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!
Footballguys Subscriber Contest is LIVE (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Shaunz33
- Start date
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Have you looked at BurntSushi on github? Its not maintained anymore so I'd GUESS its comments about getting live scoring may no longer be valid...but wanted to mention it.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
All done. No more comparison reviews leading to one edit that turns into six changes. I am watching a couple of injury/Covid reports and could swap out one or two based on bad news there.
QB - three at a total cost of $24 Going Cheap here this year
RB - five at a total cost of $80 with two of my highest price players here
WR - seven at a total cost of $90 - always go deep WR rosters and seems this year we should all add depth here, but I just can't seem to find lower cost options that I like
TE - three at a total cost of $37
PK - three at a total cost of $8
DST - four at a total cost of $11 - spending more here than typical which like my WRs seems backwards
Reviewing bye weeks, most players off in weeks 6 ($54) and 8 ($34). Most bye week cost is week 6, with week 10 second at $48 and no other week more than $34. Wondering how many entries for this year. Seems like last year was quite a few less than normal and suspect that with this year's Covid and no pre-season games, there could be less again. Good luck everyone that contributes to this thread.
QB - three at a total cost of $24 Going Cheap here this year
RB - five at a total cost of $80 with two of my highest price players here
WR - seven at a total cost of $90 - always go deep WR rosters and seems this year we should all add depth here, but I just can't seem to find lower cost options that I like
TE - three at a total cost of $37
PK - three at a total cost of $8
DST - four at a total cost of $11 - spending more here than typical which like my WRs seems backwards
Reviewing bye weeks, most players off in weeks 6 ($54) and 8 ($34). Most bye week cost is week 6, with week 10 second at $48 and no other week more than $34. Wondering how many entries for this year. Seems like last year was quite a few less than normal and suspect that with this year's Covid and no pre-season games, there could be less again. Good luck everyone that contributes to this thread.
apalmer
Footballguy
I'm done, too (of course, that probably means I'll only make about 15 more changes between now and the deadline). My largest roster ever in the contest at 27. Part of that is Covid and wanting extra coverage, and part is the lack of preseason so that I haven't been able to form any firm opinions on guys, so it's more like tossing darts where I can't see the target. In the past, I've always had one or two elite guys and built around them, but opted out of that strategy this year and spread the wealth a little more. My "final" roster:
4 QBs @ $27
5 RBs @ $87 (including my 2 most expensive guys)
9 Wrs @ $84
3 TEs @ $ 38
3 Ks @ $8
3 Ds @ $6
The only position with internal bye conflicts is WR (can't have that many and not have some conflicts), but those conflicts don't involve high-cost guys. My biggest concern is Week 6 where both one of my top RBs and one of my top TEs have byes, but I'll have 8 active WRs (including my top 6), so hopefully they'll cover both flex positions (plus, it's relatively early in the cuts, although that's less of an advantage this year with deeper cuts the whole way through than in past years).
4 QBs @ $27
5 RBs @ $87 (including my 2 most expensive guys)
9 Wrs @ $84
3 TEs @ $ 38
3 Ks @ $8
3 Ds @ $6
The only position with internal bye conflicts is WR (can't have that many and not have some conflicts), but those conflicts don't involve high-cost guys. My biggest concern is Week 6 where both one of my top RBs and one of my top TEs have byes, but I'll have 8 active WRs (including my top 6), so hopefully they'll cover both flex positions (plus, it's relatively early in the cuts, although that's less of an advantage this year with deeper cuts the whole way through than in past years).
Last edited by a moderator:
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Agree or Disagree:
Above $20, there are only 3 WRs worth taking, and one of them is Michael Thomas.
Above $20, there are only 3 WRs worth taking, and one of them is Michael Thomas.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Ohhhhhh, lemme try to figure out who you think are the other 2. Should be fun.
I assume I can automatically cross Godwin, Evans, and Moore off the list? For the obvious reason.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Agreed, that's why I ain't touching CMC with a 13 foot pole, but Brady does interest me
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
barackdhouse
Footballguy
barackdhouse
Footballguy
apalmer
Footballguy
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Nuk and Adams are technically correct, but if you're going to spend $28 or $31 why not just spend $33 and have the best?
barackdhouse
Footballguy
barackdhouse
Footballguy
I have to assume Davante, as the next best WR is only $7 (Lazard), and no stud at TE.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
At the moment I think Thomas, Thielen and Ridley are the most interesting in the top 16. I was exaggerating re: 248 targets for Thielen.
I would consider Thomas, Adams, Julio, Smith-Simon-Schuster Publishing House, Brown, Thielen and Ridley.
I have no interest in Hill, Nuk, Week 13 byes, Golloday, Robinson, Moore, Cooper or Beckham.
I would consider Thomas, Adams, Julio, Smith-Simon-Schuster Publishing House, Brown, Thielen and Ridley.
I have no interest in Hill, Nuk, Week 13 byes, Golloday, Robinson, Moore, Cooper or Beckham.
H8fulHuck
Footballguy
My guess is Thomas, JJSS and Thielen as the 3 $21 plus players referenced.
If true, going to disagree and say Adams belongs especially with a week 5 bye. He is the #1 WR on my FF board. Question is can we fit him in the roster with so many lower priced value plays. This year more than others makes quantity over quality a priority.
If true, going to disagree and say Adams belongs especially with a week 5 bye. He is the #1 WR on my FF board. Question is can we fit him in the roster with so many lower priced value plays. This year more than others makes quantity over quality a priority.
Data is complete for 2019. Every year it seems a few kickers are wasted money and a few miss time, and last year was no exception. Only 23 kickers offered in the contest played the entire season. Can't really predict injuries to kickers, but you can try to guess which ones will keep their jobs. Let's get to the real question - are expensive kickers worth it in this contest? I prepared a bunch of stats, but decided just to post some basic thoughts instead. It's only one season, and I plan on going back farther. For now, a few thoughts...
- For the love of God, check your submission right before the deadline! It's amazing how many rosters were carrying kickers who had already lost their jobs.
- The top priced kickers may get injured, but they don't lose their jobs to suckage.
- I would be more willing to roster expensive kickers over expensive defenses, but as long as cheap kickers keep their jobs, odds are 2 will outscore 1.
- Kickers score more than defenses. In 2019, the 23 kickers who played the entire season averaged 121 points, while D's averaged 95 points.
- All kickers in 2019 ranged from $3 to $7, making no trio of kickers equal to the price of 1 kicker.
If you have specific questions about last year's numbers, just ask. Let's see how 2018 plays out...
2018 was a great year for the cheapest kickers, but not necessarily for kickers in general. Only 19 kickers offered made it through the entire season without missing a game due to injury, or getting cut. Also, since there were $2 options, 2018 allowed you to roster 3 for the price of 1. Gostkowski, Tucker, and Zuerlein were the top priced at $6 each. All 3 kickers did very good, but Zuerlein missed weeks 2 thru 6. Tucker scored 154.2 (4th) and Gostkowski scored 136.9 (8th), but they were no match for a trio of $2 kickers. There were only 5 kickers for $2, but 4 of them played the entire season. If you were lucky enough to choose Fairbairn/Rosas/Sanders for $6, you would've scored 219.8 points. Heck, even if you missed out on Fairbairn (who finished #1 overall), you still would've scored 195.6 with the trio of Rosas/Parkey/Sanders.
I will continue going back more years, but I think it's safe to say that just about any trio of kickers (as long as they don't lose their jobs) cannot be beat by a single kicker.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
For Adams, I have some hesitation due to the talking heads constantly referencing the new coaching regime wanting to structurally migrate the GB offense away from west coast derivative to more reliance on the run. In short, they don't need or want Rodgers and yesterday's Rodgers / Adams connection isn't worth what it used to be...so I can't imagine taking Adams over Thomas.
For JJSS, there seems to be a desire to assume that last year was an aberration which prevented the natural assention of JJSS to Brown level production, which is conceivable but I'm more from the show me state on that. For now, I'd rather have Ben and/or Connor and/or Dionte for exposure to the Steelers.
There is some risk around Thielen and Ridley too, for different reasons (Vikings offense anemia and market share, respectively, but basically I'm a believer in both players.
Julio may be due for a big year...but I'd rather have exposure to Ridley and/or Hurst...been burned before based on cost.
Brown's output was amazing for Tenn last year, and he may repeat, I'm probably over-relying on the "known commodity" re: deprecating Brown.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
My roster crisis du jour is I've been migrating away from 24-25 players to 20-21 players in recent iterations....this is a classic problem in the brief period after roster cuts and injury news stabilization, but particularly unnerving with the new Covid dynamic. I'm pretty uncomfortable with the "to heck with everyone else, 20 players is fine" rationalizing I've been doing lately.
Stray Doug
Footballguy
I'm particularly interested in the expected return and/or weekly variance of rostering 2 vs 3 vs 4 cheapies at the position.
Same deal on Defense. I'm already sold and intuitively assumed that multiple cheap ($2-$4) options was the way to go... I believe I have always had multiple Ks and Ds in that range. But I'm less certain the marginal value of the 3rd vs. the 4th cheapie at those positions. I tend to try for at least 3 Ks due to injury/getting cut concerns, but sometimes will only go with 2 Ds because I feel I need those extra few bucks more to add/upgrade a player at as skill position... just curious how much I'm giving up or can gain by having one more.
OK, this contest is addicting in the last week before the season and I revisited and made a change, partially on the last cut news and partially on doing some research on one particular player. Dropping the one player resulted in three changes and I have updated the below to reflect those likely final changes.
QB - three at a total cost of $24 Going Cheap here this year
RB - five at a total cost of $83 with two of my highest price players here
WR - seven at a total cost of $89 - always go deep WR rosters and seems this year we should all add depth here, but I just can't seem to find lower cost options that I like
TE - three at a total cost of $37
PK - three at a total cost of $8
DST - three at a total cost of $9
I really like the idea of a larger roster in general and particularly this season, but am going more with the "all-in" approach with the value players that I have the strongest opinions on. This is definitely going to be an interesting season and a very interesting version of this contest.
Let's go!
H8fulHuck
Footballguy
Spot on evaluation. It’s like you read my mind with Ridley comment. Was between him and JJSS for the third choice. PIT has many mouths to feed and everyone loves the shiny new toys, but JJ is the man as long as he and Ben are healthy.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
It almost seems like it’d be difficult to have no studs with only 23.
i have 26 with 3 upper tier guys. Guess it depends what you consider a stud. For me it’s anything over $20
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
I agree that everyone in Pittsburgh WANTS JJSS to be the man, and most are assuming that he WILL be the man, I'd just prefer to see it first at his valuation, even if it means I miss out.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
Just to mess with you, go look at FBG or any other projections source, and compare what $22 ish versus $30 ish gets you at both RB and WR position.
Its worlds apart. Which is what makes this all so %#$@^% difficult.
Edited to add: I'm resigned to my WR1 and WR2 being in the $17 - $23 range and having RB1 and RB2 in the $30 range....my real final conflict is wanted to shoe-horn in 3 top notch RBs and 2 top notch TEs without collapsing the roster to ~21 heads.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I’ve seen them. I’ve also looked at my own projections. Some of FBG I agree with, some I don’t. That’s where you can make your bones in this contest - if a $22 guy outperforms that $30 guy you get him+ $10 guy = win.
Not that I’ve won - last year was my first playing. But IMO, that’s one way to gain a leg up.
it’s an incredibly difficult contest regardless, but the more concentrated your budget in few players, the harder I think it would be to win in a best ball format where diversification seems to be key.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
To add to my last post, I think you also need to budget at least a few studs, because performance also matters.
It’s hard to win with 30 scrubs, just like it’s hard to win with 18 studs.
It’s hard to win with 30 scrubs, just like it’s hard to win with 18 studs.
Before I ramble on, let me just say... CONGRATULATIONS!!! Folks, Doug finished in 2nd place last year - give him a round of applause
Still working on K's, but the D file is on it's way to you. I also am completely sold on the cheap D and K theories (even moreso with D, because an entire D can't get injured or cut). As for exactly how many you need of each, that's still up for debate. Just like you, I tend to end up with 3 K's and 2 D's, but wouldn't mind another D. I don't think I could ever roster just 2 cheap K's and feel good about it.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Stray Doug
Footballguy
Thanks guys, and thanks Winz for the file. I looked at defense for 2016-2019 because conveniently there were exactly 4 at the lowest price each year ($3 last year, $2 the years before) making my spreadsheet math easier. In 2015 there were 7 Ds @ $3 which makes for many more possible combinations.
So for the past 4 years, if you picked 1 of the cheapest Ds at random, you'd average 5.6 ppw. If you picked 2 at random, the average is 7.3 ppw (+1.7), picking 3 at random is 9.5 ppw (+2.2), and all 4 yields 10.6 ppw (+1.1 ppw).
Interesting that the 3rd D adds more expected return than the 2nd D does. Notably this appears to because you're raising your floor moreso than increasing your ceiling... there's always at least one terrible low-scoring cheap D (2019 CIN, 2018 OAK, 2017 CLE & SF, 2016 CLE), and if you pick a dud then you're very reliant on that second D... whereas if you pick 3 then odds are you've got at least 2 decent or strong performers to score each week (in addition your dud).
2019 Worst Duo = 7.5 ppw, Worst Trio = 9.9 ppw (+2.4 floor)
2019 Best Duo = 11.8 ppw, Best Trio = 12.4 ppw (+0.6 ceiling)
2018 Worst Duo = 6.6 ppw, Worst Trio = 8.1 ppw (+1.5 floor)
2018 Best Duo = 8.8 ppw, Best Trio = 9.5 ppw (+0.8 ceiling)
2017 Worst Duo = 5.4 ppw, Worst Trio = 8.3 ppw (+2.9 floor)
2017 Best Duo = 10.5 ppw, Best Trio = 11.0 ppw (+0.5 ceiling)
2016 Worst Duo = 5.3 ppw, Worst Trio = 6.8 ppw (+1.4 floor)
2016 Best Duo = 6.8 ppw, Best Trio = 7.9 ppw (+0.2 ceiling)
The question of 2 vs. 3 cheapie Ds then becomes if you think you can "avoid the dud(s)" with your first two Ds, in which case the marginal value of a 3rd D is reduced... and also weighing that against the opportunity cost of a few extra bucks elsewhere in your lineup.
So for the past 4 years, if you picked 1 of the cheapest Ds at random, you'd average 5.6 ppw. If you picked 2 at random, the average is 7.3 ppw (+1.7), picking 3 at random is 9.5 ppw (+2.2), and all 4 yields 10.6 ppw (+1.1 ppw).
Interesting that the 3rd D adds more expected return than the 2nd D does. Notably this appears to because you're raising your floor moreso than increasing your ceiling... there's always at least one terrible low-scoring cheap D (2019 CIN, 2018 OAK, 2017 CLE & SF, 2016 CLE), and if you pick a dud then you're very reliant on that second D... whereas if you pick 3 then odds are you've got at least 2 decent or strong performers to score each week (in addition your dud).
2019 Worst Duo = 7.5 ppw, Worst Trio = 9.9 ppw (+2.4 floor)
2019 Best Duo = 11.8 ppw, Best Trio = 12.4 ppw (+0.6 ceiling)
2018 Worst Duo = 6.6 ppw, Worst Trio = 8.1 ppw (+1.5 floor)
2018 Best Duo = 8.8 ppw, Best Trio = 9.5 ppw (+0.8 ceiling)
2017 Worst Duo = 5.4 ppw, Worst Trio = 8.3 ppw (+2.9 floor)
2017 Best Duo = 10.5 ppw, Best Trio = 11.0 ppw (+0.5 ceiling)
2016 Worst Duo = 5.3 ppw, Worst Trio = 6.8 ppw (+1.4 floor)
2016 Best Duo = 6.8 ppw, Best Trio = 7.9 ppw (+0.2 ceiling)
The question of 2 vs. 3 cheapie Ds then becomes if you think you can "avoid the dud(s)" with your first two Ds, in which case the marginal value of a 3rd D is reduced... and also weighing that against the opportunity cost of a few extra bucks elsewhere in your lineup.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Dammit I lied. I just cut down to 24, having talked myself into another (reasonably priced) stud. Had to sacrifice one lottery ticket & downgrade 2/3 kickers to do it, but I like my final team. Would have preferred 26, but it is what it is.
You need diversity to get to the promised land, but I think you need a couple studs to get that push once you get there.
You need diversity to get to the promised land, but I think you need a couple studs to get that push once you get there.
Very nice. Yes, every year there seems to be at least 1 cheapie D that kicks butt. Last year it was both SF & TB. The duo finished 3rd & 4th overall. In 2018 it was MIA (tied for 5th, while 2017 & 2016 saw 4th place finishes for DET & SD.
