25 with a QB goose egg that week). Allen only had one week sub-20 (week 11 with 16.55) and Mills put up 14.45 that week. Basically, the $7 on my QB2 was dead money last year. This year with the week 5 QB goose egg I still cleared the line by 58.5. So it's not unreasonable to avoid that dead money if you've got a stud QB.
You have to also consider the opportunity cost of the points you are giving up at other positions by tying up money in your QB2 safety net. And ultimately it depends on your overall philosophy/strategy/goal in the contest. Personally I'd rather have a hypothetical 10% chance of making the finals (with a 3% chance of winning if I do) than a 20% chance of making the finals (with a 1% chance of winning if I do). Percentages here obviously just for illustrative purposes of the perceived tradeoffs.
I spent it on WR darts... my last two players added so that I'd have enough bye week depth were I Hodgins and P Nacua... J Reed and M Wilson were also in/out of variations. Alternately might have stuck with Olave instead of Chase as my #1 WR. Or dropped Dotson, though I was pretty high on him (still time...).
But either way, I was pretty locked in on my top 3 choices at both RB and TE (I also cut J Warren for $11 late in the process that also went to WR... I think that was more the Olave->Chase upgrade), so WR was where I was still futzing around up to the deadline and where I'd say that QB2 $ went. I also went with only 2 Ds instead of my preferred 3 to contribute $3 to the pool available at WR... liking $3 Nacua over having a 3rd D so far this year.![]()
Thanks... I agree... with the caveat of so far.Crushed it is an understatement! Look at this...Sounds like you crushed it.Where did you spend the $$$ that you saved on QB2? I think this is a sound strategy but it all hinges on what additional value was gained across the other positions.A few things...That was close - I took Jordan Love as my number 2 behind Justin Herbert because I felt like he would be the starter all year in Green Bay even through struggles. Rethinking that now - I can definitely see him losing his job.
Makes me think that the 1 QB strategy is not a bad one - selecting one stud with an early bye and ensuring most, if not all, of roster does not share that bye. Would free up valuable money.
- Selecting only 1 QB and choosing to take a guaranteed zero at QB in a given week is insane. [emphasis mine]
- Every QB has bad weeks. If you had chosen any of the 6 QB's for $20+ along with Love as your backup, you would've used Love's score 17 out of 35 times.
- Contest teams with 1 QB have a 31.8% survival rate vs 47.09% for all others.
- If Love does lose his job, who is he losing it to? Rookie, Sean Clifford? I think not!
Not insane... just a calculated risk. I did exactly what Balco suggested, and so far so good (bye week is behind me with Herbert, and I cleared the cut line easily this week). Only difference from his suggestion is that I also had a second stud on bye (Ekeler). Get the pain over with early on (while the cut % is still low, and there's still a higher proportion of "weak teams who've been lucky so far"). My theory is that as the season progresses of the weak-but-lucky-so-far teams get more and more weeded out and the caliber of remaining teams increase (along with the cut %). Week 5 is early enough that there's still some chaff left in the contest.
And yes, QBs have bad weeks, but the top QBs are usually pretty consistently high-floor. You gave the example with Love... but I'm sure there are counter-examples with similar lower-ranked/priced QB2s who wind up as basically dead money other than the bye weeks. I can share my own experience last year I had Davis Mills ($7) as QB2 behind Josh Allen. I tracked my entry for 13 weeks (was eliminated week 8) and Mills ONLY counted for me in week 7 when Allen was on bye, and I didn't need him (still would have cleared the line by 25 with a QB goose egg that week). Allen only had one week sub-20 (week 11 with 16.55) and Mills put up 14.45 that week. Basically, the $7 on my QB2 was dead money last year. This year with the week 5 QB goose egg I still cleared the line by 58.5. So it's not unreasonable to avoid that dead money if you've got a stud QB.
You have to also consider the opportunity cost of the points you are giving up at other positions by tying up money in your QB2 safety net. And ultimately it depends on your overall philosophy/strategy/goal in the contest. Personally I'd rather have a hypothetical 10% chance of making the finals (with a 3% chance of winning if I do) than a 20% chance of making the finals (with a 1% chance of winning if I do). Percentages here obviously just for illustrative purposes of the perceived tradeoffs.
I spent it on WR darts... my last two players added so that I'd have enough bye week depth were I Hodgins and P Nacua... J Reed and M Wilson were also in/out of variations. Alternately might have stuck with Olave instead of Chase as my #1 WR. Or dropped Dotson, though I was pretty high on him (still time...).
But either way, I was pretty locked in on my top 3 choices at both RB and TE (I also cut J Warren for $11 late in the process that also went to WR... I think that was more the Olave->Chase upgrade), so WR was where I was still futzing around up to the deadline and where I'd say that QB2 $ went. I also went with only 2 Ds instead of my preferred 3 to contribute $3 to the pool available at WR... liking $3 Nacua over having a 3rd D so far this year.![]()
QB - Justin Herbert
RB - Christian McCaffrey
RB - Austin Ekeler
WR - Tyreek Hill
WR - JaMarr Chase
FL - Alvin Kamara
FL - Puka Nacua
TE - Darren Waller
Yeah I have a similar build but went with Burrow and Jefferson instead of Herbert and Chase. And Bijan instead of Ekeler. JJ never missed a game until nowCrushed it is an understatement! Look at this...Sounds like you crushed it.Where did you spend the $$$ that you saved on QB2? I think this is a sound strategy but it all hinges on what additional value was gained across the other positions.A few things...That was close - I took Jordan Love as my number 2 behind Justin Herbert because I felt like he would be the starter all year in Green Bay even through struggles. Rethinking that now - I can definitely see him losing his job.
Makes me think that the 1 QB strategy is not a bad one - selecting one stud with an early bye and ensuring most, if not all, of roster does not share that bye. Would free up valuable money.
- Selecting only 1 QB and choosing to take a guaranteed zero at QB in a given week is insane. [emphasis mine]
- Every QB has bad weeks. If you had chosen any of the 6 QB's for $20+ along with Love as your backup, you would've used Love's score 17 out of 35 times.
- Contest teams with 1 QB have a 31.8% survival rate vs 47.09% for all others.
- If Love does lose his job, who is he losing it to? Rookie, Sean Clifford? I think not!
Not insane... just a calculated risk. I did exactly what Balco suggested, and so far so good (bye week is behind me with Herbert, and I cleared the cut line easily this week). Only difference from his suggestion is that I also had a second stud on bye (Ekeler). Get the pain over with early on (while the cut % is still low, and there's still a higher proportion of "weak teams who've been lucky so far"). My theory is that as the season progresses of the weak-but-lucky-so-far teams get more and more weeded out and the caliber of remaining teams increase (along with the cut %). Week 5 is early enough that there's still some chaff left in the contest.
And yes, QBs have bad weeks, but the top QBs are usually pretty consistently high-floor. You gave the example with Love... but I'm sure there are counter-examples with similar lower-ranked/priced QB2s who wind up as basically dead money other than the bye weeks. I can share my own experience last year I had Davis Mills ($7) as QB2 behind Josh Allen. I tracked my entry for 13 weeks (was eliminated week 8) and Mills ONLY counted for me in week 7 when Allen was on bye, and I didn't need him (still would have cleared the line by 25 with a QB goose egg that week). Allen only had one week sub-20 (week 11 with 16.55) and Mills put up 14.45 that week. Basically, the $7 on my QB2 was dead money last year. This year with the week 5 QB goose egg I still cleared the line by 58.5. So it's not unreasonable to avoid that dead money if you've got a stud QB.
You have to also consider the opportunity cost of the points you are giving up at other positions by tying up money in your QB2 safety net. And ultimately it depends on your overall philosophy/strategy/goal in the contest. Personally I'd rather have a hypothetical 10% chance of making the finals (with a 3% chance of winning if I do) than a 20% chance of making the finals (with a 1% chance of winning if I do). Percentages here obviously just for illustrative purposes of the perceived tradeoffs.
I spent it on WR darts... my last two players added so that I'd have enough bye week depth were I Hodgins and P Nacua... J Reed and M Wilson were also in/out of variations. Alternately might have stuck with Olave instead of Chase as my #1 WR. Or dropped Dotson, though I was pretty high on him (still time...).
But either way, I was pretty locked in on my top 3 choices at both RB and TE (I also cut J Warren for $11 late in the process that also went to WR... I think that was more the Olave->Chase upgrade), so WR was where I was still futzing around up to the deadline and where I'd say that QB2 $ went. I also went with only 2 Ds instead of my preferred 3 to contribute $3 to the pool available at WR... liking $3 Nacua over having a 3rd D so far this year.![]()
QB - Justin Herbert
RB - Christian McCaffrey
RB - Austin Ekeler
WR - Tyreek Hill
WR - JaMarr Chase
FL - Alvin Kamara
FL - Puka Nacua
TE - Darren Waller
Dang it missed this one that is a huge miss this is the kind of pick that is king in this contestThe Bargain: Nacua ($3) all day.
That's just not fair.3 unfortunate teams put together rosters with a full 4 QB combo consisting of Aaron Rodgers, Jordan Love, Kenny Pickett and then 1 each had Richardson/Jones/Watson as their 4th