2025 FBG Subscriber Contest (10 Viewers)

[rzrback77]

But, the RB also position typically is one where games are missed and a high dollar RB injury can cripple that position.

 

[TheWinz]

Kicking off week 4 with ARI/SEA

1189 - WR Jaxon Smith-Njigba
952 - WR Cooper Kupp
913 - RB Zach Charbonnet
669 - TD Arizona Cardinals
592 - RB Kenneth Walker
524 - QB Sam Darnold
522 - RB Trey Benson
424 - QB Kyler Murray
392 - TE Trey McBride
271 - PK Jason Myers
244 - WR Marvin Harrison Jr
187 - TD Seattle Seahawks
151 - TE AJ Barner
145 - PK Chad Ryland
95 - WR Greg Dortch
67 - QB Jalen Milroe
34 - WR Michael Wilson
7 - RB Emari Demercado

Looks like SEA will be the biggest line mover tonight. I have nobody playing.

 

[TwinTurbo]

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%

There are two ways I can interpret this data.
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's #3 avoid players that miss time or don't get snaps. #1 can mitigate some of that risk. #2 only works if you also follow #3. This contest is all about having your players available and getting playing time every week except their bye week and an 18-19 player team that hits on the right mix will be tough to beat.

 

[TwinTurbo]

But, the RB also position typically is one where games are missed and a high dollar RB injury can cripple that position.

Or a high dollar bust that plays but doesn't produce.

 

[ZWK]

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%

There are two ways I can interpret this data.
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?

I do think it's something more like option 1. Having lots of players is better because it gives you more shots at production.

One way to look at it: if you have $3 available to spend, you could use it to upgrade (say) a $15 player to a slightly better player who costs $18. Or, you could use it to replace an empty roster slot which is guaranteed to get 0's every week with a $3 player who has a pretty good chance to contribute something. As long as there are decent bargain bin options available, the latter option helps your team more.

Or, you could see "breaking up a mid-range WR into multiple cheaper WRs" as similar to breaking up an expensive defense into multiple cheap defenses. They both have the same advantage of giving you more shots at production. With defenses you also get the advantages that there's less of a gap between the good ones and the bad ones, they all have the same ceiling, and they don't have any risk of getting benched. But with WRs you have the advantages that you can turn 1 mid-range player into 5ish cheap players instead of just 2, and that you can start more than 1 of them in the same week.

A small roster with Courtland Sutton ($19) and Calvin Ridley ($16) could've cut those 2 mid-range WRs and replaced them with this group of 13 players: Elic Ayomanor, Kayshon Boutte, Troy Franklin, Kavontae Turpin, Dont'e Thornton, Pat Bryant, Kyle Williams, Nick Westbrook-Ikhine, Noah Brown, Jalen Coker, TE Harold Fannin, a 3rd D (for $3), and a 3rd PK (for $4). Which group of players would help your team more, those 2 mid-range WRs or those 10 cheap WRs + 1 TE + 1 D + 1 PK? They cost the same ($35), and those cheap options aren't cherry-picked - Sutton+Ridley were the most-selected mid-range WRs (around 16% each) and those were my favorite $4 and under options before the draft (and all have lower ownership then Sutton & Ridley, except for some DEF/PK options).

 

[TheWinz]

I do think it's something more like option 1. Having lots of players is better because it gives you more shots at production.

One way to look at it: if you have $3 available to spend, you could use it to upgrade (say) a $15 player to a slightly better player who costs $18. Or, you could use it to replace an empty roster slot which is guaranteed to get 0's every week with a $3 player who has a pretty good chance to contribute something. As long as there are decent bargain bin options available, the latter option helps your team more.

Or, you could see "breaking up a mid-range WR into multiple cheaper WRs" as similar to breaking up an expensive defense into multiple cheap defenses. They both have the same advantage of giving you more shots at production. With defenses you also get the advantages that there's less of a gap between the good ones and the bad ones, they all have the same ceiling, and they don't have any risk of getting benched. But with WRs you have the advantages that you can turn 1 mid-range player into 5ish cheap players instead of just 2, and that you can start more than 1 of them in the same week.

A small roster with Courtland Sutton ($19) and Calvin Ridley ($16) could've cut those 2 mid-range WRs and replaced them with this group of 13 players: Elic Ayomanor, Kayshon Boutte, Troy Franklin, Kavontae Turpin, Dont'e Thornton, Pat Bryant, Kyle Williams, Nick Westbrook-Ikhine, Noah Brown, Jalen Coker, TE Harold Fannin, a 3rd D (for $3), and a 3rd PK (for $4). Which group of players would help your team more, those 2 mid-range WRs or those 10 cheap WRs + 1 TE + 1 D + 1 PK? They cost the same ($35), and those cheap options aren't cherry-picked - Sutton+Ridley were the most-selected mid-range WRs (around 16% each) and those were my favorite $4 and under options before the draft (and all have lower ownership then Sutton & Ridley, except for some DEF/PK options).

While I agree with you in terms of WR's, the bargain bin RB's are much harder to find. You simply can't make it through this contest with only bargain bin RB's, and it's likely the only position like that. Perhaps a large roster made up of a few expensive RB's, then load up on volume with WR, TE, K, and D?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I do think it's something more like option 1. Having lots of players is better because it gives you more shots at production.

One way to look at it: if you have $3 available to spend, you could use it to upgrade (say) a $15 player to a slightly better player who costs $18. Or, you could use it to replace an empty roster slot which is guaranteed to get 0's every week with a $3 player who has a pretty good chance to contribute something. As long as there are decent bargain bin options available, the latter option helps your team more.

Or, you could see "breaking up a mid-range WR into multiple cheaper WRs" as similar to breaking up an expensive defense into multiple cheap defenses. They both have the same advantage of giving you more shots at production. With defenses you also get the advantages that there's less of a gap between the good ones and the bad ones, they all have the same ceiling, and they don't have any risk of getting benched. But with WRs you have the advantages that you can turn 1 mid-range player into 5ish cheap players instead of just 2, and that you can start more than 1 of them in the same week.

A small roster with Courtland Sutton ($19) and Calvin Ridley ($16) could've cut those 2 mid-range WRs and replaced them with this group of 13 players: Elic Ayomanor, Kayshon Boutte, Troy Franklin, Kavontae Turpin, Dont'e Thornton, Pat Bryant, Kyle Williams, Nick Westbrook-Ikhine, Noah Brown, Jalen Coker, TE Harold Fannin, a 3rd D (for $3), and a 3rd PK (for $4). Which group of players would help your team more, those 2 mid-range WRs or those 10 cheap WRs + 1 TE + 1 D + 1 PK? They cost the same ($35), and those cheap options aren't cherry-picked - Sutton+Ridley were the most-selected mid-range WRs (around 16% each) and those were my favorite $4 and under options before the draft (and all have lower ownership then Sutton & Ridley, except for some DEF/PK options).

While I agree with you in terms of WR's, the bargain bin RB's are much harder to find. You simply can't make it through this contest with only bargain bin RB's, and it's likely the only position like that. Perhaps a large roster made up of a few expensive RB's, then load up on volume with WR, TE, K, and D?

I'll be eliminated soon so you have to take what I say with a grain of salt but....

this is precisely why I spend up on RB1-RB3 but avoided $20+ players at WR and TE..

SUBTOTAL	AVERAGE
RB Derrick Henry - $31
RB Chase Brown - $26	$75	$25
RB David Montgomery - $18
RB Jacory Croskey-Merritt - $6	$10	$5
RB Kendre Miller - $4
WR Mike Evans - $18
WR Stefon Diggs - $13
WR Matthew Golden - $12
WR Ricky Pearsall - $11	$79	$11
WR Christian Kirk - $10
WR Cooper Kupp - $10
WR Keenan Allen - $5
TE Tyler Warren - $14	$34	$11
TE Dallas Goedert - $11
TE Pat Freiermuth - $9

 

[ZWK]

I took a look at some data on how the large-roster entries in the contest tend to differ from the small-roster entries. I've put it in this spreadsheet on this year's builds.

Big rosters take fewer high-end players ($25+ price). 18-player rosters took 3.0 $25+ players on average, 30-player rosters just 0.7 of them. There is some dropoff across the whole range of roster sizes, but a lot of it happens at the low end; 21-player rosters are already down at just 2.0 $25+ players. I think that the small rosters are making the right call on this one - I like big rosters that get there by swapping in cheap players in place of mid-range players, not by leaving out the expensive players (and 3 elite players is about right).

Big rosters spend less on flexable players (RB, WR, TE) and more on the singleton positions (QB, PK, DEF). 18-player rosters spend $193 on flexable players, 30-player rosters just $180. This is pretty much entirely due to lower WR spending for big rosters ($86 vs. $71 for 30 vs. 18 player teams). There is a gradual trend in that direction across all roster sizes, but it it is especially 29- and 30-player rosters that do this; 28-player rosters' spending is basically halfway in between 18-player rosters' spending and 30-player rosters' spending. I think that the small rosters are making the right call here - it's generally better to spend more on flexable positions (and $193 is about right).

Big rosters take more of the obvious, highly-owned value plays. Emeka Egbuka is on 39% of 18-player rosters vs. 64% of 30-player rosters. 30-player rosters on average have 4.5 of the 10 most-owned offensive players, vs. 2.6 on the 18-player rosters. Every one of the ten is underrepresented on 18-player rosters vs. the entire field. Most of this is about the smallest rosters having less of those players - rosters with 23+ players are similar (23-player rosters have 4.3 of the top 10 players and 63% have Egbuka), though it varies a bit by player. I like the big roster approach here - a lot of the high-owned players are good choices.

Here's the average breakdown by position for 18-player rosters vs. 30-player rosters
QB: 2.2 for $38 vs. 3.5 for $44
RB: 4.4 for $79 vs. 7.2 for $77
WR: 5.6 for $86 vs. 9.2 for $71
TE: 2.0 for $28 vs. 3.8 for $32
PK: 1.9 for $9 vs. 3.3 for $13
DEF: 1.9 for $10 vs. 3.0 for $12

As you can tell from what I did with my roster this year and in previous years, I prefer the small rosters' approach to QB & RB what the big rosters did at the other positions (except they underspent at WR).

 

[QuizGuy66]

I would think that generally speaking the bigger rooster owners do more research (on average) than the small rooster owners do. (That's not to say there aren't thoughtful small entries of course). Bigger squads require looking for the diamond in the rough guys who are worth more than their price (or have the potential to do so) and if someone's taking the time to pick out 29 or 30 players there's a better chance they are taking more time to make their entry. I would conjecture that smaller squads are made top heavy starting with the biggest dollar guys - that they end up with too many dollars and are then backing into their final rooster by swapping in lower dollar guys at the end.

I believe The Turk has all the iterations of the entries - I would be curious if on average the big lineups have more submissions (and more tinkering) and if the 1-and-done entries - where people fill out once - or on one day - and go about their business afterwards skew even more heavily towards 18-19 then the overall entry population.

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

after Thursday night: 0.0 + everybody (except the injured Joe Burrow )

A lot of solid but unspectacular performances tonight.

2 guys between 20 and 25
2 more between 15 and 19.95
7 more between 10 and 14.95
4 more between 5 and 9.95

So a good start for Seattle/Arizona player owners for the most part but nothing that would have them off to a big big jump.

-QG

 

[Puppies]

I would think that generally speaking the bigger rooster owners do more research (on average) than the small rooster owners do. (That's not to say there aren't thoughtful small entries of course). Bigger squads require looking for the diamond in the rough guys who are worth more than their price (or have the potential to do so) and if someone's taking the time to pick out 29 or 30 players there's a better chance they are taking more time to make their entry. I would conjecture that smaller squads are made top heavy starting with the biggest dollar guys - that they end up with too many dollars and are then backing into their final rooster by swapping in lower dollar guys at the end.

I believe The Turk has all the iterations of the entries - I would be curious if on average the big lineups have more submissions (and more tinkering) and if the 1-and-done entries - where people fill out once - or on one day - and go about their business afterwards skew even more heavily towards 18-19 then the overall entry population.

-QG

Just speaking for myself with a roster of 29, I did in fact spend a lot of time researching players, especially low cost players, trying to identify value picks with a good potential to outplay their cost. There were some great players with low price tags in this years contest that are actually WR2 or WR3 on their depth chart, with $2 of $3 cap numbers. At the same time, I tried to also roster some of the more proven players at each position, hoping to ensure some points at each position each week.

Injuries will always happen, and that’s a given. So you might as well plan on losing a key player at each position during the course of the contest, and construct your roster with that possibility in mind.

The obvious conclusion (to me at least) is that I have a better survival chance if I avoid the most expensive players and instead focus on mid-cost players at most, and then round out the roster with some lower cost value players in positions offering the highest potential ROI.

When you consider each of these factors, I think it’s no surprise that larger rosters enjoy higher survival rates. If you roll with a small roster (18-20 players) you are toast after you lose your 2nd player to injury. Just look at how many stud players have already gone down already, and we’re only in week 4.

If your crystal ball is 100% accurate and you completely avoid injuries, you may think you have a better chance to score more in the playoffs with your small roster of studs, compared to a larger roster. But I don’t think that necessarily true either. Very few players are so consistent that they post a usable score every week, So I still think a large roster checks more boxes in this particular contest compared to a small roster.

In addition to everything I’ve already said, I had to avoid some players I really liked, due to bye week conflicts. It does you no good to have one of the highest scores each week, only to be eliminated mid-contest just when things start looking good, because you had too many guys out on bye at the same time.

All these factors are what makes this contest so much fun.

 

[ZWK]

I took a look at some data on how the large-roster entries in the contest tend to differ from the small-roster entries. I've put it in this spreadsheet on this year's builds.

Big rosters take fewer high-end players ($25+ price). 18-player rosters took 3.0 $25+ players on average, 30-player rosters just 0.7 of them. There is some dropoff across the whole range of roster sizes, but a lot of it happens at the low end; 21-player rosters are already down at just 2.0 $25+ players. I think that the small rosters are making the right call on this one - I like big rosters that get there by swapping in cheap players in place of mid-range players, not by leaving out the expensive players (and 3 elite players is about right).

Big rosters spend less on flexable players (RB, WR, TE) and more on the singleton positions (QB, PK, DEF). 18-player rosters spend $193 on flexable players, 30-player rosters just $180. This is pretty much entirely due to lower WR spending for big rosters ($86 vs. $71 for 30 vs. 18 player teams). There is a gradual trend in that direction across all roster sizes, but it it is especially 29- and 30-player rosters that do this; 28-player rosters' spending is basically halfway in between 18-player rosters' spending and 30-player rosters' spending. I think that the small rosters are making the right call here - it's generally better to spend more on flexable positions (and $193 is about right).

Big rosters take more of the obvious, highly-owned value plays. Emeka Egbuka is on 39% of 18-player rosters vs. 64% of 30-player rosters. 30-player rosters on average have 4.5 of the 10 most-owned offensive players, vs. 2.6 on the 18-player rosters. Every one of the ten is underrepresented on 18-player rosters vs. the entire field. Most of this is about the smallest rosters having less of those players - rosters with 23+ players are similar (23-player rosters have 4.3 of the top 10 players and 63% have Egbuka), though it varies a bit by player. I like the big roster approach here - a lot of the high-owned players are good choices.

Here's the average breakdown by position for 18-player rosters vs. 30-player rosters
QB: 2.2 for $38 vs. 3.5 for $44
RB: 4.4 for $79 vs. 7.2 for $77
WR: 5.6 for $86 vs. 9.2 for $71
TE: 2.0 for $28 vs. 3.8 for $32
PK: 1.9 for $9 vs. 3.3 for $13
DEF: 1.9 for $10 vs. 3.0 for $12

As you can tell from what I did with my roster this year and in previous years, I prefer the small rosters' approach to QB & RB what the big rosters did at the other positions (except they underspent at WR).

I reran these analyses with last year's contest entries and the results are very similar.

18-player rosters vs. 30-player rosters

Number of $25+ players
2025: 3.0 vs. 0.7
2024: 2.2 vs. 0.4

Spending on flexable players (RB, WR, TE)
2025: $193 vs. $180
2024: $192 vs. $177

WR spending
2025: $86 vs. $71
2024: $90 vs. $77

Number of top 10 most-owned offensive players
2025: 2.6 vs. 4.5
2024: 1.9 vs. 3.1

My impression from these numbers is that biggish rosters, in roughly the 25-27 range, tend to have the sharpest owners. On average the biggest rosters (29-30 players) don't add more highly-owned players than the 25-27 player rosters (if anything they have slightly less of them) and they shift too much of their spending to the singleton positions (QB, PK, DEF) and away from WR.

I think that the underlying cause is that people who don't put a ton of thought into their roster are more likely to end up at an extreme - usually 18 or 19 players but occasionally 30 or 29. You can build a thoughtful 29-30 player roster, but thoughtful roster builders are more common among the 25-27 player entries.

 

[BassNBrew]

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%

There are two ways I can interpret this data.
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?

I do think it's something more like option 1. Having lots of players is better because it gives you more shots at production.

One way to look at it: if you have $3 available to spend, you could use it to upgrade (say) a $15 player to a slightly better player who costs $18. Or, you could use it to replace an empty roster slot which is guaranteed to get 0's every week with a $3 player who has a pretty good chance to contribute something. As long as there are decent bargain bin options available, the latter option helps your team more.

Or, you could see "breaking up a mid-range WR into multiple cheaper WRs" as similar to breaking up an expensive defense into multiple cheap defenses. They both have the same advantage of giving you more shots at production. With defenses you also get the advantages that there's less of a gap between the good ones and the bad ones, they all have the same ceiling, and they don't have any risk of getting benched. But with WRs you have the advantages that you can turn 1 mid-range player into 5ish cheap players instead of just 2, and that you can start more than 1 of them in the same week.

A small roster with Courtland Sutton ($19) and Calvin Ridley ($16) could've cut those 2 mid-range WRs and replaced them with this group of 13 players: Elic Ayomanor, Kayshon Boutte, Troy Franklin, Kavontae Turpin, Dont'e Thornton, Pat Bryant, Kyle Williams, Nick Westbrook-Ikhine, Noah Brown, Jalen Coker, TE Harold Fannin, a 3rd D (for $3), and a 3rd PK (for $4). Which group of players would help your team more, those 2 mid-range WRs or those 10 cheap WRs + 1 TE + 1 D + 1 PK? They cost the same ($35), and those cheap options aren't cherry-picked - Sutton+Ridley were the most-selected mid-range WRs (around 16% each) and those were my favorite $4 and under options before the draft (and all have lower ownership then Sutton & Ridley, except for some DEF/PK options).

Or you could take your stud laden 18 player team and swap one player like Chase or Barkley and add all the players you mentioned. Or for that matter drop one $30 player for most of these guys and end up in the 27-28 player range. The point being that the core betwen a small and large roster doesn't have to be that different.

 

[TheWinz]

Just lost McLaurin for at least week 4, and maybe more

 

[msudaisy26]

Just lost McLaurin for at least week 4, and maybe more

Why does it seem like the wrs that hold out always get hurt?

 

[TwinTurbo]

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%

There are two ways I can interpret this data.
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?

I do think it's something more like option 1. Having lots of players is better because it gives you more shots at production.

One way to look at it: if you have $3 available to spend, you could use it to upgrade (say) a $15 player to a slightly better player who costs $18. Or, you could use it to replace an empty roster slot which is guaranteed to get 0's every week with a $3 player who has a pretty good chance to contribute something. As long as there are decent bargain bin options available, the latter option helps your team more.

Or, you could see "breaking up a mid-range WR into multiple cheaper WRs" as similar to breaking up an expensive defense into multiple cheap defenses. They both have the same advantage of giving you more shots at production. With defenses you also get the advantages that there's less of a gap between the good ones and the bad ones, they all have the same ceiling, and they don't have any risk of getting benched. But with WRs you have the advantages that you can turn 1 mid-range player into 5ish cheap players instead of just 2, and that you can start more than 1 of them in the same week.

A small roster with Courtland Sutton ($19) and Calvin Ridley ($16) could've cut those 2 mid-range WRs and replaced them with this group of 13 players: Elic Ayomanor, Kayshon Boutte, Troy Franklin, Kavontae Turpin, Dont'e Thornton, Pat Bryant, Kyle Williams, Nick Westbrook-Ikhine, Noah Brown, Jalen Coker, TE Harold Fannin, a 3rd D (for $3), and a 3rd PK (for $4). Which group of players would help your team more, those 2 mid-range WRs or those 10 cheap WRs + 1 TE + 1 D + 1 PK? They cost the same ($35), and those cheap options aren't cherry-picked - Sutton+Ridley were the most-selected mid-range WRs (around 16% each) and those were my favorite $4 and under options before the draft (and all have lower ownership then Sutton & Ridley, except for some DEF/PK options).

Or you could take your stud laden 18 player team and swap one player like Chase or Barkley and add all the players you mentioned. Or for that matter drop one $30 player for most of these guys and end up in the 27-28 player range. The point being that the core betwen a small and large roster doesn't have to be that different.

Agreed. Think about how many different possible variations based on the same core group that most of us experimented with leading up to the current version.

 

[Puppies]

Just lost McLaurin for at least week 4, and maybe more

Why does it seem like the wrs that hold out always get hurt?

Likely because they did not get in game shape, having missed all those practices.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Just lost McLaurin for at least week 4, and maybe more

Why does it seem like the wrs that hold out always get hurt?

Just lost McLaurin for at least week 4, and maybe more

Why does it seem like the wrs that hold out always get hurt?

Likely because they did not get in game shape, having missed all those practices.

The dreaded soft tissue injury risk...
-QG

 

[msudaisy26]

Just lost McLaurin for at least week 4, and maybe more

Why does it seem like the wrs that hold out always get hurt?

Likely because they did not get in game shape, having missed all those practices.

I am saying receiver specifically. We have seen rbs, dbs, lineman, qbs like Lamar even all hold out and they don't seem to get hurt as often as the receivers.

 

[Puppies]

I took a look at some data on how the large-roster entries in the contest tend to differ from the small-roster entries. I've put it in this spreadsheet on this year's builds.

Big rosters take fewer high-end players ($25+ price). 18-player rosters took 3.0 $25+ players on average, 30-player rosters just 0.7 of them. There is some dropoff across the whole range of roster sizes, but a lot of it happens at the low end; 21-player rosters are already down at just 2.0 $25+ players. I think that the small rosters are making the right call on this one - I like big rosters that get there by swapping in cheap players in place of mid-range players, not by leaving out the expensive players (and 3 elite players is about right).

Big rosters spend less on flexable players (RB, WR, TE) and more on the singleton positions (QB, PK, DEF). 18-player rosters spend $193 on flexable players, 30-player rosters just $180. This is pretty much entirely due to lower WR spending for big rosters ($86 vs. $71 for 30 vs. 18 player teams). There is a gradual trend in that direction across all roster sizes, but it it is especially 29- and 30-player rosters that do this; 28-player rosters' spending is basically halfway in between 18-player rosters' spending and 30-player rosters' spending. I think that the small rosters are making the right call here - it's generally better to spend more on flexable positions (and $193 is about right).

Big rosters take more of the obvious, highly-owned value plays. Emeka Egbuka is on 39% of 18-player rosters vs. 64% of 30-player rosters. 30-player rosters on average have 4.5 of the 10 most-owned offensive players, vs. 2.6 on the 18-player rosters. Every one of the ten is underrepresented on 18-player rosters vs. the entire field. Most of this is about the smallest rosters having less of those players - rosters with 23+ players are similar (23-player rosters have 4.3 of the top 10 players and 63% have Egbuka), though it varies a bit by player. I like the big roster approach here - a lot of the high-owned players are good choices.

Here's the average breakdown by position for 18-player rosters vs. 30-player rosters
QB: 2.2 for $38 vs. 3.5 for $44
RB: 4.4 for $79 vs. 7.2 for $77
WR: 5.6 for $86 vs. 9.2 for $71
TE: 2.0 for $28 vs. 3.8 for $32
PK: 1.9 for $9 vs. 3.3 for $13
DEF: 1.9 for $10 vs. 3.0 for $12

As you can tell from what I did with my roster this year and in previous years, I prefer the small rosters' approach to QB & RB what the big rosters did at the other positions (except they underspent at WR).

I reran these analyses with last year's contest entries and the results are very similar.

18-player rosters vs. 30-player rosters

Number of $25+ players
2025: 3.0 vs. 0.7
2024: 2.2 vs. 0.4

Spending on flexable players (RB, WR, TE)
2025: $193 vs. $180
2024: $192 vs. $177

WR spending
2025: $86 vs. $71
2024: $90 vs. $77

Number of top 10 most-owned offensive players
2025: 2.6 vs. 4.5
2024: 1.9 vs. 3.1

My impression from these numbers is that biggish rosters, in roughly the 25-27 range, tend to have the sharpest owners. On average the biggest rosters (29-30 players) don't add more highly-owned players than the 25-27 player rosters (if anything they have slightly less of them) and they shift too much of their spending to the singleton positions (QB, PK, DEF) and away from WR.

I think that the underlying cause is that people who don't put a ton of thought into their roster are more likely to end up at an extreme - usually 18 or 19 players but occasionally 30 or 29. You can build a thoughtful 29-30 player roster, but thoughtful roster builders are more common among the 25-27 player entries.

Fascinating stuff! Thanks for posting your analysis.

My roster construct closely mirrors what you wrote, with a couple exceptions.

I have a 29 player roster, but I have 2 players at $25+ (both RBs: Brown @ $26 and Cook @25), compared to the 0.7 players you noted for 30 player rosters.
* My third RB is David Montgomery, who I see as more of a 1B than a RB2.
* Then I threw in JCM for $6 as a backup with upside, and Brooks for $4 as Chase Brown insurance. Chase Brown has been my biggest miss so far.

Also note that I would have had 3 players at $25+, had I not come of George Kittle due to his week 14 bye.

My breakdown was:
QB = 3 for $39
RB = 5 for $79 (I spent what I thought I needed to spend @RB, to get 2 usable scores each week).
WR = 11 for $69
TE = 4 for $42 (I originally wanted Kittle but changed my mind due to late bye week. But I still spent more at TE than your analysis suggested for larger roster teams).
PK = 3 for $11
DEF = 3 for $10

 

[rzrback77]

Interesting information from ZWK

My 25 Roster - 29 total players - only one at $26 and probably my worse pick as it is also C. Brown and what is odd is that I drafted James Cook several times in other leagues.

QB - 2 for $29
RB - 5 for $74
WR - 10 for $82
TE - 6 for $45
PK - 3 for $10
DST - 3 for $10

Biggest value spending by far is my WRs and TEs

Following a review of my scorers to date provides me with my most wasted dollars so far:

RB - RJ Harvey $19 - zero used
WR - S Diggs $13 - zero used

Only 7 of my 29 roster have not yet scored through week 3. Besides the two above, each of the other non-scorers are $3 or less.

 

[WoodedHills]

29 players, 18 have contributed so far. Golden is the one I'd like to see start contributing. Lamar Jackson, Egbuka, and Kincaid have been my backbone.

 

[Puppies]

Will this be the week that Chase Brown finally shows up?

It would be really nice to see, but he's going up against a pretty tough Denver defense.

 

[TheWinz]

Will this be the week that Chase Brown finally shows up?

It would be really nice to see, but he's going up against a pretty tough Denver defense.

Brown better show up. I need all the RB scores I can get, because I just lost my top WR McLaurin for who knows how long.

 

[TheWinz]

Kickers
$3 - Caden Davis, Graham Gano, Blake Grupe, Dustin Hopkins, Cairo Santos, Joey Slye, Matthew Wright
If you're like me and shop here before moving up to the $4 bin, I'm just looking for guys who won't lose their jobs due to "suckiness". Don't forget to cross Caden Davis off your list, unless you think he's going to find a new home in the next month.

Already have Gano, Grupe and Santos locked in.

Where "locked in" = extremely likely to change before the deadline...but they seem like 3 cheap kickers who's roster spots should be safe.
Right? RIGHT?!?!?!!!

I am running away screaming from Gano this year. Santos is my favorite $3 special, and Grupe is a decent choice as well.

re: Gano. why? (I don't follow kickers or the Giants)

The problem isn't being on the Giants. It's Gano himself. It started 2 years ago. He hurt his knee in week 8 of 2023, and was supposed to be out on IR for a short stint, but it turned out he missed the final 9 games and had knee surgery. Then last year, He makes it through the season opener, but pulls a hammy in week 2 on the opening kickoff. Another short stint on IR turns out to be 7 games. In the last 2 seasons, besides his one kickoff in week 2, he has missed 17 games and played 17 games. And in those 17 games played, he has made only 71.4%. Prior to his surgery, he was hitting at 91.8% from 2020 thru 2022. I know he is an accomplished kicker with 15 years under his belt, but I think time has caught up with his legs. Besides Caden Davis, he is my only other $3 kicker I won't consider.

Stick a fork in Gano. It's possible he's attempted his last kick in the NFL.

 

[joey]

Kickers
$3 - Caden Davis, Graham Gano, Blake Grupe, Dustin Hopkins, Cairo Santos, Joey Slye, Matthew Wright
If you're like me and shop here before moving up to the $4 bin, I'm just looking for guys who won't lose their jobs due to "suckiness". Don't forget to cross Caden Davis off your list, unless you think he's going to find a new home in the next month.

Already have Gano, Grupe and Santos locked in.

Where "locked in" = extremely likely to change before the deadline...but they seem like 3 cheap kickers who's roster spots should be safe.
Right? RIGHT?!?!?!!!

I am running away screaming from Gano this year. Santos is my favorite $3 special, and Grupe is a decent choice as well.

re: Gano. why? (I don't follow kickers or the Giants)

The problem isn't being on the Giants. It's Gano himself. It started 2 years ago. He hurt his knee in week 8 of 2023, and was supposed to be out on IR for a short stint, but it turned out he missed the final 9 games and had knee surgery. Then last year, He makes it through the season opener, but pulls a hammy in week 2 on the opening kickoff. Another short stint on IR turns out to be 7 games. In the last 2 seasons, besides his one kickoff in week 2, he has missed 17 games and played 17 games. And in those 17 games played, he has made only 71.4%. Prior to his surgery, he was hitting at 91.8% from 2020 thru 2022. I know he is an accomplished kicker with 15 years under his belt, but I think time has caught up with his legs. Besides Caden Davis, he is my only other $3 kicker I won't consider.

Stick a fork in Gano. It's possible he's attempted his last kick in the NFL.

Please don’t reply to posts that I’ve posted so I don’t get pulled back into this thread to be reminded that I got knocked out in week 2

 

[apalmer]

Kickers
$3 - Caden Davis, Graham Gano, Blake Grupe, Dustin Hopkins, Cairo Santos, Joey Slye, Matthew Wright
If you're like me and shop here before moving up to the $4 bin, I'm just looking for guys who won't lose their jobs due to "suckiness". Don't forget to cross Caden Davis off your list, unless you think he's going to find a new home in the next month.

Already have Gano, Grupe and Santos locked in.

Where "locked in" = extremely likely to change before the deadline...but they seem like 3 cheap kickers who's roster spots should be safe.
Right? RIGHT?!?!?!!!

I am running away screaming from Gano this year. Santos is my favorite $3 special, and Grupe is a decent choice as well.

re: Gano. why? (I don't follow kickers or the Giants)

The problem isn't being on the Giants. It's Gano himself. It started 2 years ago. He hurt his knee in week 8 of 2023, and was supposed to be out on IR for a short stint, but it turned out he missed the final 9 games and had knee surgery. Then last year, He makes it through the season opener, but pulls a hammy in week 2 on the opening kickoff. Another short stint on IR turns out to be 7 games. In the last 2 seasons, besides his one kickoff in week 2, he has missed 17 games and played 17 games. And in those 17 games played, he has made only 71.4%. Prior to his surgery, he was hitting at 91.8% from 2020 thru 2022. I know he is an accomplished kicker with 15 years under his belt, but I think time has caught up with his legs. Besides Caden Davis, he is my only other $3 kicker I won't consider.

Stick a fork in Gano. It's possible he's attempted his last kick in the NFL.

Please don’t reply to posts that I’ve posted so I don’t get pulled back into this thread to be reminded that I got knocked out in week 2

OK

 

[IHEARTFF]

Rodgers DK stack

 

[TheWinz]

I could use a Freiermuth sighting

 

[TheWinz]

I could use a Freiermuth sighting

Pat "Sasquatch" Freiermuth

 

[TheWinz]

Freiermuth was skunky, but Goedert is saving my TE spot this week

 

[Charles in Houston]

Houston, we have a TOUCHDOWN! From the redzone: a pass to Woody Marks in for the TD! BOUT TIME!!!

 

[TennesseeJed]

This is looking like we could have a pretty high cut line - more in line with weeks 1 and 2.

Lots of games still to go.

 

[Charles in Houston]

Houston, we have a TOUCHDOWN! From the redzone: a pass to Woody Marks in for the TD! BOUT TIME!!!

Rinse and repeat for Marks!

 

[TheWinz]

@Army Eye
Patriots D showing 13 points. They had a punt return TD and a single sack. I think they only have 7 points.

 

[reflint]

TuTu!!!

 

[TheWinz]

I’d be hurting without Woody

 

[Puppies]

Gotta love the Jaguars defense️

15 points today, and their score has counted every week for the first 4 weeks.

 

[a_troll00]

Sitting at around 142.6 thus far with more players to go.

Should advance for one more week, but we'll see.

 

[Puppies]

This is looking like we could have a pretty high cut line - more in line with weeks 1 and 2.

Lots of games still to go.

Plus, this is the first week cutting the bottom 20% of the scores. In the first 3 weeks, only the bottom 10% were cut.

So I’d expect the cut line to be higher all else being equal, and some inflated scores will likely add to that.

 

[TheWinz]

My RB’s are bigger busts than Morgana the Kissing Bandit

 

[JoeSteeler]

My RB’s are bigger busts than Morgana the Kissing Bandit

Great reference!

 

[JoeSteeler]

For the first time this year, I should not have to sweat the cut line.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Unused dropped from $54 to $34. Thanks to Kendre Miller, Stefon Diggs and Blake Grupe for finally contributing. Still waiting on Jordan Love, Christian Kirk and Pat Freiermuth.

132.6 + Jordan Love-20.5 + Chris Brown-6.8 + Matthew Golden-8.6. Not a sure thing that my score will increase at all.

 

[Saint]

Sitting at 169 and feeling decent. Welcome to the lineup Woody Marks and Stefan Diggs.

Unused sitting at $47 but still have a chance on a few guys.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

QB- Stafford 37...big week to have one of these

RB-Woody Marks 27 plus either Hubbard or Bill around 8 this week so about 35 at RB

WR-Egbuka 20, Pittman 15

TE Kincaid 10
PK Santos 20

158 score right now
115 cut line which will rise of course

Special shout out to @Puppies
178-165-162 last 3 weeks heading into tonight...never close to the top but easily over the cut line most weeks

 

[TennesseeJed]

I wonder if there is any value in stacking QBs and Kickers. Not a traditional stack, but I’d be curious how it looked.

This was the first week that Caleb Williams had a sub-par score, and Cairo Santos stepped up with 20 points from the kicker slot.

 

[Desert_Power]

Probably dead in the water losing Nabers so early.

 

[BassNBrew]

I wonder if there is any value in stacking QBs and Kickers. Not a traditional stack, but I’d be curious how it looked.

This was the first week that Caleb Williams had a sub-par score, and Cairo Santos stepped up with 20 points from the kicker slot.

Very good strategy.

 

[BassNBrew]

Probably dead in the water losing Nabers so early.

That really sucks being in the dead man walking situation.