Fanduel/Draftkings Week 12 (1 Viewer)

[jandyt]

DK is running a no rake 300 person $5 tournament for MFL customers. There should be a link at the top of your league home page. Nothing spectacular, but a slight benefit of no rake. 1-3 payout. Just a heads up because I'm sure the 300 will fill quick.

Besides the no rake if you beat their guy you get your 5 bucks back even if don't cash. Figured for 5 bucks why not.

 

[Mike]

I finished 11th in that MFL one last week (was 4th for the longest time - best loser) but couldn't remember what you won for beating their guy Geoff Stein and didn't know his username. Does anyone know it? I just checked and they haven't added $5 to my account.

 

[Mike]

I see it now - user GeoffMFL. He finished 5th last week. Hell.

Edit to add, he had Jonas Gray in the flex spot last week.

 

[Mike]

In the interest of helping out the community, here is a simple web page to get FD salaries in CSV format. Just change the date you want to pull salaries for. Thu-Mon NFL salaries would be date "2014-11-20" (Thursday) while Sun-Mon NFL salaries would be "2014-11-23" (Sunday).

http://www.draftbuddy.com/football/3rdparty/fanduel/salaries.php?d=2014-11-20

Once you pull up the page then you can easily copy and paste into whatever Excel sheet you've created. In Excel use Data > Text To Columns (Delimited - comma) to split them out across cells.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I have a really big lineup decision to make this week. I won an entry to the Playboy Mansion and the final is this weekend. 150,000 dollars on the line here. I've really been studying and would like any feedback from the Shark Pool. I like Bortles, Kap, Sanchez, Manning, and Arod at qb. I like Forte, Sims, and TRich at rb. I like a stack of Broncos or Packer receivers not sure which stack yet (Jordy and Cobb, or DT and Emmanuel). At tight end I like Fleener and Gronk. Kicker has to be McManus. Defense I like Seattle, Buffalo, and San Fran. The games in the contest are only the 1:00 and 4:00 games, no Sunday or Monday night games. I figure a score of 150 will win this thing. Only 75 people in it. I am using a 2.5 multiplier as reaching value. So right in between a cash game and GPP.

All I can tell you with any certainty is that whomever I select at TE will straight-up stink like rotten garbage in August. So I'll post who I decide to roll with for your benefit.

Good luck, bring home some cash.

 

[James Daulton]

I haven't come up with a comlete lineup yet, but I'll be going heavy on Drew Brees and Graham this week. The Saints have lost two in a row at home, are in a playoff chase, and the Ravens secondary is pathetic. I will probably pull in another Saints receiver too (Colston?). The only negative is that the Ravens are coming off of a bye, but they just don't have any quality personnel in the secondary to stop a unit like the Saints.

 

[JShare87]

I have a really big lineup decision to make this week. I won an entry to the Playboy Mansion and the final is this weekend. 150,000 dollars on the line here. I've really been studying and would like any feedback from the Shark Pool. I like Bortles, Kap, Sanchez, Manning, and Arod at qb. I like Forte, Sims, and TRich at rb. I like a stack of Broncos or Packer receivers not sure which stack yet (Jordy and Cobb, or DT and Emmanuel). At tight end I like Fleener and Gronk. Kicker has to be McManus. Defense I like Seattle, Buffalo, and San Fran. The games in the contest are only the 1:00 and 4:00 games, no Sunday or Monday night games. I figure a score of 150 will win this thing. Only 75 people in it. I am using a 2.5 multiplier as reaching value. So right in between a cash game and GPP.

All I can tell you with any certainty is that whomever I select at TE will straight-up stink like rotten garbage in August. So I'll post who I decide to roll with for your benefit.Good luck, bring home some cash.

Please don't touch Fleener.

 

[John Lee]

I have a really big lineup decision to make this week. I won an entry to the Playboy Mansion and the final is this weekend. 150,000 dollars on the line here. I've really been studying and would like any feedback from the Shark Pool. I like Bortles, Kap, Sanchez, Manning, and Arod at qb. I like Forte, Sims, and TRich at rb. I like a stack of Broncos or Packer receivers not sure which stack yet (Jordy and Cobb, or DT and Emmanuel). At tight end I like Fleener and Gronk. Kicker has to be McManus. Defense I like Seattle, Buffalo, and San Fran. The games in the contest are only the 1:00 and 4:00 games, no Sunday or Monday night games. I figure a score of 150 will win this thing. Only 75 people in it. I am using a 2.5 multiplier as reaching value. So right in between a cash game and GPP.

From a guy who has been to a live, small field event (several, actually):

1) Aim high. These GPP's are so top-heavy that playing it safe will only get you to the middle of the pack, which doesn't pay much more than last place.

2) Your multiplier should still be 3x. If you use 2.5x and get it (150 points), I still think you could lose on the limited game slate...if you score 180, you will win (barring any freakish Sunday).

3) If you are 100% comfortable with your lineup when you click 'submit,' start over 'cause it's probably a cash-game lineup that cannot win this type of tournament.

4) Since it's such a big lineup, if you want to PM it to me, I'm willing to give you some advice based on my own experience and research (I, too, am studying a lot this week, as I am in the Fantasy Aces Championship just across the way from the Playboy Championship; likewise, I have a $5300 entry into the DK Thunderdome GPP). If you choose to do it on your own, I wholeheartedly understand and would not be the least bit offended.

5) GOOD LUCK!

 

[karmarooster]

I haven't come up with a comlete lineup yet, but I'll be going heavy on Drew Brees and Graham this week. The Saints have lost two in a row at home, are in a playoff chase, and the Ravens secondary is pathetic. I will probably pull in another Saints receiver too (Colston?). The only negative is that the Ravens are coming off of a bye, but they just don't have any quality personnel in the secondary to stop a unit like the Saints.

I used the same logic last week and got burned. Also, CJ Mosley is a pretty good cover LB, not sure if he can keep up with Graham though.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I have a really big lineup decision to make this week. I won an entry to the Playboy Mansion and the final is this weekend. 150,000 dollars on the line here.

No advice, just wanted to say this is really cool, have fun and good luck!

 

[Keerock]

Having a tough time picking through the value RBs... there are a bunch on FD this week.

Rashad Jennings 6600

Trent Richardson 5700

Tre Mason 5600

Isaiah Crowell 5500

Charles Sims 4900

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I have a really big lineup decision to make this week. I won an entry to the Playboy Mansion and the final is this weekend. 150,000 dollars on the line here. I've really been studying and would like any feedback from the Shark Pool. I like Bortles, Kap, Sanchez, Manning, and Arod at qb. I like Forte, Sims, and TRich at rb. I like a stack of Broncos or Packer receivers not sure which stack yet (Jordy and Cobb, or DT and Emmanuel). At tight end I like Fleener and Gronk. Kicker has to be McManus. Defense I like Seattle, Buffalo, and San Fran. The games in the contest are only the 1:00 and 4:00 games, no Sunday or Monday night games. I figure a score of 150 will win this thing. Only 75 people in it. I am using a 2.5 multiplier as reaching value. So right in between a cash game and GPP.

All I can tell you with any certainty is that whomever I select at TE will straight-up stink like rotten garbage in August. So I'll post who I decide to roll with for your benefit.Good luck, bring home some cash.

Please don't touch Fleener.

Can't not touch Fleenor at his price point, but out of deference I will minimize my Fleenor exposure for you. Early indications point lto bad news for anyone rostering Daniels since he's my other early TE consideration.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

draftkings has no kicker? I like that!

yup, no kicker on draftkings which is great IMO.

Draftkings has yardage plateau bonuses (100yds RU, RE and 300yds Passing) which is just as egregious if not more so in adding luck to the equation than one kicker.

Couldn't agree more. I'm in a league with those. I like the guys in it, but I gripe annually about those "bonus" points. Why is a 99 yard game worth 9.9 but a 100 yard game worth 15? Completely random.

 

[Bobcat10]

A few weeks ago there was chatter about whether to play 50/50 or double ups based on the cut lines. People were collecting some data, etc. I'm looking over my contests the past two week, and although the sample size is small, I'm seeing cut lines always lower for 50/50s. Two weeks ago was the crazy week and that was generally 2-4 point difference, lower on the 50/50 side. This past week, I only entered 1 50/50, and the cut was 98, so I assume that was an oddball contest. My double ups ranged between 105 and 112. My data doesn't scream play 50/50 only because winning back the juice comes into play for the double ups while only needs a couple more points.

Was there any conclusion to your data a few weeks ago?

Also, has anyone looked at contest size vs the cut line? For example, there are $2 double ups with 1116 or 558 people and $5 double ups with 670 or 223 people.

 

[Ever Present Lurker]

Just got my refund processed from DK for the Sunday debacle

 

[Keerock]

A few weeks ago there was chatter about whether to play 50/50 or double ups based on the cut lines. People were collecting some data, etc. I'm looking over my contests the past two week, and although the sample size is small, I'm seeing cut lines always lower for 50/50s. Two weeks ago was the crazy week and that was generally 2-4 point difference, lower on the 50/50 side. This past week, I only entered 1 50/50, and the cut was 98, so I assume that was an oddball contest. My double ups ranged between 105 and 112. My data doesn't scream play 50/50 only because winning back the juice comes into play for the double ups while only needs a couple more points.

Was there any conclusion to your data a few weeks ago?

Also, has anyone looked at contest size vs the cut line? For example, there are $2 double ups with 1116 or 558 people and $5 double ups with 670 or 223 people.

FWIW... For all my contests this year, average winning score:

50/50 League - 124.5

Head-to-head - 116.3

Salary Cap League - 126.8

Tournament - 133.1

ETA: "Winning" means "in the money"

 

[SameSongNDance]

Just got my refund processed from DK for the Sunday debacle

Got my refund yesterday. They'll be keeping me as a customer.

 

[Bobcat10]

A few weeks ago there was chatter about whether to play 50/50 or double ups based on the cut lines. People were collecting some data, etc. I'm looking over my contests the past two week, and although the sample size is small, I'm seeing cut lines always lower for 50/50s. Two weeks ago was the crazy week and that was generally 2-4 point difference, lower on the 50/50 side. This past week, I only entered 1 50/50, and the cut was 98, so I assume that was an oddball contest. My double ups ranged between 105 and 112. My data doesn't scream play 50/50 only because winning back the juice comes into play for the double ups while only needs a couple more points.

Was there any conclusion to your data a few weeks ago?

Also, has anyone looked at contest size vs the cut line? For example, there are $2 double ups with 1116 or 558 people and $5 double ups with 670 or 223 people.

FWIW... For all my contests this year, average winning score:

50/50 League - 124.5

Head-to-head - 116.3

Salary Cap League - 126.8

Tournament - 133.1

ETA: "Winning" means "in the money"

Do you lump double ups in the Tournament bucket like Fanduel does in their lobby? When I think "tournament", I think Mini Dive, Snap, Rush, etc.

 

[karmarooster]

Just got my refund processed from DK for the Sunday debacle

Got my refund yesterday. They'll be keeping me as a customer.

Wow, got mine too.

 

[karmarooster]

A few weeks ago there was chatter about whether to play 50/50 or double ups based on the cut lines. People were collecting some data, etc. I'm looking over my contests the past two week, and although the sample size is small, I'm seeing cut lines always lower for 50/50s. Two weeks ago was the crazy week and that was generally 2-4 point difference, lower on the 50/50 side. This past week, I only entered 1 50/50, and the cut was 98, so I assume that was an oddball contest. My double ups ranged between 105 and 112. My data doesn't scream play 50/50 only because winning back the juice comes into play for the double ups while only needs a couple more points.

Was there any conclusion to your data a few weeks ago?

Also, has anyone looked at contest size vs the cut line? For example, there are $2 double ups with 1116 or 558 people and $5 double ups with 670 or 223 people.

FWIW... For all my contests this year, average winning score:

50/50 League - 124.5

Head-to-head - 116.3

Salary Cap League - 126.8

Tournament - 133.1

ETA: "Winning" means "in the money"

It may have been an outlier week but when I looked at a few, there wasn't much difference between 50/50 and Double. But the 50/50 is subject to more variance because even the biggest only have 100, with smaller games at 50 or 20 entries. The Doubles are either bigger, or much much bigger.

As to the single/multi - the data I looked at a few weeks ago suggested that the multi-entry double had a slightly lower cash point than the single-entry.

 

[Keerock]

A few weeks ago there was chatter about whether to play 50/50 or double ups based on the cut lines. People were collecting some data, etc. I'm looking over my contests the past two week, and although the sample size is small, I'm seeing cut lines always lower for 50/50s. Two weeks ago was the crazy week and that was generally 2-4 point difference, lower on the 50/50 side. This past week, I only entered 1 50/50, and the cut was 98, so I assume that was an oddball contest. My double ups ranged between 105 and 112. My data doesn't scream play 50/50 only because winning back the juice comes into play for the double ups while only needs a couple more points.

Was there any conclusion to your data a few weeks ago?

Also, has anyone looked at contest size vs the cut line? For example, there are $2 double ups with 1116 or 558 people and $5 double ups with 670 or 223 people.

FWIW... For all my contests this year, average winning score:

50/50 League - 124.5

Head-to-head - 116.3

Salary Cap League - 126.8

Tournament - 133.1

ETA: "Winning" means "in the money"

Do you lump double ups in the Tournament bucket like Fanduel does in their lobby? When I think "tournament", I think Mini Dive, Snap, Rush, etc.

Yessir. I do mostly Triple-Ups, but yes, they are in tournaments. I can, however, parse them out:

Double Up - 124.5

Triple Up - 127.9

Quintuple Up - 135.6

 

[karmarooster]

A few weeks ago there was chatter about whether to play 50/50 or double ups based on the cut lines. People were collecting some data, etc. I'm looking over my contests the past two week, and although the sample size is small, I'm seeing cut lines always lower for 50/50s. Two weeks ago was the crazy week and that was generally 2-4 point difference, lower on the 50/50 side. This past week, I only entered 1 50/50, and the cut was 98, so I assume that was an oddball contest. My double ups ranged between 105 and 112. My data doesn't scream play 50/50 only because winning back the juice comes into play for the double ups while only needs a couple more points.

Was there any conclusion to your data a few weeks ago?

Also, has anyone looked at contest size vs the cut line? For example, there are $2 double ups with 1116 or 558 people and $5 double ups with 670 or 223 people.

FWIW... For all my contests this year, average winning score:

50/50 League - 124.5

Head-to-head - 116.3

Salary Cap League - 126.8

Tournament - 133.1

ETA: "Winning" means "in the money"

Do you lump double ups in the Tournament bucket like Fanduel does in their lobby? When I think "tournament", I think Mini Dive, Snap, Rush, etc.

Yessir. I do mostly Triple-Ups, but yes, they are in tournaments. I can, however, parse them out:

Double Up - 124.5

Triple Up - 127.9

Quintuple Up - 135.6

To confirm what I wrote above, do you have any data on the cash score for 50/50s vs. Doubles?

And for single-entries vs. multi-entries?

 

[Keerock]

A few weeks ago there was chatter about whether to play 50/50 or double ups based on the cut lines. People were collecting some data, etc. I'm looking over my contests the past two week, and although the sample size is small, I'm seeing cut lines always lower for 50/50s. Two weeks ago was the crazy week and that was generally 2-4 point difference, lower on the 50/50 side. This past week, I only entered 1 50/50, and the cut was 98, so I assume that was an oddball contest. My double ups ranged between 105 and 112. My data doesn't scream play 50/50 only because winning back the juice comes into play for the double ups while only needs a couple more points.

Was there any conclusion to your data a few weeks ago?

Also, has anyone looked at contest size vs the cut line? For example, there are $2 double ups with 1116 or 558 people and $5 double ups with 670 or 223 people.

FWIW... For all my contests this year, average winning score:

50/50 League - 124.5

Head-to-head - 116.3

Salary Cap League - 126.8

Tournament - 133.1

ETA: "Winning" means "in the money"

Do you lump double ups in the Tournament bucket like Fanduel does in their lobby? When I think "tournament", I think Mini Dive, Snap, Rush, etc.

Yessir. I do mostly Triple-Ups, but yes, they are in tournaments. I can, however, parse them out:

Double Up - 124.5

Triple Up - 127.9

Quintuple Up - 135.6

To confirm what I wrote above, do you have any data on the cash score for 50/50s vs. Doubles?

And for single-entries vs. multi-entries?

I don't do many of either, but you'll see above that my average "in the money" score for both is 124.5

 

[Joe T]

I took a look at the week 11 Running Back results based on performance above or below projection. Then I looked at the correlation between performance and two things: prior 4 week fantasy point avg and opponent strength of defense.

The goal was to see if one was a better indicator of performance above or below projection than the other.

Here are the results.

 

[Bruce Leroy]

Just got my refund processed from DK for the Sunday debacle

What did I miss?

 

[karmarooster]

A few weeks ago there was chatter about whether to play 50/50 or double ups based on the cut lines. People were collecting some data, etc. I'm looking over my contests the past two week, and although the sample size is small, I'm seeing cut lines always lower for 50/50s. Two weeks ago was the crazy week and that was generally 2-4 point difference, lower on the 50/50 side. This past week, I only entered 1 50/50, and the cut was 98, so I assume that was an oddball contest. My double ups ranged between 105 and 112. My data doesn't scream play 50/50 only because winning back the juice comes into play for the double ups while only needs a couple more points.

Was there any conclusion to your data a few weeks ago?

Also, has anyone looked at contest size vs the cut line? For example, there are $2 double ups with 1116 or 558 people and $5 double ups with 670 or 223 people.

FWIW... For all my contests this year, average winning score:

50/50 League - 124.5

Head-to-head - 116.3

Salary Cap League - 126.8

Tournament - 133.1

ETA: "Winning" means "in the money"

Do you lump double ups in the Tournament bucket like Fanduel does in their lobby? When I think "tournament", I think Mini Dive, Snap, Rush, etc.

Yessir. I do mostly Triple-Ups, but yes, they are in tournaments. I can, however, parse them out:

Double Up - 124.5

Triple Up - 127.9

Quintuple Up - 135.6

To confirm what I wrote above, do you have any data on the cash score for 50/50s vs. Doubles?

And for single-entries vs. multi-entries?

I don't do many of either, but you'll see above that my average "in the money" score for both is 124.5

My bad, reading comp fail. Provided that the sample is large enough, basically shows you can either chose to pay or not to pay the rake.

 

[karmarooster]

I took a look at the week 11 Running Back results based on performance above or below projection. Then I looked at the correlation between performance and two things: prior 4 week fantasy point avg and opponent strength of defense.

The goal was to see if one was a better indicator of performance above or below projection than the other.

Here are the results.

So, basically targeting RBs against weak defenses is sorta good, but targeting hot RBs is better, and has more significance than playing matchups. Would you agree with that conclusion?

 

[donkey]

Appreciate any feedback from the shark pool on my primary FD GPP lineup:

QB/WR stack - J. Flacco, S.Smith - figure these may be lightly owned, but after watching Dalton come to life against the Saints in the Dome, I think there is similar upside. High point total, dome, coming off bye, Monday night. Figure this is boom/bust

RB: D. Murray - NYG 2nd worst def against run giving up 26.2 FPPG and 120+ RuYd and 1 RuTD/game. Coming off bye, Murray will be in pretty much every lineup I put together.

RB: I. Crowell - Figure he will be highly owned after Tate news, but ATL is THE worst against the run, 26.24 FPPG, greater than 150 total yards and over a TD per game.

WR1: D. Thomas. He has a tough match up, but I'm thinking with Sanders and Thomas both possibly out, he will be in line for a ton of targets at home and has the highest ceiling of any WR.

WR3: D. Adams. A cheap way to get a piece of Aaron Rodgers stat line. Boom if he takes some of Cobb/Nelson targets, bust if he's status quo next week.

TE: Graham. Saints at home on Monday night. Although Ravens give up one of fewest FPPG to the can't help but Graham is elite and can't help but think his targets may be up with Cooks out.

K: McManus - cheap in a high scoring offense

D: NYJ. No reason other than they fit the cap and play in the lowest projected point total of the weekend

I will likely run an iteration where I replace Graham with Donnell (Dallas gives up 2nd most FPPG to TE), upgrade D. Adams to Sanu (Houston gives up over 200 yds and almost 37 fppg to WR).

 

[karmarooster]

I wouldn't run McManus in a GDP as he figures to be the highest owned kicker at his price. Also Adams is a tough call - if he "hits" its most likely just 8, 10, or 11 points, based on his "good" games this year. He's not a bad play in cash games at his price but I don't see tons of upside.

 

[Stryker]

I am plugging in too many lineups.

Few stacks I have tried are Kap/Boldin, Brees/Graham, McCown/Evans, Hoyer/Gordon

RB I like Sims and Crowell, Forsett, McCoy, how do we all feel on Trent Richardson?

WR I love Josh Gordon. Jordy or Cobb, Kenny Stills isn't bad at his price, likewise with Reggie Wayne vs Jags

TE Outside of Gronk and Graham I have been going Fleener

K, Cundiff cuz he is cheap lol

DEF I like Buffalo, New England, GB, Seattle

 

[donkey]

I wouldn't run McManus in a GDP as he figures to be the highest owned kicker at his price. Also Adams is a tough call - if he "hits" its most likely just 8, 10, or 11 points, based on his "good" games this year. He's not a bad play in cash games at his price but I don't see tons of upside.

Adams is the one that I am the least crazy about. Rostering Murray, Thomas, and Graham makes it hard to find enough cap space for 2 solid WR. I could potentially replace Adams with Malcom Floyd, but then I need to shave 300 from another position, which would most likely be at DEF. I could the 300 by going with either Was vs SF or ATL vs CLE. I'm thinking upside of Floyd/Was may be better than Adams/NYJ.

I usually run 3 GPP lineups with different RB combos and the same stack. I think this week I'll play Crowell/Murray in all 3 and tinker with the QBs/ WR's more.

Thanks for feedback!

 

[donkey]

I am plugging in too many lineups.

Few stacks I have tried are Kap/Boldin, Brees/Graham, McCown/Evans, Hoyer/Gordon

RB I like Sims and Crowell, Forsett, McCoy, how do we all feel on Trent Richardson?

WR I love Josh Gordon. Jordy or Cobb, Kenny Stills isn't bad at his price, likewise with Reggie Wayne vs Jags

TE Outside of Gronk and Graham I have been going Fleener

K, Cundiff cuz he is cheap lol

DEF I like Buffalo, New England, GB, Seattle

He's cheap and looks to get his chance as the primary back. The Colts are projected to score 32 points and are 13.5 faves at home. That game script sets up for a RB to have a huge day. I have him as my 3rd targeted RB behind Murray and Crowell in my GPP lineups this week....but he's Trent Richardson.

 

[SameSongNDance]

I think you have to be insane to roster Richardson in GPP events regardless of volume. Something like 50/50s I can understand but were talking about a guy who has a comically low career YPC and whose career longest run is sub 30 yards. To put it into perspective, Asiata has a longer career long than Richardson and he has the speed of a fullback. I'm afraid his ceiling, even on 20 touches, is far too low to be inserted in GPP lineups.

 

[donkey]

Dodds/Maurile have Trent projected at 14 FD pts. If he cAn manage 4 catches 100 total yds and a TD he reaches 18 FD pts, which meets 3x value. At his price he doesn't have to have a great stat line. I think he's a nice value play in cash and GPP.

 

[JShare87]

Dodds/Maurile have Trent projected at 14 FD pts. If he cAn manage 4 catches 100 total yds and a TD he reaches 18 FD pts, which meets 3x value. At his price he doesn't have to have a great stat line. I think he's a nice value play in cash and GPP.[/quote

It is a tough call on this guy. He is pathetic as a player. I understand both arguments. You would think the opportunity and matchup he has this week he should easily meet value in cash games and come close in GPPs. On the other hand I feel like everyone will own him, and he may not be a bad person to fade in tourneys.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

Dodds/Maurile have Trent projected at 14 FD pts. If he cAn manage 4 catches 100 total yds and a TD he reaches 18 FD pts, which meets 3x value. At his price he doesn't have to have a great stat line. I think he's a nice value play in cash and GPP.

Agree, he's in all my lineups. Good chance Indi is up a lot in the 2nd half and Trent gets tons of carries. Just based on touches/goal line carries he should produce nicely.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I have no idea who Trent is. I really suck at guessing when only initials or half a name is given. My brain is really weird like that, but I never know whom people are talking about on message boards when they say that JS is awesome or MW sucks or John is cool or whatever.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I have no idea who Trent is. I really suck at guessing when only initials or half a name is given. My brain is really weird like that, but I never know whom people are talking about on message boards when they say that JS is awesome or MW sucks or John is cool or whatever.

Trent Richardson. The discussion is about whether role/opportunity can overcome lack of talent sufficiently to justify him in GPP play.

Personally I'm pivoting away. Several other affordable options I like better.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Dodds/Maurile have Trent projected at 14 FD pts. If he cAn manage 4 catches 100 total yds and a TD he reaches 18 FD pts, which meets 3x value. At his price he doesn't have to have a great stat line. I think he's a nice value play in cash and GPP.

Agree, he's in all my lineups. Good chance Indi is up a lot in the 2nd half and Trent gets tons of carries. Just based on touches/goal line carries he should produce nicely.

This seems a lot like Donald Brown vs. the Jags back in week 4. At $5700, I want to believe but Richardson just flat out sucks. Maybe he gets four goaline carries for TDs ala Jonas Gray. But more likely he gets 1.9 YPC, a fumble and zero TDs.

 

[IgglesFan]

I haven't come up with a comlete lineup yet, but I'll be going heavy on Drew Brees and Graham this week. The Saints have lost two in a row at home, are in a playoff chase, and the Ravens secondary is pathetic. I will probably pull in another Saints receiver too (Colston?). The only negative is that the Ravens are coming off of a bye, but they just don't have any quality personnel in the secondary to stop a unit like the Saints.

Not sure I agree with this.

The Saints' problem in recent weeks has been their inability to give Brees enough time to let plays develop. Doesn't matter how poor a secondary is if the QB doesn't have enough time to let his WRs reach the secondary.

On the other hand, pressuring the QB is a strength of the Ravens.The Ravens also know their secondary stinks. I think the Raven blitz Brees all day long...and I also think the Saints won't be able to do much about it.

I like Graham on mass quantity of dump-off passes and Ingram/Cadet for the same reason....but I doubt Brees or any of his WRs puts up huge numbers, save for perhaps a max-protect situation where they hit the home run.

 

[JShare87]

I haven't come up with a comlete lineup yet, but I'll be going heavy on Drew Brees and Graham this week. The Saints have lost two in a row at home, are in a playoff chase, and the Ravens secondary is pathetic. I will probably pull in another Saints receiver too (Colston?). The only negative is that the Ravens are coming off of a bye, but they just don't have any quality personnel in the secondary to stop a unit like the Saints.

Not sure I agree with this.The Saints' problem in recent weeks has been their inability to give Brees enough time to let plays develop. Doesn't matter how poor a secondary is if the QB doesn't have enough time to let his WRs reach the secondary.

On the other hand, pressuring the QB is a strength of the Ravens.The Ravens also know their secondary stinks. I think the Raven blitz Brees all day long...and I also think the Saints won't be able to do much about it.

I like Graham on mass quantity of dump-off passes and Ingram/Cadet for the same reason....but I doubt Brees or any of his WRs puts up huge numbers, save for perhaps a max-protect situation where they hit the home run.

Brees at home in the dome always puts up monster numbers. It doesn't matter who they play. I remember arguing this very same thing last year right before he was about to play Carolina and their number 1 defense at home in a night game. Just go back and look at the numbers.

 

[JShare87]

I haven't come up with a comlete lineup yet, but I'll be going heavy on Drew Brees and Graham this week. The Saints have lost two in a row at home, are in a playoff chase, and the Ravens secondary is pathetic. I will probably pull in another Saints receiver too (Colston?). The only negative is that the Ravens are coming off of a bye, but they just don't have any quality personnel in the secondary to stop a unit like the Saints.

Not sure I agree with this.The Saints' problem in recent weeks has been their inability to give Brees enough time to let plays develop. Doesn't matter how poor a secondary is if the QB doesn't have enough time to let his WRs reach the secondary.

On the other hand, pressuring the QB is a strength of the Ravens.The Ravens also know their secondary stinks. I think the Raven blitz Brees all day long...and I also think the Saints won't be able to do much about it.

I like Graham on mass quantity of dump-off passes and Ingram/Cadet for the same reason....but I doubt Brees or any of his WRs puts up huge numbers, save for perhaps a max-protect situation where they hit the home run.

Brees at home in the dome always puts up monster numbers. It doesn't matter who they play. I remember arguing this very same thing last year right before he was about to play Carolina and their number 1 defense at home in a night game. Just go back and look at the numbers.

Sorry I meant to say he always puts up monster numbers in home night games.

 

[Keerock]

I have no idea who Trent is. I really suck at guessing when only initials or half a name is given. My brain is really weird like that, but I never know whom people are talking about on message boards when they say that JS is awesome or MW sucks or John is cool or whatever.

Trent

 

[karmarooster]

I haven't come up with a comlete lineup yet, but I'll be going heavy on Drew Brees and Graham this week. The Saints have lost two in a row at home, are in a playoff chase, and the Ravens secondary is pathetic. I will probably pull in another Saints receiver too (Colston?). The only negative is that the Ravens are coming off of a bye, but they just don't have any quality personnel in the secondary to stop a unit like the Saints.

Not sure I agree with this.The Saints' problem in recent weeks has been their inability to give Brees enough time to let plays develop. Doesn't matter how poor a secondary is if the QB doesn't have enough time to let his WRs reach the secondary.

On the other hand, pressuring the QB is a strength of the Ravens.The Ravens also know their secondary stinks. I think the Raven blitz Brees all day long...and I also think the Saints won't be able to do much about it.

I like Graham on mass quantity of dump-off passes and Ingram/Cadet for the same reason....but I doubt Brees or any of his WRs puts up huge numbers, save for perhaps a max-protect situation where they hit the home run.

Brees at home in the dome always puts up monster numbers. It doesn't matter who they play. I remember arguing this very same thing last year right before he was about to play Carolina and their number 1 defense at home in a night game. Just go back and look at the numbers.

Sorry I meant to say he always puts up monster numbers in home night games.

But only under a full moon.

 

[karmarooster]

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=parsonsfanduelweek12

I feel like this "Playing the Percentages" article could be better. It's gone from really useful information about the highest owned players in Thursday games to simply a grab bag of "these guys are probably good plays". It used to come out on Friday, and now it comes out pre-TNF, making it just speculation. There's no secret "algorithm" at work here, nor is there any confirmation with data that is still available (albeit in a limited way) once the TNF game kicks off. The decline in the scoring output of the "suggested lineups" over the past few weeks may be a result of this shift.

The WR section, for example, lists 11 WRs, 3 of which are mentioned because they aren't available. The remaining 8 are mentioned as "options". Ok, but who is likely to be the most highly owned? There are several articles presented as "these guys are solid values in this writer's opinion." The whole point of this article is supposed to show which players are in fact the most highly owned. Specifically, in what scenario is Percy Harvin "the top option by the value numbers"? Not according to Tremblay, Dodds, or Bloom, nor by average, and the highest to have him ranked by value is at #9. Speaking personally, I might even be inclined to go with Decker, for $300 less, if for some reason I felt the need to have a Jets WR on the road in a blizzard (maybe they'll dig out by Sunday or maybe the game will actually be postponed). In reality, I'd much rather go with Colston or Stills at 5900 or 6000 (neither of which are mentioned), at home, in a dome, without cooks, on MNF, against a weak ravens secondary. I have no clue if Colston or Stills or Harvin will be highly owned, but I suspect the saints WRs will get an ownership bump due to the Cooks injury and depressed pricing.

Parsons, you used to enter a lineup for Thursday games and look around to determine the players with the highest ownership percentage. I understand its not that easy anymore, but it's still possible to enter 3-4 unique lineups of players that you suspect will be highly owned, and then confirm. For example, 4 x $2 entries into TNF double ups would yield hard data about 4x QBs, 8x RBs, 12x WRs, 4x TEs, Ks and Def. FBGs should cover those "feeler" entry fees. Would it be possible to do this in the future? Or would FBGs sponsorship relationship with FD frown upon this?

Please excuse my criticism here as well intended and aimed at producing a better product. It's just that I found the old setup of the article to be among the most valuable out there, apart from the value chart, as definitive data rather than one writer's speculation (of which there are dozens of similar articles on FBGs, Rotoworld, even FD's own blog). Now I would probably find it more useful to read the "Fade" article aimed at GPP and modify it's conclusions for cash games.

 

[Keerock]

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=parsonsfanduelweek12

I feel like this "Playing the Percentages" article could be better. It's gone from really useful information about the highest owned players in Thursday games to simply a grab bag of "these guys are probably good plays". It used to come out on Friday, and now it comes out pre-TNF, making it just speculation. There's no secret "algorithm" at work here, nor is there any confirmation with data that is still available (albeit in a limited way) once the TNF game kicks off. The decline in the scoring output of the "suggested lineups" over the past few weeks may be a result of this shift.

The WR section, for example, lists 11 WRs, 3 of which are mentioned because they aren't available. The remaining 8 are mentioned as "options". Ok, but who is likely to be the most highly owned? There are several articles presented as "these guys are solid values in this writer's opinion." The whole point of this article is supposed to show which players are in fact the most highly owned. Specifically, in what scenario is Percy Harvin "the top option by the value numbers"? Not according to Tremblay, Dodds, or Bloom, nor by average, and the highest to have him ranked by value is at #9. Speaking personally, I might even be inclined to go with Decker, for $300 less, if for some reason I felt the need to have a Jets WR on the road in a blizzard (maybe they'll dig out by Sunday or maybe the game will actually be postponed). In reality, I'd much rather go with Colston or Stills at 5900 or 6000, at home, in a dome, without cooks, on MNF, against a weak ravens secondary.

Parsons, you used to enter a lineup for Thursday games and look around to determine the players with the highest ownership percentage. I understand its not that easy anymore, but it's still possible to enter 3-4 unique lineups of players that you suspect will be highly owned, and then confirm. For example, 4 x $2 entries into TNF double ups would yield hard data about 4x QBs, 8x RBs, 12x WRs, 4x TEs, Ks and Def. FBGs should cover those "feeler" entry fees. Would it be possible to do this in the future? Or would FBGs sponsorship relationship with FD frown upon this?

Please excuse my criticism here as well intended and aimed at producing a better product. It's just that I found the old setup of the article to be among the most valuable out there, apart from the value chart, as definitive data rather than one writers speculation (of which there are dozens of similar articles on FBGs, Rotoworld, even FD's own blog). Now I would probably find it more useful to read the "Fade" article aimed at GPP and modify it's conclusions for cash games.

I approve this post.

ETA: I, and I would assume a bunch of other FBG subscribers, would be willing to "report" the ownership % of those in my Thursday lineups if given the vehicle to do so. This should yield a decent sampling of players that could be used in this article.

 

[karmarooster]

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=parsonsfanduelweek12

I feel like this "Playing the Percentages" article could be better. It's gone from really useful information about the highest owned players in Thursday games to simply a grab bag of "these guys are probably good plays". It used to come out on Friday, and now it comes out pre-TNF, making it just speculation. There's no secret "algorithm" at work here, nor is there any confirmation with data that is still available (albeit in a limited way) once the TNF game kicks off. The decline in the scoring output of the "suggested lineups" over the past few weeks may be a result of this shift.

The WR section, for example, lists 11 WRs, 3 of which are mentioned because they aren't available. The remaining 8 are mentioned as "options". Ok, but who is likely to be the most highly owned? There are several articles presented as "these guys are solid values in this writer's opinion." The whole point of this article is supposed to show which players are in fact the most highly owned. Specifically, in what scenario is Percy Harvin "the top option by the value numbers"? Not according to Tremblay, Dodds, or Bloom, nor by average, and the highest to have him ranked by value is at #9. Speaking personally, I might even be inclined to go with Decker, for $300 less, if for some reason I felt the need to have a Jets WR on the road in a blizzard (maybe they'll dig out by Sunday or maybe the game will actually be postponed). In reality, I'd much rather go with Colston or Stills at 5900 or 6000, at home, in a dome, without cooks, on MNF, against a weak ravens secondary.

Parsons, you used to enter a lineup for Thursday games and look around to determine the players with the highest ownership percentage. I understand its not that easy anymore, but it's still possible to enter 3-4 unique lineups of players that you suspect will be highly owned, and then confirm. For example, 4 x $2 entries into TNF double ups would yield hard data about 4x QBs, 8x RBs, 12x WRs, 4x TEs, Ks and Def. FBGs should cover those "feeler" entry fees. Would it be possible to do this in the future? Or would FBGs sponsorship relationship with FD frown upon this?

Please excuse my criticism here as well intended and aimed at producing a better product. It's just that I found the old setup of the article to be among the most valuable out there, apart from the value chart, as definitive data rather than one writers speculation (of which there are dozens of similar articles on FBGs, Rotoworld, even FD's own blog). Now I would probably find it more useful to read the "Fade" article aimed at GPP and modify it's conclusions for cash games.

I approve this post.

ETA: I, and I would assume a bunch of other FBG subscribers, would be willing to "report" the ownership % of those in my Thursday lineups if given the vehicle to do so. This should yield a decent sampling of players that could be used in this article.

We've had similar info in the weekly thread the last couple of weeks. But, for premium content, it would be nice if it was provided rather than resorting to our own crowd-sourcing.

 

[Steeler]

I agree about the "playing the percentages" article. The whole point of the article is to provide hard data about ownership percentages and as karma pointed out the data is still available (even if a little harder to get to). In it's current state, its not the same article.

 

[Chad Parsons]

Appreciate the feedback. The shift in ownership availability on FanDuel required a shift midseason is one change a few weeks ago. One option is certainly to submit some low-cost variations of key players for Thursday locks, then post the article on Friday/Saturday. When FD changed the ownership setup, I decided to shift the focus to share my prep process leading up to TNF locks instead. If most are not putting in their lineup until Friday-Saturday-Sunday, then waiting on the ownership data would be worthwhile. The method to my madness in the bulging excel document each week could definitely be shared more in the opening as I streamlined the recommendations and explanations to summarize all the data that goes into it. The track record of the recommended lineup has been tremendous thus far in the low-to-mid cost buy-in cash games I typically frequent. Thanks again for weighing in

 

[snogger]

Appreciate the feedback. The shift in ownership availability on FanDuel required a shift midseason is one change a few weeks ago. One option is certainly to submit some low-cost variations of key players for Thursday locks, then post the article on Friday/Saturday. When FD changed the ownership setup, I decided to shift the focus to share my prep process leading up to TNF locks instead. If most are not putting in their lineup until Friday-Saturday-Sunday, then waiting on the ownership data would be worthwhile. The method to my madness in the bulging excel document each week could definitely be shared more in the opening as I streamlined the recommendations and explanations to summarize all the data that goes into it. The track record of the recommended lineup has been tremendous thus far in the low-to-mid cost buy-in cash games I typically frequent. Thanks again for weighing in

I'm sure those that play Thursday- Monday games appreciate any articles since most of the other daily game articles don't show up until Friday and sometimes Saturday..

But like some of the other information added for daily games... maybe just "Tweak it" on Friday, after Thursday night games, when others can report what they saw for percentage used and give your input based on data you can now see??

just my