109.85 + (Goff - 18.05)
![]()
Cutting it close my man.116.80, but unsure if the stats are complete yet.
You better wish for more in the later weeks. Every year there seems to be weeks with cuts around 170Looks like I'm through. In 3 weeks I scored 154, 164, 159. It's not flashy, but I'll take 150 every week all year.
I just check and your main entry is like 45 over the line, dude!Cutting it close my man.116.80, but unsure if the stats are complete yet.
And the one where I picked redundant names had 191.60 lol
After 3 weeks, I have $64 unused. And it's not because my other players are doing great. I am averaging under 150. But that's what is fun about this contest. You can squeak by multiple weeks and it's fine, as long as you ain't cut.
Gone but not forgotten. :(the bad news is we lost @(HULK) @heckmanm![]()
WR Terry McLaurin - $21 | 10.40 |
WR Jameson Williams - $20 | 6.30 |
WR Mike Evans - $18 | 13.30 |
WR Emeka Egbuka - $10 | 14.50 |
WR Pat Bryant - $2 | 0.00 |
WR Kyle Williams - $2 | 1.80 |
PLAYER | OWNERSHIP | CAP $ | ESTIMATED RETURN |
M. Evans | 1,117 | $18 | week 6 |
T. Tracy | 852 | $16 | week 8-9 |
C. Lamb | 774 | $35 | week 7-8 |
G. Kittle | 711 | $25 | week 6 |
T. Mc Laurin | 611 | $21 | ? week 5 |
C. Loveland | 542 | $14 | week 5 |
J. Conner | 491 | $21 | Season Ending |
B. Purdy | 471 | $17 | ? week 4 |
J. Burrow | 432 | $26 | week 15 |
J. Sanders | 249 | $7 | week 6-7 |
N. Harris | 206 | $13 | Season Ending |
J. Jennings | 160 | $12 | ? week 5 |
A. Jones | 150 | $21 | week 7 |
J. Reed | 139 | $12 | week 14 |
JJ. McCarthy | 127 | $19 | week 7 |
A. Pierce | 47 | $8 | week 5 |
M. Mayer | 37 | $6 | week 5 |
That's the spirit! It's hilarious to think you've built a great team, only to get booted early when a few games go different than expected. I rostered only Dak and Geno, and they have been quite the crazy duo. I am averaging 29.3 with them, but if I had to use their low scores, that drops to 11.4. They are taking turns having usable games. Just as I planned, hahahaThis fantasy season is scaring the he'll out of me. I honestly thought my rooster was dead in the water. Then, it showed signs of life in a big way. Nonetheless, it was a few really good key scores in a sea of suck.
My rooster could go far. It may be eliminated on any week. Week 4 may very well be my last week in this contest. Then again, that is the very nature of this contest, and why I love it so much.
have you seen any explanations re: why Koo's production took a nosedive last year?690 Gano owners should be preparing to be without him
1402 Koo owners may be getting a fast second chance
Great question.have you seen any explanations re: why Koo's production took a nosedive last year?690 Gano owners should be preparing to be without him
1402 Koo owners may be getting a fast second chance
I would have been out this week if my significant other didn't convince me to switch to Drake Maye as QB2. Her roster is still alive too.After 3 weeks, I have $64 unused. And it's not because my other players are doing great. I am averaging under 150. But that's what is fun about this contest. You can squeak by multiple weeks and it's fine, as long as you ain't cut.
Is she Ready Player Two?I would have been out this week if my significant other didn't convince me to switch to Drake Maye as QB2. Her roster is still alive too.After 3 weeks, I have $64 unused. And it's not because my other players are doing great. I am averaging under 150. But that's what is fun about this contest. You can squeak by multiple weeks and it's fine, as long as you ain't cut.
Her team has no name but it could be Maye Chase Lions. Only 1 left.Is she Ready Player Two?I would have been out this week if my significant other didn't convince me to switch to Drake Maye as QB2. Her roster is still alive too.After 3 weeks, I have $64 unused. And it's not because my other players are doing great. I am averaging under 150. But that's what is fun about this contest. You can squeak by multiple weeks and it's fine, as long as you ain't cut.
And to the 12 remaining teams with both Russ and Dart…155 Russell Wilson owners
422 Jaxson Dart owners![]()
Unless Russ gets traded, then it's cheers to bothAnd to the 12 remaining teams with both Russ and Dart…155 Russell Wilson owners
422 Jaxson Dart owners![]()
![]()
There are two ways I can interpret this data.Highest survival rates by roster size through 3 weeks:
29 = 92.11%
26 = 88.83%
28 = 87.80%
30 = 87.61%
Lowest survival rates by roster size through 3 weeks:
18 = 65.44%
19 = 72.02%
20 = 74.90%
21 = 75.90%
Fortunately, there is an expert support group available 24x7 who will debate your hypothesis with youThere are two ways I can interpret this data.Highest survival rates by roster size through 3 weeks:
29 = 92.11%
26 = 88.83%
28 = 87.80%
30 = 87.61%
Lowest survival rates by roster size through 3 weeks:
18 = 65.44%
19 = 72.02%
20 = 74.90%
21 = 75.90%
1) Quantity over quality. Our accuracy or insight is significantly less meaningful than the number of darts we throw at the board. No one really knows anything before the season starts, so just take as many players as you can and some of them are bound to be good. If this is the case then choosing your roster size is the most important selection you make.
or..
2) Roosters with solid insight into the NFL are comfortable with lesser known (cheaper) options and can identify value in those names. While others prefer to invest in those with a more established pedigree (more expensive). If this is the case then choosing which players to take is paramount.
I would like to think it is option 2. I truly believe it is probably a mix of both. But I am afraid it is the first one. What other interpretations am I missing?
Fortunately, there is an expert support group available 24x7 who will debate your hypothesis with youThere are two ways I can interpret this data.Highest survival rates by roster size through 3 weeks:
29 = 92.11%
26 = 88.83%
28 = 87.80%
30 = 87.61%
Lowest survival rates by roster size through 3 weeks:
18 = 65.44%
19 = 72.02%
20 = 74.90%
21 = 75.90%
1) Quantity over quality. Our accuracy or insight is significantly less meaningful than the number of darts we throw at the board. No one really knows anything before the season starts, so just take as many players as you can and some of them are bound to be good. If this is the case then choosing your roster size is the most important selection you make.
or..
2) Roosters with solid insight into the NFL are comfortable with lesser known (cheaper) options and can identify value in those names. While others prefer to invest in those with a more established pedigree (more expensive). If this is the case then choosing which players to take is paramount.
I would like to think it is option 2. I truly believe it is probably a mix of both. But I am afraid it is the first one. What other interpretations am I missing?
It would make sense that 18 is lowest survival rate due to then having to hit on the picks (Injuries, busts) and not having the depth to survive that. Now the likelihood, I believe, would increase with taking less players at higher cost. But when you spread to more players much more likely that you are scoring above that cut line. I think at some point though that it would limit the ceiling potential.There are two ways I can interpret this data.Highest survival rates by roster size through 3 weeks:
29 = 92.11%
26 = 88.83%
28 = 87.80%
30 = 87.61%
Lowest survival rates by roster size through 3 weeks:
18 = 65.44%
19 = 72.02%
20 = 74.90%
21 = 75.90%
1) Quantity over quality. Our accuracy or insight is significantly less meaningful than the number of darts we throw at the board. No one really knows anything before the season starts, so just take as many players as you can and some of them are bound to be good. If this is the case then choosing your roster size is the most important selection you make.
or..
2) Roosters with solid insight into the NFL are comfortable with lesser known (cheaper) options and can identify value in those names. While others prefer to invest in those with a more established pedigree (more expensive). If this is the case then choosing which players to take is paramount.
I would like to think it is option 2. I truly believe it is probably a mix of both. But I am afraid it is the first one. What other interpretations am I missing?
Agreed. A well-constructed 18-player roster that stays healthy is hard to beat. Last year's top 10 scoring RB's all ranged from $21 - $33, with an average of $26. Sure, Bucky Irving for $5 is awesome and a steal, but even with his monster year, he was still outscored by Saquon, Gibbs, and Henry by over 100 points. I chose RB to make my point, because I believe it's the hardest for the cheaper options to keep up with the expensive studs.I think at some point though that it would limit the ceiling potential.