What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FBG Subscriber Contest Strategy (1 Viewer)

QB - Peyton Manning - 31

QB - Joey Harrington - 6

RB - Laurence Maroney - 38

RB - Jamal Lewis - 22

RB - Cadillac Williams - 21

RB - Kevin Jones - 16

RB - Jerome Harrison - 2

RB - Tony Hunt - 1

WR - Lee Evans - 29

WR - Bernard Berrian - 16

WR - Ronald Curry - 8

WR - Wes Welker - 3

WR - Jacoby Jones - 2

WR - Chris Henry - 2

WR - Shaun McDonald - 1

TE - Kellen Winslow Jr - 24

TE - Owen Daniels - 11

TE - Bo Scaife - 9

PK - Josh Scobee - 3

PK - Phil Dawson - 1

TD - Dallas Cowboys - 3

TD - Cleveland Browns - 1

I went with the strategy that I could have 2 TE starting each week (flex) with 1.5 points/reception. I went with a stud QB some "value" type WRs and a few good TEs. If Kevin Jones comes back, my RBs could be solid.

Also, I went with :thumbdown: picks.

 
STRATEGY- Obviously, try to find room for any player you see as a major value. - Studs are overvalued in a best ball format. People look at LT carrying teams last year, but that was an aberration -- no stud, not even LT, can be expected to put up the kind of numbers that LT did on a week-to-week. Depth is the key, and you can only get depth without blowing the budget on studs.- At 6 pts per TD, it is very important to get two highly ranked QBs. QBs score a lot of points, and you can't afford mediocre weeks from your QBs. If your best QB score in a week is 200/1/1 (13 pts), when other teams will have 300/2/0 (27 pts) or 260/3/1 (30 pts), that's a huge handicap. Guys like Schaub and Harrington look like great values, but they'll have a lot of 200/1/1 games and not very many 300/2/0 games. And QBs are relatively cheap compared to studs at other positions.- Minimum of two defenses and two kickers. This should be a no brainer, but you'd be surprised how many people don't bother. Where else can you get guaranteed production from a $1 roster spot?- Maximum of two defenses. And cheap defenses at that. With no scoring based on yardage and points allowed (except for shutouts, which are rare and generally random), they just don't score enough to be worth spending a lot of cap dollars.- Looks for kickers that make 40+ and 50+ yard FGs on a regular basis. With bonus scoring for long FGs, guys like Jason Hanson and John Kasay are top-12 kickers, and they can be had for $2 and $1 respectively.- Maxmium of two TEs. Don't be fooled by 1.5 per reception. There will still be only a dozen TEs that average 10 ppg, while there will be 40 WRs at that level. If you have two decent TEs, save the roster spots for WR (see below)- Load up on inexpensive WRs. I focused on WRs that were very likely to be the top WR for their team on most weeks. That way, all you need is a good game by that team's offense for the receiver to be a contender for your top 3 (or flex). Personally, I believe that most WR2 are a mirage, unless you're talking about a WR who's just as good as the WR1. Someone like Greg Jennings or Wes Welker might put up a solid 8-12 points most weeks, but you don't win best ball contests with six WRs always scoring 8-12 points. You win with seven receivers scoring 17 points on good games and 5 points on bad games. Even if a player will have more bad weeks than good, you still survive when the other teams' WR2s disappear completely.- Finally, when in doubt, look for good matchups for weeks 11 through 13. There will be 37.5%, 50%, and 50% of submissions eliminated each of those weeks, when prior weeks generally eliminate just 15%. (I learned this from experience, having been eliminated in the final 50% cutdown last year. Frankly, I probably should have weighted the matchups for these weeks even more than I did.)My team:QB - Drew Brees - 21QB - Ben Roethlisberger - 18QB - David Garrard - 2RB - Willie Parker - 44RB - Adrian Peterson - 23RB - Cadillac Williams - 21RB - DeShaun Foster - 13RB - Brian Leonard - 3WR - Joey Galloway - 20WR - Vincent Jackson - 17WR - Santonio Holmes - 14WR - Ronald Curry - 8WR - Arnaz Battle - 5WR - Troy Williamson - 4WR - Dwayne Bowe - 4WR - Roddy White - 3TE - Ben Watson - 15TE - Bo Scaife - 9PK - Jason Hanson - 2PK - John Kasay - 1TD - Washington Redskins - 2TD - Houston Texans - 1Total value: 250 STRENGTHS:- Two QBs who should score well without costing Manning money- Quality at RB (four good RB who will be their teams' starter for 12-16 games)- Quantity at WR- The cheapest "good" TE (just like in a normal draft, you want the last TE from the top tier before you get to the players who won't even break 400 yards)WEAKNESSES:- Too many Steelers. Parker and Roethlisberger seemed like great value, and Holmes is a top breakout candidate, but if the team struggles under the new coaching regime, I could be dead very quickly.- Hit-or-miss defenses. I was hoping to have a little extra to spend on a team like Green Bay, but I couldn't get the numbers to work out.- WRs may be deep, but there are a lot of bust candidates. I have to hope that carrying 8 WRs will overcome the high risk, high reward approach.
I admire your team in the spirit of winning through depth. As noted in subscriber content such as Drinin's Perfect Auction, the path to victory can be obtained equally as often with a studs approach, and it comes down to preferences and value available in the draft pool, whether studs or "depth" laden.Obviously (?) I'm following the studs path, as I plan to start Brady, Addai, Bush, TO, and TJHouz and they are 76% of my budget (all starters sum 89% of my budget). I see very few teams with FIVE high quality players, so if I survive the bye weeks I like my chances. QB - Tom Brady - 26QB - David Garrard - 2RB - Joseph Addai - 46RB - Reggie Bush - 45RB - Adrian Peterson - 4RB - Sammy Morris - 3RB - Greg Jones - 1WR - Terrell Owens - 40WR - T.J. Houshmandzadeh - 34WR - Joey Galloway - 20WR - Wes Welker - 3WR - Chris Henry - 2WR - Dennis Northcutt - 1WR - Justin McCareins - 1TE - Marcus Pollard - 8TE - Bubba Franks - 3PK - Jason Elam - 3PK - Ryan Longwell - 1PK - John Kasay - 1TD - Dallas Cowboys - 3TD - Washington Redskins - 2TD - Tennessee Titans - 1
 
- Maximum of two defenses. And cheap defenses at that. With no scoring based on yardage and points allowed (except for shutouts, which are rare and generally random), they just don't score enough to be worth spending a lot of cap dollars.
I disagree with this. An average defense will put up about 120 total points with this scoring. But it's not simply 7.5 pts each week. The scoring is more likely going to break down like 5, 2, 17, 4, 6, 14... Considering that defenses cost $1-$3, I'd much rather load up on those and give myself additional opportunities to have that big game each week. It's better than spending that $1 on someone like Greg Jones or Brian Leonard who is very unlikely to ever contribute to your weekly score.
 
- Maximum of two defenses. And cheap defenses at that. With no scoring based on yardage and points allowed (except for shutouts, which are rare and generally random), they just don't score enough to be worth spending a lot of cap dollars.
I disagree with this. An average defense will put up about 120 total points with this scoring. But it's not simply 7.5 pts each week. The scoring is more likely going to break down like 5, 2, 17, 4, 6, 14... Considering that defenses cost $1-$3, I'd much rather load up on those and give myself additional opportunities to have that big game each week. It's better than spending that $1 on someone like Greg Jones or Brian Leonard who is very unlikely to ever contribute to your weekly score.
I agree, having taken 3 defenses and 3 kickers for exactly this reason. However, I disagree on Greg Jones as I remember how good he was in 2005 before he fell off everyone's radar. He WILL get touches. Think goal-line situations and 6-7 TDs this year. It's one dollar man!
 
- Studs are overvalued in a best ball format. People look at LT carrying teams last year, but that was an aberration -- no stud, not even LT, can be expected to put up the kind of numbers that LT did on a week-to-week. Depth is the key, and you can only get depth without blowing the budget on studs.
How's this for an aberration? The first time FBG ran the contest with this type of setup, the winner paid big bucks for the #1 RB--LT. We know what happened last year, which was the second time they did it. Sounds more like a pattern than an aberration to me.Edit to add Link to article on first contest.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
well, here goes:

QB - Peyton Manning - 31

QB - David Garrard - 2

RB - Reggie Bush - 45

RB - Willie Parker - 44

RB - Chester Taylor - 16

RB - Leon Washington - 14

RB - Adrian Peterson - 4

RB - Sammy Morris - 3

WR - T.J. Houshmandzadeh - 34

WR - Santonio Holmes - 14

WR - Kevin Curtis - 10

WR - Mike Furrey - 8

WR - Bobby Wade - 5

WR - Wes Welker - 3

WR - Jacoby Jones - 2

TE - Daniel Graham - 7

TE - Eric Johnson - 1

PK - John Kasay - 1

PK - Shaun Suisham - 1

PK - Nick Folk - 1

TD - Minnesota Vikings - 3

TD - Tennessee Titans - 1

QB: went with the sure thing in Manning, and figured he'd at minimum wouldn't hurt me every week, so backed him up with the cheap Garrard. Figured if Manning gets hurt, I'm screwed anyway :thumbup:

RB: might have taken one too many, but tried to pick players who will catch some passes, especially my backups... those guys could be a #2 starter in a pinch if they catch a couple passes

WR: wanted one guy I could pretty much rely on, then a bunch of guys who may not be flashy but rack up recpetions, like Furrey

TE: would have liked Scaife but had to cut a few dollars somewhere. Hoping Graham can hold off Scheffler.

K: picked a few $1 flyers and will hope for the best

D: employed Drinen's defense by committee teams

 
Last edited by a moderator:
- Studs are overvalued in a best ball format. People look at LT carrying teams last year, but that was an aberration -- no stud, not even LT, can be expected to put up the kind of numbers that LT did on a week-to-week. Depth is the key, and you can only get depth without blowing the budget on studs.
How's this for an aberration? The first time FBG ran the contest with this type of setup, the winner paid big bucks for the #1 RB--LT. We know what happened last year, which was the second time they did it. Sounds more like a pattern than an aberration to me.Edit to add Link to article on first contest.
The past few years Chargers had some nice weak sch's....don't believe this is one of those years ..LT will be good but don't expect last years numbers!
 
Raiders said:
Actually if you look at the rosters of 95% of the teams that made it to the 4 week playoff last year they all had LT2, R Bush, F Gore. The other 5% had S Jacx or W Parker, and most of the teams also had P Manning. What ultimatly seperated teams was the addition of a couple cheap players like B Edwards.
Those stats are a) misleading b) not applicable (4 week playoff round is insignificant IMHO) and c)come from too small of a dataset(1 year).Mathematically your best chance to win it all is to have a unique, successful team IMHO. I'm playing for first place, not to make it to the 4 week playoff.
I wholeheartedly agree tha unique is good when trying to separate at the end of the contest. However, if a large enough mass of folks pick the same "good" players, they are going to be the people pushing the points required to make it in the end. Unless you can posses a uniqueness that always performs with the pack, you can get burnt before your uniqueness pays off. I only had one really unique player on my roster last year, that being Gates. ALL of my other players were the most vanilla you could imagine. They were also very good in combination. I never even broke a sweat making the cut. In the end, Gates didn't do very well each of the last 4 weeks, and it cost me. I still made top 30's though, and that was with a huge turd at TE. to close. So while unique makes the championship easier, you gotta get there first. And as long as you can get a reasonable single contributor that is somewhat unique, you get a chance.
 
- Studs are overvalued in a best ball format. People look at LT carrying teams last year, but that was an aberration -- no stud, not even LT, can be expected to put up the kind of numbers that LT did on a week-to-week. Depth is the key, and you can only get depth without blowing the budget on studs.
How's this for an aberration? The first time FBG ran the contest with this type of setup, the winner paid big bucks for the #1 RB--LT. We know what happened last year, which was the second time they did it. Sounds more like a pattern than an aberration to me.Edit to add Link to article on first contest.
I can't believe that guy told his wife about the money... :headbang:
 
QB - Drew Brees - 21

QB - Damon Huard - 4

QB - David Garrard - 2

I figure get one decent qb, and Brees (as many mentioned) was a good value. I'm just hoping Huard plays and has a decent game week 4 to keep me alive. Gotta keep up with the Jones on Garrard.

RB - Larry Johnson - 49

RB - Cedric Benson - 32

RB - Brandon Jackson - 15

RB - Leon Washington - 14

RB - Sammy Morris - 3

I really like my running backs in terms of 'not many people having them' + ' great upside' and I mean that in my L. Washington selection and some vulture TDs from Morris. I know it's PPR, but I think LJ and Benson won't miss the 0.5's as they (hopefully) gain bigger yds + tds. Not sure about B. Jackson though, I was thinking that $15 could be used nicely elsewhere, but a sure 3rd starter may be required for bye weeks.

WR - Donald Driver - 30

WR - Santonio Holmes - 14

WR - Devery Henderson - 9

WR - Ernest Wilford - 3

WR - Wes Welker - 3

WR - Anthony Gonzalez - 3

WR - Patrick Crayton - 3

For my WR, I went with 1 guy who I think can put up solid points weekly, then went with 6 cheaper guys who I think can have big weeks here & there - obviously same as others. I love all 4 of my $3 WRs.

TE - Tony Gonzalez - 26

TE - Bo Scaife - 9

I shouldn't have an issue at TE, and the 1.5 PPR will definitely help, methinks.

PK - Neil Rackers - 2

PK - Rob Bironas - 1

PK - Sebastian Janikowski - 1

I went with 3 in just to improve my odds, and I didn't see a $1 WR/TE that would help as much. I went for Rackers/Bironas because they have bigger legs and could get me some 50+ yd FGs. Seabass is a byeweek guess.

TD - Green Bay Packers - 3

TD - Minnesota Vikings - 3

Kind of weak here, but I'm hoping for big turnover #'s from this crappy QB division.

Total value: 250

Well, it was my first year subscribing, and I have no idea if this will end up good or not, but...

 
A couple questions:How do you find out your results? Is it real-time, or are the results posted on Tuesday etc?What is an average "cut-score"?After final submission, can you view another team's roster?How early did you get knocked out last year? :goodposting:
Well, any answers to these ?'s? Thanks.
 
A couple questions:How do you find out your results? Is it real-time, or are the results posted on Tuesday etc?What is an average "cut-score"?After final submission, can you view another team's roster?How early did you get knocked out last year? :tinfoilhat:
Well, any answers to these ?'s? Thanks.
1. Drinen will post them, usually on Tuesday. Last year somebody (ctriopelle?) did their own updates and posted player scores on Sunday nights and Mondays, so posters had an idea of what was going on.2. They varied from week to week, anywhere from low 100's to 140's IIRC.3. When Drinen posted the scores, the team names were links to the rosters. I assume he'll do the same this year.4. I made it to the last cut. Needed a few more points to make the 4 week finals.
 
Excellent thoughts and description of strategy for this contest IMO. I'll add my $.02 FWIW.

STRATEGY

- Obviously, try to find room for any player you see as a major value.
Agree. Biggest values by position IMO:QB - Brees (21), Kitna (20), Hasselbeck (15), Schaub (10), Garrard (2)

RB - Rudi Johnson (40), McGahee (29), A. Green (23), Foster (13), Dunn (12)

WR - A. Johnson (33), Evans (29), Colston (27), Galloway (20), Berrian (16), Holmes (14), Curtis (10), Curry (8), Wade (5), Welker (3), Toomer (3)

TE - Daniels (11), Scaife (9), E. Johnson (1)

K - Rackers (2), Hanson (2)

- Studs are overvalued in a best ball format. People look at LT carrying teams last year, but that was an aberration -- no stud, not even LT, can be expected to put up the kind of numbers that LT did on a week-to-week. Depth is the key, and you can only get depth without blowing the budget on studs.
Disagree that studs are always "overvalued." Every year, one or more studs have huge years. If you're lucky enough to pick the right one, they can carry your team and are well worth the investment. The problem, of course, is picking the right one that provides good value for a very large investment of dollars.Agree 100% with the bolded part above. To survive for 13 weeks straight, you must avoid any bust weeks (or a score that is just barely low enough for elimination). I think you need the strongest team possible -- with the most depth possible -- and that is only possible by selecting the "best-value" players to stretch the budget dollars to obtain the deepest and strongest team.

- At 6 pts per TD, it is very important to get two highly ranked QBs. QBs score a lot of points, and you can't afford mediocre weeks from your QBs. If your best QB score in a week is 200/1/1 (13 pts), when other teams will have 300/2/0 (27 pts) or 260/3/1 (30 pts), that's a huge handicap. Guys like Schaub and Harrington look like great values, but they'll have a lot of 200/1/1 games and not very many 300/2/0 games. And QBs are relatively cheap compared to studs at other positions.
Agree. With 6 pts per passing TD, QBs are the highest scoring position. I think you need 3 QBs on your team. For $32 or $33, you could have gotten (1) Brees/Campbell/Garrard, (2) Kitna/Schaub/Garrard, (3) Roethlisberger/A Smith/Garrard, (4) Cutler/Hasselbeck/Garrard, or (5) Young/Garrard and either E Manning, Favre or Leinart -- all strong combinations IMO.
- Minimum of two defenses and two kickers. This should be a no brainer, but you'd be surprised how many people don't bother. Where else can you get guaranteed production from a $1 roster spot?
Agree. With a bigger budget and more roster slots, I would have preferred to have 3 kickers and 3 defenses. But with $250 budget and 22 slots, I went with 2 defenses and 2 kickers and used the extra slots and dollars for the RB and WR positions.
- Maximum of two defenses. And cheap defenses at that. With no scoring based on yardage and points allowed (except for shutouts, which are rare and generally random), they just don't score enough to be worth spending a lot of cap dollars.
Disagree. Defenses can score more than 20 pts which can keep you from getting eliminated.
- Looks for kickers that make 40+ and 50+ yard FGs on a regular basis. With bonus scoring for long FGs, guys like Jason Hanson and John Kasay are top-12 kickers, and they can be had for $2 and $1 respectively.
Agree.
- Maxmium of two TEs. Don't be fooled by 1.5 per reception. There will still be only a dozen TEs that average 10 ppg, while there will be 40 WRs at that level. If you have two decent TEs, save the roster spots for WR (see below)
Disagree. If a TE scores a TD, along with 6 receptions and 60 yards, they score 21 total pts which is well above what you need, on average, from the TE or Flex position. With E. Johnson at $1, I thought he was a great pick for a 3rd TE who could be one of your high scorers for 4-5 weeks.
- Load up on inexpensive WRs. I focused on WRs that were very likely to be the top WR for their team on most weeks. That way, all you need is a good game by that team's offense for the receiver to be a contender for your top 3 (or flex). Personally, I believe that most WR2 are a mirage, unless you're talking about a WR who's just as good as the WR1. Someone like Greg Jennings or Wes Welker might put up a solid 8-12 points most weeks, but you don't win best ball contests with six WRs always scoring 8-12 points. You win with seven receivers scoring 17 points on good games and 5 points on bad games. Even if a player will have more bad weeks than good, you still survive when the other teams' WR2s disappear completely.
Agree somewhat. I think you need at least 8 WRs to cover bye weeks and the inherent variability in WR scoring patterns. But you need a combination of (1) high-quality WRs like AJohnson or Evans who are priced somewhat lower than their peers, (2) solid mid-level WRs like Berrian and Holmes, and (3) lower-cost WRs who are expected to play a lot and be productive like Curtis, Curry, Wade, Welker and Toomer. Bottom line, if you don't have a strong group of WRs with good depth, you're at a severe disadvantage in this contest.
- Finally, when in doubt, look for good matchups for weeks 11 through 13. There will be 37.5%, 50%, and 50% of submissions eliminated each of those weeks, when prior weeks generally eliminate just 15%. (I learned this from experience, having been eliminated in the final 50% cutdown last year. Frankly, I probably should have weighted the matchups for these weeks even more than I did.)
Agree.
My team:

QB - Drew Brees - 21

QB - Ben Roethlisberger - 18

QB - David Garrard - 2

RB - Willie Parker - 44

RB - Adrian Peterson - 23

RB - Cadillac Williams - 21

RB - DeShaun Foster - 13

RB - Brian Leonard - 3

WR - Joey Galloway - 20

WR - Vincent Jackson - 17

WR - Santonio Holmes - 14

WR - Ronald Curry - 8

WR - Arnaz Battle - 5

WR - Troy Williamson - 4

WR - Dwayne Bowe - 4

WR - Roddy White - 3

TE - Ben Watson - 15

TE - Bo Scaife - 9

PK - Jason Hanson - 2

PK - John Kasay - 1

TD - Washington Redskins - 2

TD - Houston Texans - 1

Total value: 250

STRENGTHS:

- Two QBs who should score well without costing Manning money

- Quality at RB (four good RB who will be their teams' starter for 12-16 games)

- Quantity at WR

- The cheapest "good" TE (just like in a normal draft, you want the last TE from the top tier before you get to the players who won't even break 400 yards)

WEAKNESSES:

- Too many Steelers. Parker and Roethlisberger seemed like great value, and Holmes is a top breakout candidate, but if the team struggles under the new coaching regime, I could be dead very quickly.

- Hit-or-miss defenses. I was hoping to have a little extra to spend on a team like Green Bay, but I couldn't get the numbers to work out.

- WRs may be deep, but there are a lot of bust candidates. I have to hope that carrying 8 WRs will overcome the high risk, high reward approach.
JMO - Critique of team:QBs - Strong combo, but I think you could have gotten almost as strong a combo by spending $8-10 less, as described above.

RBs - Strong group with the top 3 RBs and Foster's a great value IMO (assuming he doesn't get injured or DWilliams doesn't become the starter). I would have dropped Leonard and used the slot at another position.

WRs - Too weak as a group for my taste. No real studs and the best WR is ranked about WR20. Agree with selection of 8 WRs, but half of them (Battle, Williamson, Bowe and White) are very weak IMO.

TEs - Like Watson and Scaife as solid values but neither may be a top-10 TE this year -- and how can you pass up EJohnson for $1 -- I'd add him and drop Leonard.

Kickers and defenses - fine.

Summary - Strong team overall, but I think you're vulnerable with (1) the weak group of WRs and (2) lack of depth/strength at the TE position. This format is similar to WCOFF, with the slight modification of different pts for receptions for RBs, WRs and TEs. In a WCOFF format, you usually need a very strong and deep WR corps to be successful.

Every week, you need to cover 2 RB scorers, 3 WR scorers, TE scorer, and Flex scorer. The Flex position is the key component of this contest IMO, and you need a well-defined strategy to get solid pts from the Flex position each and every week which is the purpose of having a deep and strong WR corps. You need to assemble a team of "solid investments" -- players that will out-produce the $'s you invest in them (like value players who will outperform their draft position). IMO the key to success is a focus on "value" and "diversification."

 
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
Now I'm curious to see the roster of the guy with 11 WR's.
 
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
I'm not sure what is crazier, the 2% of folks who have 3 WRs or the 1% of folks who have 11 WRs.
 
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
:goodposting: 7 placekickers
 
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
hey...Im in that 1% with 11 WR's!Never thought about pumping up the TD or PK positions, but I think this may not have been a bad idea either. I went WR heavy due to having a lot of low cost guys who will likely have a few good weeks and several non-productive weeks, hoping at least 3 of them hit at any week.
 
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
I'm not sure what is crazier, the 2% of folks who have 3 WRs or the 1% of folks who have 11 WRs.
Here's my 11 WR version...note a LOT of similarities to the Dodd's roster. I pretty much followed his logic all the way, with some tweaks. Peyton won't get hurt (dooh...now I'm screwed), so a 2QB lineup seems safe, and not overly expensive this way either. 3 decent RB's should hold up too.Ind 6 Peyton Manning 31Jac 4 David Garrard 2NO 4 Bush Reggie 45Bal 8 McGahee Willis 29Min 5 Peterson Adrian 23Buf 6 Evans Lee 29Pit 6 Holmes Santonio 14Chi 9 Berrian Bernard 16Oak 5 Curry Ronald 8NE 10 Welker Wes 3Bal 8 Williams Demetrius 3Hou 10 Jones Jacoby 2Atl 8 White Roddy 3NYG 9 Toomer Amani 3Jac 4 Northcutt Dennis 1Hou 10 Walter Kevin 1Cle 7 Winslow Jr Kellen 24NO 4 Johnson Eric 1Ari 8 Rackers Neil 2Car 7 Kasay John 1Chi 9 Bears 8Ari 8 Cardinals 1BTW, it was 2 years ago I posted results realtime during games, last year FBG never made the roster files available to outsiders. I had one in process for the finals (lots of cut and paste), but never had the time to finish it.
 
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
I'm in the highest % for every position. "C" student.
 
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
Is it safe to assume a "0" as opposed to an "empty slot" implies at least someone (<1%) picked that many at a position? WTF is up with anyone picking 12 of anything? My 11WR seemed a but heavy but at least I can use 3 or even 4 of them on any week...
 
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
I'm in the highest % for every position. "C" student.
Wouldn't that give you only 21 players? Or am I missing something?
 
- Studs are overvalued in a best ball format. People look at LT carrying teams last year, but that was an aberration -- no stud, not even LT, can be expected to put up the kind of numbers that LT did on a week-to-week. Depth is the key, and you can only get depth without blowing the budget on studs.
How's this for an aberration? The first time FBG ran the contest with this type of setup, the winner paid big bucks for the #1 RB--LT. We know what happened last year, which was the second time they did it. Sounds more like a pattern than an aberration to me.Edit to add Link to article on first contest.
Twice in four years is a pattern? :yes: Besides, the #1 RB in 2003 was Priest Holmes, not LT.

 
The QB line shows that peoples' QB spending ranged from $1 to $231. The numbers in between are the 20th, 40th, 60th, and 80th percentiles for expenditures at that position. E.g. 40% of all rosters spent $31 or less at QB. 60% spent $35 or less. Etc.

Code:
min  20   40   60   80  max==================================qb	 1   26   31   35   41  231rb	 2   87   98  107  118  227wr	 5   64   75   85   95  161te	 1   11   16   21   28   83pk	 1	3	4	5	7   46td	 1	5	7	9   11   60
 
- Studs are overvalued in a best ball format. People look at LT carrying teams last year, but that was an aberration -- no stud, not even LT, can be expected to put up the kind of numbers that LT did on a week-to-week. Depth is the key, and you can only get depth without blowing the budget on studs.
How's this for an aberration? The first time FBG ran the contest with this type of setup, the winner paid big bucks for the #1 RB--LT. We know what happened last year, which was the second time they did it. Sounds more like a pattern than an aberration to me.Edit to add Link to article on first contest.
Twice in four years is a pattern? :goodposting: Besides, the #1 RB in 2003 was Priest Holmes, not LT.
Don't sweat it! I agree with your assement 100%. The people ripping you are just sore that they were not smart enough to figure it out. BTW, I used almost the same strategy. See you in the playoffs!
 
- Studs are overvalued in a best ball format. People look at LT carrying teams last year, but that was an aberration -- no stud, not even LT, can be expected to put up the kind of numbers that LT did on a week-to-week. Depth is the key, and you can only get depth without blowing the budget on studs.
How's this for an aberration? The first time FBG ran the contest with this type of setup, the winner paid big bucks for the #1 RB--LT. We know what happened last year, which was the second time they did it. Sounds more like a pattern than an aberration to me.Edit to add Link to article on first contest.
Twice in four years is a pattern? :yes: Besides, the #1 RB in 2003 was Priest Holmes, not LT.
It is if (as is the case) they ran the contest differently in between. As for who was #1, I'll trust the guy who wrote the article about how he won:
because I added the number 1 RB
 
Disagree that studs are always "overvalued." Every year, one or more studs have huge years. If you're lucky enough to pick the right one, they can carry your team and are well worth the investment. The problem, of course, is picking the right one that provides good value for a very large investment of dollars.
Driver, thanks for the commentary. I don't disagree with this statement, but the reason I see studs as overvalued is because they are just as risky as low-cost players, but with a fixed salary cap, the price you pay forecloses opportunities to address this risk.
- Maximum of two defenses. And cheap defenses at that. With no scoring based on yardage and points allowed (except for shutouts, which are rare and generally random), they just don't score enough to be worth spending a lot of cap dollars.
Disagree. Defenses can score more than 20 pts which can keep you from getting eliminated.
Any position can score more than 20 pts. And more to the point, any defense (even the $1 defense) can score 20 pts. But you're wasting a roster spot just to chase one or two weeks of good scores from the third defense.
- Maxmium of two TEs. Don't be fooled by 1.5 per reception. There will still be only a dozen TEs that average 10 ppg, while there will be 40 WRs at that level. If you have two decent TEs, save the roster spots for WR (see below)
Disagree. If a TE scores a TD, along with 6 receptions and 60 yards, they score 21 total pts which is well above what you need, on average, from the TE or Flex position. With E. Johnson at $1, I thought he was a great pick for a 3rd TE who could be one of your high scorers for 4-5 weeks.
I am not a fan of Eric Johnson this year, but that's another thread. The problem is that a low end TE will average 20-250-2, with upside of 30-400-4. A low end WR will average 30-400-2 with upside of 45-600-5. The extra 0.5 points per reception isn't enough to make up the difference.
JMO - Critique of team:QBs - Strong combo, but I think you could have gotten almost as strong a combo by spending $8-10 less, as described above.
I don't think that any of the combos in your post were particularly strong, personally. I prefer to have at least one top-five QB and a second top-ten QB. Your combos tended toward one top-ten and a second top-fifteen QB
RBs - Strong group with the top 3 RBs and Foster's a great value IMO (assuming he doesn't get injured or DWilliams doesn't become the starter). I would have dropped Leonard and used the slot at another position.
Leonard was a late add -- I originally had Betts plus Dunn and switched to Peterson plus Leonard. 4 RB seems a little thin considering that 2 RB plus a flex can score, but I see your point.
WRs - Too weak as a group for my taste. No real studs and the best WR is ranked about WR20. Agree with selection of 8 WRs, but half of them (Battle, Williamson, Bowe and White) are very weak IMO.
You can't be strong everywhere -- I chose to be stronger at QB and RB. You suggested saving $8 or so at the QB position -- would that have made a real difference in this WR corps?
 
I admire your team in the spirit of winning through depth. As noted in subscriber content such as Drinin's Perfect Auction, the path to victory can be obtained equally as often with a studs approach, and it comes down to preferences and value available in the draft pool, whether studs or "depth" laden.
I don't think the Perfect Auction article applied to "best ball" contests. That's a huge change compared to most ff leagues.
 
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
:shrug: 7 placekickers
I didn't do it, but it's not an outrageous strategy. You're relying on a few premium players in your other positions but you're looking for some value for several 1 and two dollar picks. With 2 DT's that only leaves 13 spots to cover 7 positions plus 4 to cover the bye week unless you're willing to take a zero. It gives you about $8 more per player to spend but all your remaining players need to be good every week, and It's not like $20 a man allows you to load up on top shelf talent. It's Doable, though
 
I made it much further than I expected last year. I changed this thing so many times, I actually suprised myself with who I had when I went back in an looked at it after it was locked. I got screwed on defense last year, so was not letting it take me out again this year.

QB - Drew Brees - 21

QB - Matt Schaub - 10

RB - Joseph Addai - 46

RB - Ahman Green - 23

RB - DeShaun Foster - 13

RB - Warrick Dunn - 12

RB - Adrian Peterson - 4

RB - Dominic Rhodes - 3

WR - Andre Johnson - 33

WR - Darrell Jackson - 15

WR - Santonio Holmes - 14

WR - Devery Henderson - 9

WR - Ronald Curry - 8

WR - Ernest Wilford - 3

WR - Jacoby Jones - 2

WR - Antwaan Randle El - 2

TE - Alge Crumpler - 17

TE - Eric Johnson - 1

PK - Shayne Graham - 4

PK - Josh Scobee - 3

TD - Jacksonville Jaguars - 4

TD - Dallas Cowboys - 3

 
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
:blackdot: 7 placekickers
I didn't do it, but it's not an outrageous strategy. You're relying on a few premium players in your other positions but you're looking for some value for several 1 and two dollar picks. With 2 DT's that only leaves 13 spots to cover 7 positions plus 4 to cover the bye week unless you're willing to take a zero. It gives you about $8 more per player to spend but all your remaining players need to be good every week, and It's not like $20 a man allows you to load up on top shelf talent. It's Doable, though
I'm not sure where the exact point of dimenishing return is, but it's definately south of 7 placekickers.
 
The QB line shows that peoples' QB spending ranged from $1 to $231. The numbers in between are the 20th, 40th, 60th, and 80th percentiles for expenditures at that position. E.g. 40% of all rosters spent $31 or less at QB. 60% spent $35 or less. Etc.

Code:
min  20   40   60   80  max ================================== qb	 1   26   31   35   41  231 rb	 2   87   98  107  118  227 wr	 5   64   75   85   95  161 te	 1   11   16   21   28   83 pk	 1	3	4	5	7   46 td	 1	5	7	9   11   60
I'm pretty anxious to see the guy who's going to be cut on the first cut who spent $231 on QB. Leaving him an avg. of $2.11 for the other required 9 starters (2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 TD, and 1 Flex).Outstanding strategy. I guess $20K wasn't enough incentive to actually try to field a legitimate team.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
I'm not sure what is crazier, the 2% of folks who have 3 WRs or the 1% of folks who have 11 WRs.
I am one of the 10 WR teams:QB - Peyton Manning - 31QB - Brett Favre - 14RB - LaDainian Tomlinson - 70RB - Adrian Peterson - 23RB - Marion Barber III - 22RB - Ladell Betts - 14WR - Bernard Berrian - 16WR - Santonio Holmes - 14WR - Arnaz Battle - 5WR - Craig Davis - 5WR - Bobby Wade - 5WR - Eric Moulds - 5WR - Wes Welker - 3WR - Amani Toomer - 3WR - Patrick Crayton - 3WR - Jacoby Jones - 2TE - Eric Johnson - 1TE - Alex Smith - 1PK - Jay Feely - 1PK - Nick Folk - 1TD - Chicago Bears - 8TD - Dallas Cowboys - 3Like a few others I am hoping to hit on a few WR flyers - but you notice they are no $1 recievers. Looking at the list now and I wish I would have had one more stud RB - but hopefully A. Peterson will rise to the ocassion - he is one player I haven't seen on many teams which will separate my roster.
 
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
I'm in the highest % for every position. "C" student.
It's just a ploy to motivate the Bell Curve.
 
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12 ======================================================= qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0 rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0 wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0 te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0 pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0 td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
:goodposting: 7 placekickers
I didn't do it, but it's not an outrageous strategy. You're relying on a few premium players in your other positions but you're looking for some value for several 1 and two dollar picks. With 2 DT's that only leaves 13 spots to cover 7 positions plus 4 to cover the bye week unless you're willing to take a zero. It gives you about $8 more per player to spend but all your remaining players need to be good every week, and It's not like $20 a man allows you to load up on top shelf talent. It's Doable, though
I'm not sure where the exact point of dimenishing return is, but it's definately south of 7 placekickers.
I agree with this.If you're just trying to get to 22 players and need $1, you should be getting D's and a few RBs or WRs that are cheap, even a TE.>3 kickers seems excessive.I think it is interesting how many went with 3 QBs. I may be gambling with 2, but I took 2 that have very good December schedules, and that's where this contest would be decided (TB, CIN).
 
Agree. With 6 pts per passing TD, QBs are the highest scoring position. I think you need 3 QBs on your team. For $32 or $33, you could have gotten (1) Brees/Campbell/Garrard, (2) Kitna/Schaub/Garrard, (3) Roethlisberger/A Smith/Garrard, (4) Cutler/Hasselbeck/Garrard, or (5) Young/Garrard and either E Manning, Favre or Leinart -- all strong combinations IMO.
I agree, but there a lot of teams taking only 2 QB's. QB's are too important in this to rely on one Stud and one OK backup. Even Stud QB's will have 3-4 low production games plus a bye week. Manning is the only stud that is consistently reliable that I would even consider having only 1 backup for. I'll say this right now, the winner will have more than 2 QB's on his roster.
 
aardball44 said:
This is the percentage of rosters that had the given number of players at each position. E.g. 59% of all rosters have exactly two TEs.

Code:
0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12=======================================================qb		2  35  49  11   2   1   0   0   0   0   0   0rb			3  10  25  35  21   5   1   0   0   0   0wr				2   3   8  22  30  20  10   3   1   0te	   10  59  27   4   0   0   0	   0   0   0pk		5  57  25   6   3   1   1   0   0   0   0   0td		7  61  24   5   2   1   0   0   0   0	   0
more later...
I'm in the highest % for every position. "C" student.
It's just a ploy to motivate the Bell Curve.
:blackdot: Well done.
 
Jeff Pasquino said:
I think it is interesting how many went with 3 QBs. I may be gambling with 2, but I took 2 that have very good December schedules, and that's where this contest would be decided (TB, CIN).
I think the lesson learned from last year would be the losses of Simms, TGreen, McNabb, Warner, etc. to injury. There were many teams walking dead last year with no QB left on their roster. I recall many teams with 3 QBs and all of them listed as OUT for multiple weeks.
 
Jeff Pasquino said:
I think it is interesting how many went with 3 QBs. I may be gambling with 2, but I took 2 that have very good December schedules, and that's where this contest would be decided (TB, CIN).
I think the lesson learned from last year would be the losses of Simms, TGreen, McNabb, Warner, etc. to injury. There were many teams walking dead last year with no QB left on their roster. I recall many teams with 3 QBs and all of them listed as OUT for multiple weeks.
Yep, I had Simms and Warner to back up Palmer, and I didn't make it past Palmer's bye week with both of those back-ups out of action by then.
 
The QB line shows that peoples' QB spending ranged from $1 to $231. The numbers in between are the 20th, 40th, 60th, and 80th percentiles for expenditures at that position. E.g. 40% of all rosters spent $31 or less at QB. 60% spent $35 or less. Etc.

Code:
min  20   40   60   80  max==================================qb	 1   26   31   35   41  231rb	 2   87   98  107  118  227wr	 5   64   75   85   95  161te	 1   11   16   21   28   83pk	 1	3	4	5	7   46td	 1	5	7	9   11   60
Is this saying that there's a team that spent $231 on QBs? I'm guessing its the team that is carrying 6 QBs and they just took the top 6? Why would anyone even consider doing this?
 
QB - Drew Brees - 21

QB - Matt Leinart - 14

QB - David Garrard - 2

RB - Willie Parker - 44

RB - Adrian Peterson - 23

RB - Fred Taylor - 17

RB - Ladell Betts - 14

RB - Adrian Peterson - 4

RB - Tony Hunt - 1

WR - Roy Williams - 36

WR - Braylon Edwards - 28

WR - Bernard Berrian - 16

WR - Devery Henderson - 9

WR - Anthony Gonzalez - 3

WR - Chris Henry - 2

WR - Dennis Northcutt - 1

TE - Marcus Pollard - 8

TE - Eric Johnson - 1

PK - Rian Lindell - 1

PK - Ryan Longwell - 1

TD - Washington Redskins - 2

TD - San Francisco 49ers - 2

I just looked for value across the board.

;)

Maybe in hindsight I would have taken another K or DEF instead of Tony Hunt.

 
QB - Peyton Manning - 31

QB - Matt Leinart - 14

RB - Deuce McAllister - 23

RB - Ahman Green - 23

RB - Adrian Peterson - 23

RB - Cadillac Williams - 21

WR - Roy Williams - 36

WR - Javon Walker - 35

WR - Wes Welker - 3

WR - Patrick Crayton - 3

WR - Jacoby Jones - 2

WR - Chris Henry - 2

TE - Randy McMichael - 11

TE - Bo Scaife - 9

TE - Daniel Graham - 7

PK - Kris Brown - 1

PK - Jay Feely - 1

PK - Billy Cundiff - 1

TD - Cleveland Browns - 1

TD - Arizona Cardinals - 1

TD - Tennessee Titans - 1

TD - Houston Texans - 1

Didn't put a whole lot of thought into it. We'll see how it goes.

 
QB - Drew Brees (4) - $21

QB - Joey Harrington (8) - $6

QB - David Garrard (4) - $2

RB - Laurence Maroney (10) - $38

RB - Edgerrin James (8) - $29

RB - Adrian Peterson (5) - $23

RB - Anthony Thomas (6) - $4

RB - Dominic Rhodes (5) - $3

RB - Sammy Morris (10) - $3

WR - Marques Colston (4) - $27

WR - Calvin Johnson (6) - $23

WR - Santonio Holmes (6) - $14

WR - Devery Henderson (4) - $9

WR - Ronald Curry (5) - $8

WR - Wes Welker (10) - $3

WR - Jacoby Jones (10) - $2

TE - Jason Witten (8) - $19

TE - Daniel Graham (6) - $7

PK - Jason Hanson (6) - $2

PK - Nick Folk (8) - $1

TD - Green Bay Packers (7) - $3

TD - Dallas Cowboys (8) - $3

 
QB - Marc Bulger - 23

QB - Jake Delhomme - 13

QB - David Garrard - 2

RB - Steven Jackson - 60

RB - Reggie Bush - 45

RB - DeShaun Foster - 13

RB - Anthony Thomas - 4

RB - Tony Hunt - 1

WR - D.J. Hackett - 16

WR - Isaac Bruce - 15

WR - Santonio Holmes - 14

WR - Devery Henderson - 9

WR - Arnaz Battle - 5

WR - Wes Welker - 3

WR - Jacoby Jones - 2

TE - Daniel Graham - 7

TE - Michael Gaines - 2

TE - Eric Johnson - 1

PK - Jeff Wilkins - 3

PK - Jason Elam - 3

TD - Chicago Bears - 8

TD - Houston Texans - 1

Total value: 250

Go to the contest entry form

 
I admire your team in the spirit of winning through depth. As noted in subscriber content such as Drinin's Perfect Auction, the path to victory can be obtained equally as often with a studs approach, and it comes down to preferences and value available in the draft pool, whether studs or "depth" laden.
I don't think the Perfect Auction article applied to "best ball" contests. That's a huge change compared to most ff leagues.
Where does one draw the line? Are 10 $7 RBs better than LT? How about two $35 RBs? I suppose I could search the archives for best ball tactics, but I'm too lazy.
 
I admire your team in the spirit of winning through depth. As noted in subscriber content such as Drinin's Perfect Auction, the path to victory can be obtained equally as often with a studs approach, and it comes down to preferences and value available in the draft pool, whether studs or "depth" laden.
I don't think the Perfect Auction article applied to "best ball" contests. That's a huge change compared to most ff leagues.
Where does one draw the line? Are 10 $7 RBs better than LT? How about two $35 RBs? I suppose I could search the archives for best ball tactics, but I'm too lazy.
If you do the math, you can prove that 7 WRs that give you 5 good games is only about 7% worse than having 4 WRs that give you 9 good games.That's one performance / week comparatively speaking - so if you think about what a "5 good week" WR would cost vs. a "9 week", you can get the idea.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top