What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Fanduel Week 8 (1 Viewer)

Fitzpatrick is awful. The Jets would have seen more ROI on that deal if they just sold tickets to people to come watch them set $12M in cash on fire. 

 
My fav plays of Ware, Fitzgerald and Evans are totally sucking so far. Also seems Luck was not under priced. Might just pay up for Brady the rest of the season for cash.

 
Ware out for the game, it hurts, but he is 46% owned in the cash game.

Whats screwing me is, J rodgers, M evans, barnidge, and doyle

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank goodness I didn't play much this week. I've still got some hope -- Adams and Julio literally everywhere; Ryan in one-half of my cash; and Freeman/Booker lots of places. Maybe one of my GPPs will hit or something. 

 
Tennessee_ATO said:
Thank goodness I didn't play much this week. I've still got some hope -- Adams and Julio literally everywhere; Ryan in one-half of my cash; and Freeman/Booker lots of places. Maybe one of my GPPs will hit or something. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I still have adams, julio, rodgers, ryan, booker, crosby, and denver split between my 2 LU's.  But I am not planning on getting anything back at this point.

 
Looks like Forte was the proper call for me. I've got him in my Ryan cash (along with Booker, Julio, Adams, and Kelce but also Nuk). I also have him in lots of my GPP action. 

 
I mean thats the most Browns thing ever.  340 yards passing.  And they take him out in the redzone for Kevin Hogan. 
Kevin. 
Bleeping. 
Hogan

 
In hindsight sure.  But the fact hes 90% owned, which was fairly predictable, means regardless of what he does once the game starts it was correct to play him.

 
NixonMask said:
In hindsight sure.  But the fact hes 90% owned, which was fairly predictable, means regardless of what he does once the game starts it was correct to play him.
Click to expand...
I don't buy into that as rigid dogma, but I get that I'm an anomaly in that regard. I pivoted off of him to Forte in one of my lineups b/c I thought Forte was a better play. Theo is chronically underpriced, especially when he's competing w/ Zach "hands of stone" Zenner for touches. Sure, Booker was likely to be heavily owned, but unless there was a real good place to spend those savings (and I didn't see it personally) then I'm not sure he's the call if you aren't willing to not spend about $1000. 

Obviously, if you think Booker outscores Forte or if you think Booker + whomever will score more than Forte + the cheap option to whomever, then it's a no-brainer. I'm just saying you can end-up w/ suboptimal lineups in the name of chasing high ownership. We make projections for a reason. 

 
Well this week it certainly looks like youre right.  I cant wait to see the cut lines this week.  After 140 last week they might not even break 90 this week.

 
Can someone explain to me where I went wrong with these LU's.. I felt they were solid..I know injuries happen.

rodgers, Booker, J. Rodgers, Evans, Julio, Hilton, Doyle, crosby, Pats Lowest owned played is 8% and that is aaron rodgers.

Ryan, Booker, ware, Julio, adams, evans, barnidge, bailey, denver Lowest owned 15 and 16%

I thought these were solid and again I am going to lose my ###.  I feel like it's been like this every week for me.  A solid LU and horrible results.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wyattroa said:
Can someone explain to me where I went wrong with these LU's.. I felt they were solid..I know injuries happen.

rodgers, Booker, J. Rodgers, Evans, Julio, Hilton, Doyle, crosby, Pats Lowest owned played is 8% and that is aaron rodgers.

Ryan, Booker, ware, Julio, adams, evans, barnidge, bailey, denver Lowest owned 15 and 16%

I thought these were solid and again I am going to lose my ###.  I feel like it's been like this every week for me.  A solid LU and horrible results.
Click to expand...
You cant predict injuries.  Ware and Hilton are just bad luck

 
So, is this going to be about the opposite as last week with all the chalk guys getting hurt or throwing up turds besides some of the Qbs?

 
Right now, the only Chalk play that earned his way was CJ Fiedorowicz!

But I would say a lot of people had Gronk, Coop, and Forte and they did well. J. Rodgers and Fitz got close to value also.

At QB, Wilson was really the only Chalkish guy that busted. Although if you like Carr you scored! 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tennessee_ATO said:
I don't buy into that as rigid dogma, but I get that I'm an anomaly in that regard. I pivoted off of him to Forte in one of my lineups b/c I thought Forte was a better play. Theo is chronically underpriced, especially when he's competing w/ Zach "hands of stone" Zenner for touches. Sure, Booker was likely to be heavily owned, but unless there was a real good place to spend those savings (and I didn't see it personally) then I'm not sure he's the call if you aren't willing to not spend about $1000. 

Obviously, if you think Booker outscores Forte or if you think Booker + whomever will score more than Forte + the cheap option to whomever, then it's a no-brainer. I'm just saying you can end-up w/ suboptimal lineups in the name of chasing high ownership. We make projections for a reason. 
Click to expand...
nobody is "chasing high ownership".  there is a reason the guy is like 85% owned.  you continue to post stuff that is flat out incorrect week in and week out and then when people suggest you may be wrong you refuse to acknowledge it.  like a couple of weeks ago with your whole 'you need at least 20 pts from your qb' nonsense.

theo riddick and matt forte was a pretty awful cash game rb combo today.  im glad for your sake that you struck paydirt with it and im sure youll cash all your lineups with those 2 at rb given how bad the rest of the field did.

im not trying to attack you or anything, and i generally agree with lots of what you post, but you really need to rethink some of the basic fundamentals of how this works.  or else i feel like youre destined to go broke.

 
I have to agree that Booker had to be played today in cash. Maybe not quit as much on FD as DK , but If he does well or does't do well you stay with 80% of the field. If Forte and Riddick does well you gain on everyone, but if they bust you are out of your cash games. I like the odds the other way. I'm still in it no matter what happens with Booker, not the case with the other two. 

That being said I liked both of those guys this week also, and they could have been a nice combo with with Booker on either site. 

I just feel in cash if you think a guy is going to be 60% plus owned, you probably need him in your LU. There is still room to wiggle usually with different guys still. I think to myself, if that player flops how many guys will have him. If 60% have him, than you are still in the game. 

This week I think D. Adams fell into that category probably also. Montgomery would have for sure. Julio and Evans maybe also. Booker definitely!

***** This is just what I look at in my process when I build my 3 cash LU's. Not knocking anyone else that does it another way!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I firmly believe theres almost never a must play.  Theres always multiple ways to count to 120 without a specific player.  But in the case of a wildly unpriced guy that we can reliably predict 75%+ ownership (the 10% DeMarco ownership on Thursday meant the % on Booker was insane), who is a good play regardless, like Booker, not playing him is going to be a losing proposition long term.

If any of the PowerHour guys are reading this Id enjoy listening to you discussing whether he was must play on next weeks podcast.

 
podunker said:
I have to agree that Booker had to be played today in cash. Maybe not quit as much on FD as DK , but If he does well or does't do well you stay with 80% of the field. If Forte and Riddick does well you gain on everyone, but if they bust you are out of your cash games. I like the odds the other way. I'm still in it no matter what happens with Booker, not the case with the other two. 

That being said I liked both of those guys this week also, and they could have been a nice combo with with Booker on either site. 

I just feel in cash if you think a guy is going to be 60% plus owned, you probably need him in your LU. There is still room to wiggle usually with different guys still. I think to myself, if that player flops how many guys will have him. If 60% have him, than you are still in the game. 

This week I think D. Adams fell into that category probably also. Montgomery would have for sure. Julio and Evans maybe also. Booker definitely!
Click to expand...
just to be clear youre not playing him BECAUSE hes 60%+ owned, its more that if 60%+ of the field is on the guy then theres probably a reason.  in this case with booker its for all the expected reasons (so glaringly obvious that im not even gonna insult your intelligence by listing them).  i mean fbg power grid show started off by mentioning him as the first topic after the intro like in a 'ok-this-is-so-obvious-lets-just-get-it-out-of-the-way-now' kinda way.

 
Its just that week.  I knew something felt off about Hilton, Evans, and Montgomery and still walked right into them.  Because Im stupid.  Still would have ran into Ware and Julio though.  Fingers crossed I diversified my GPP lineups enough.  We'll find out in a few hours!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BassNBrew
Fanduel Week 7
Replies
0
Views
352
BassNBrew
BassNBrew
Galileo
FanDuel tricked me out of $5
Replies
1
Views
499
Galileo
Galileo
SeniorVBDStudent
Week 1 Musings...Fanduel
Replies
8
Views
510
BassNBrew
BassNBrew

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top