***Official*** 2011 FBG Subscriber Contest Thread (1 Viewer)

[steelerfan1]

1rst year in this. Hoping for the best.

Team McLovin

P. Rivers

C. McCoy

M. Forte

C. Wells

T. Hightower

R. Helu

M. Barber

L. Stepens-Howling

V. Jackson

M. Wallace

M. Williams (TB)

M. Manningham

D. Amendola

D. Moore

J. Graham

A. Hernandez

L. Kendricks

D. Carpenter

R. Lindell

J. Feely

Browns

Cardinals

Bills

$250

 

[Saint]

Last year we debated a definition of a "junk" entry. I don't think there's any definitive criteria, but I suggested that any roster that is taking a guaranteed zero at a position in any week qualifies (e.g. if you only rostered 2 RBs, then you'll be taking a zero at RB when each of them is on bye). It's not a perfect definition but I think it's a start.With that in mind, here are the number of entries that are taking a guaranteed zero at some position at some point this year:

Size	Count	Percent18	1043	29.2%19	267	19.2%20	117	11.0%21	76	9.1%22	43	5.6%23	35	5.5%24	18	3.3%25	5	1.3%26	10	2.4%27	12	4.1%28	7	2.6%29	3	1.4%30	15	4.0%

So basically 30% of 18-man rosters are going to be shorthanded at least once this season. Note that I didn't account for byes here, I was just looking for teams that had fewer than the absolute minimum required at a position (2 QB, 3 RB, etc). So surely the numbers are greater than what I presented here, since there might be a team that, for example, has 4 RBs but three of them are on bye the same week. My query wouldn't have counted that team even though they would fall under this definition of "junk" entries.

4% of 30 man rosters still have a spot where they can't fill the required starters... I think these entries are 20 kicker guy and $232 QB guy.

 

[ffrookie]

Attempting this for the second year. Last year I went with 18 players which was too few so spread it out more this year.

QB:

Stafford $18

Kolb $15

RB:

Felix Jones $23

Hightower $14

Sproles $11

P Thomas $7

Harrison $5

Hardesty $4

Tate $3

Barber $3

Stephens-Howling $2

WR:

Wallace $23

Manningham $19

Moss $16

Moore $10

Burleson $8

Amendola $8

Antonio Brown $3

Denarius Moore $3

TE:

Owen daniels $12

greg olsen $9

kendricks $6

rudolph $4

tamme $3

PK:

Janikowski $4

Bryant $4

Bironas $3

DEF:

Lions $6

Cowboys $4

 

[comfortably numb]

the 3 most owned TEs are my 3 TEs

I had the same thing but upgraded downgraded from Kendricks to Pettigrew at the last minute.The top 3 defenses are my defenses.

Fixed

 

[atcdav]

I know conventional wisdom is a large roster and I tried to do it but in the end I couldnt resist, so here's to an injury free year

Matthew Stafford $18

Josh Freeman $18

LeSean McCoy $34

M Jones-Drew $30

Felix Jones $23

Deji Karim $3

Derrick Ward $3

Lex Hilliard $3

Larry Fitzgerald $28

Mike Williams $21

Mario Manningham $19

Nate Burleson $8

Antonio Brown $3

Denarius Moore $3

Owen Daniels $12

Lance Kendricks $6

Shaun Suisham $3

Jay Feely $2

Phil Dawson $2

Dallas Cowboys $4

Houston Texans $3

Arizona Cardinals $3

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Among teams that only took 1 QB, here were the most popular:

44 Philip Rivers 38 Aaron Rodgers28 Tom Brady25 Matthew Stafford19 Michael Vick
Fun fact: Entry # 100185 took Tarvaris Jackson as their only QB.

Among teams that took exactly 2 QBs, here are the most popular combos:

509 Philip Rivers / Matthew Stafford390 Matthew Stafford / Sam Bradford349 Philip Rivers / Colt McCoy190 Philip Rivers / Sam Bradford153 Tom Brady / Matthew Stafford
Fun fact: Entry # 110501 took Peyton Manning and David Garrard as their only 2 QBs.

Among teams that took exactly 3 QBs, here are the most popular combos:

76 Stafford / Bradford / McCoy75 Rivers / Stafford / McCoy50 Stafford / Bradford / Kolb50 Stafford / Freeman / McCoy45 Stafford / Freeman / Bradford
Among teams that took exactly 19 QBs, here is the most popular combo:

1 Stafford / Flacco / Cutler / Cassel / Kolb / Sanchez / Newton / Orton / Fitzpatrick / Campbell / Jackson / Hasselbeck / McNabb / Smith / McCoy / Dalton / Grossman / Henne / Gabbert

 

[texasheat]

Last year's finish: 54 This year ??

QB

Rivers $24

Cutler $16

Thought Cutler was a decent value at $16. Rivers was a no brainer for me at his price. I liked the look of Big Ben as well but that week 11 bye is risky.

RB

McFadden $28

Felix Jones $23

Wells $16

Hightower $14

Tate $3

Barber $3

The bottom 4 guys never changed for me. Wells and HT were both easy choices as they should each get a heavy load. I took Felix out for a while but he made it back in right at the deadline. Had Mendenhall in at one point, but again I don't like my top players having that week 11 bye in crunch time.

WR

Roddy White $30

Vincent Jackson $25

Nate Burleson $8

Earl Bennett $8

Mohommed Mossoquoi $4

Antonio Brown $3

Denarius Moore $3

Two studs and hope for the best here. If either Burleson or Bennett are complete flops I'll have a hard time surviving. Really think Mohommed is a good value at $4.

TE

Daniels $12

Hernandez $10

Kendricks $6

Didn't move these guys around after week 1, all are a value at that price.

K

Folk 3

Feely 2

Dawson 2

DT

49ers - 4

Cardinals - 3

Poke holes

 

[BroadwayG]

Among teams that took exactly 19 QBs, here is the most popular combo:

 

[Bruce Leroy]

Pocketducks

-----------

LeGarrette Blount $25

Ahmad Bradshaw $25

Felix Jones $23

Marion Barber $3

Isaac Redman $2

RBs were the hardest to choose. There was no obvious bargains like last year’s Foster



Any thoughts?

I think the bargains were CJ Spiller & James Starks & Jerome Harrison & Montario Hardesty & Ben Tate (especially with Fosters Hammy)I really like Ryan Matthews and Mark Ingram but felt they were expensive (I used them anyway because you have to pick the correct players regardless of price)

Just MHO

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Last year we debated a definition of a "junk" entry. I don't think there's any definitive criteria, but I suggested that any roster that is taking a guaranteed zero at a position in any week qualifies (e.g. if you only rostered 2 RBs, then you'll be taking a zero at RB when each of them is on bye). It's not a perfect definition but I think it's a start.With that in mind, here are the number of entries that are taking a guaranteed zero at some position at some point this year:

Size	Count	Percent18	1043	29.2%19	267	19.2%20	117	11.0%21	76	9.1%22	43	5.6%23	35	5.5%24	18	3.3%25	5	1.3%26	10	2.4%27	12	4.1%28	7	2.6%29	3	1.4%30	15	4.0%

So basically 30% of 18-man rosters are going to be shorthanded at least once this season. Note that I didn't account for byes here, I was just looking for teams that had fewer than the absolute minimum required at a position (2 QB, 3 RB, etc). So surely the numbers are greater than what I presented here, since there might be a team that, for example, has 4 RBs but three of them are on bye the same week. My query wouldn't have counted that team even though they would fall under this definition of "junk" entries.

4% of 30 man rosters still have a spot where they can't fill the required starters... I think these entries are 20 kicker guy and $232 QB guy.

20 kicker guy is in this group (he only has 3 WR, 1 TE, and 1 DST). Also in this group are both 18-kicker guys, a 15-kicker guy, a 13-kicker guy, an 11-kicker guy, a 10-kicker guy, both 9-kicker guys, and a 7-kicker guy. $232 QB guy is a junk entry, but it's a 27-man roster, not 30.

 

[DWI]

How many getting cut week 1?

 

[texasheat]

How many getting cut week 1?

likely 0

 

[LittlePhatty]

How many getting cut week 1?

Quoted from the rules:Week 1 trim to 12,000 teams (all advance if we have less entries)Week 2 trim to 10,000 teams

 

[BroadwayG]

Only 10,776 total too... lower than last year by almost 3,000?Guess congrats to almost everyone making it to week 3 already! (except for 776 probably garbage entries)

That's interesting. Might give a hint as to the impact of the lockout.

 

[urbanhack]

some nice formatting going on in here.

nice work guys

 

[Phil Elliott]

A lot of discussion already on the logic/value so I will just summarize. I usually try to go with a large roster of mostly "value" picks. This year I loaded up with some studs hoping they stay healthy and filled out the positions with some value. This is the first time I have gone with just two QB's. I tend to avoid the good players with late round byes unless they are deeper in the position and tried to spread the byes out also. Good luck to everyone - this is always a fun part of this site.

QB

Rivers ($24)

McCoy ($10)

RB

C. Johnson ($36)

McCoy ($34)

R. Bush ($15)

R. Williams ($6)

Barber ($3)

Hunter (6)

WR

M. Williams TB ($21)

S. Johnson ($19)

Moore ($10)

Burleson ($8)

Floyd ($8)

D. Moore ($3)

TE

Daniels ($12)

Hernandez ($10)

Kendricks ($6)

PK

Folk ($3)

Brown ($3)

Tynes ($3)

DEF

Arizona ($3)

TB ($4)

St. Louis ($3)

 

[Touchdown There]

Last year we debated a definition of a "junk" entry. I don't think there's any definitive criteria, but I suggested that any roster that is taking a guaranteed zero at a position in any week qualifies (e.g. if you only rostered 2 RBs, then you'll be taking a zero at RB when each of them is on bye). It's not a perfect definition but I think it's a start.With that in mind, here are the number of entries that are taking a guaranteed zero at some position at some point this year:

Size	Count	Percent18	1043	29.2%19	267	19.2%20	117	11.0%21	76	9.1%22	43	5.6%23	35	5.5%24	18	3.3%25	5	1.3%26	10	2.4%27	12	4.1%28	7	2.6%29	3	1.4%30	15	4.0%

So basically 30% of 18-man rosters are going to be shorthanded at least once this season. Note that I didn't account for byes here, I was just looking for teams that had fewer than the absolute minimum required at a position (2 QB, 3 RB, etc). So surely the numbers are greater than what I presented here, since there might be a team that, for example, has 4 RBs but three of them are on bye the same week. My query wouldn't have counted that team even though they would fall under this definition of "junk" entries.

4% of 30 man rosters still have a spot where they can't fill the required starters... I think these entries are 20 kicker guy and $232 QB guy.

My roster has 30 and I will fall into the 4%. I did it intentionally with one QB on bye week 7, which was the second worst bye week (behind week 5) for entries. I expect a low cut line this week and for my other positions to make up the gap. I finished 150th or so last year and feel comfortable with the strategy.

 

[Touchdown There]

Last year we debated a definition of a "junk" entry. I don't think there's any definitive criteria, but I suggested that any roster that is taking a guaranteed zero at a position in any week qualifies (e.g. if you only rostered 2 RBs, then you'll be taking a zero at RB when each of them is on bye). It's not a perfect definition but I think it's a start.With that in mind, here are the number of entries that are taking a guaranteed zero at some position at some point this year:

Size	Count	Percent18	1043	29.2%19	267	19.2%20	117	11.0%21	76	9.1%22	43	5.6%23	35	5.5%24	18	3.3%25	5	1.3%26	10	2.4%27	12	4.1%28	7	2.6%29	3	1.4%30	15	4.0%

So basically 30% of 18-man rosters are going to be shorthanded at least once this season. Note that I didn't account for byes here, I was just looking for teams that had fewer than the absolute minimum required at a position (2 QB, 3 RB, etc). So surely the numbers are greater than what I presented here, since there might be a team that, for example, has 4 RBs but three of them are on bye the same week. My query wouldn't have counted that team even though they would fall under this definition of "junk" entries.

4% of 30 man rosters still have a spot where they can't fill the required starters... I think these entries are 20 kicker guy and $232 QB guy.

My roster has 30 and I will fall into the 4%. I did it intentionally with one QB on bye week 7, which was the second worst bye week (behind week 5) for entries. I expect a low cut line this week and for my other positions to make up the gap. I finished 150th or so last year and feel comfortable with the strategy.

It was just bonus that 0 entries will be cut in week 1 and less than 1000 entries in week 2. This leaves many more "junk" entries in week 7.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Last year we debated a definition of a "junk" entry. I don't think there's any definitive criteria, but I suggested that any roster that is taking a guaranteed zero at a position in any week qualifies (e.g. if you only rostered 2 RBs, then you'll be taking a zero at RB when each of them is on bye). It's not a perfect definition but I think it's a start.

With that in mind, here are the number of entries that are taking a guaranteed zero at some position at some point this year:

Size Count Percent18 1043 29.2%19 267 19.2%20 117 11.0%21 76 9.1%22 43 5.6%23 35 5.5%24 18 3.3%25 5 1.3%26 10 2.4%27 12 4.1%28 7 2.6%29 3 1.4%30 15 4.0%So basically 30% of 18-man rosters are going to be shorthanded at least once this season. Note that I didn't account for byes here, I was just looking for teams that had fewer than the absolute minimum required at a position (2 QB, 3 RB, etc). So surely the numbers are greater than what I presented here, since there might be a team that, for example, has 4 RBs but three of them are on bye the same week. My query wouldn't have counted that team even though they would fall under this definition of "junk" entries.

4% of 30 man rosters still have a spot where they can't fill the required starters... I think these entries are 20 kicker guy and $232 QB guy.

My roster has 30 and I will fall into the 4%. I did it intentionally with one QB on bye week 7, which was the second worst bye week (behind week 5) for entries. I expect a low cut line this week and for my other positions to make up the gap. I finished 150th or so last year and feel comfortable with the strategy.

Chicken Dinner?Honestly, that seems like a silly strategy, imo. QB is the highest scoring position, and you're intentionally taking a zero there halfway through the year (not to mention you're susceptible to any other down weeks Vick may have). I don't see how you could expect your other players to make up the deficit that week. It's not like you can start any more of them that week than any other week. I'm not saying you'll definitely be eliminated that week, but you purposely put yourself at a pretty significant disadvantage.

FTR it looks like week 7 is actually the second best bye week for entries; that is, fewer players that were entered in the contest are on bye that week than any week other than week 9. So you're probably going to be in an even bigger hole than you anticipated.

 

[Touchdown There]

Last year we debated a definition of a "junk" entry. I don't think there's any definitive criteria, but I suggested that any roster that is taking a guaranteed zero at a position in any week qualifies (e.g. if you only rostered 2 RBs, then you'll be taking a zero at RB when each of them is on bye). It's not a perfect definition but I think it's a start.

With that in mind, here are the number of entries that are taking a guaranteed zero at some position at some point this year:

Size Count Percent18 1043 29.2%19 267 19.2%20 117 11.0%21 76 9.1%22 43 5.6%23 35 5.5%24 18 3.3%25 5 1.3%26 10 2.4%27 12 4.1%28 7 2.6%29 3 1.4%30 15 4.0%So basically 30% of 18-man rosters are going to be shorthanded at least once this season. Note that I didn't account for byes here, I was just looking for teams that had fewer than the absolute minimum required at a position (2 QB, 3 RB, etc). So surely the numbers are greater than what I presented here, since there might be a team that, for example, has 4 RBs but three of them are on bye the same week. My query wouldn't have counted that team even though they would fall under this definition of "junk" entries.

4% of 30 man rosters still have a spot where they can't fill the required starters... I think these entries are 20 kicker guy and $232 QB guy.

My roster has 30 and I will fall into the 4%. I did it intentionally with one QB on bye week 7, which was the second worst bye week (behind week 5) for entries. I expect a low cut line this week and for my other positions to make up the gap. I finished 150th or so last year and feel comfortable with the strategy.

Chicken Dinner?Honestly, that seems like a silly strategy, imo. QB is the highest scoring position, and you're intentionally taking a zero there halfway through the year (not to mention you're susceptible to any other down weeks Vick may have). I don't see how you could expect your other players to make up the deficit that week. It's not like you can start any more of them that week than any other week. I'm not saying you'll definitely be eliminated that week, but you purposely put yourself at a pretty significant disadvantage.

FTR it looks like week 7 is actually the second best bye week for entries; that is, fewer players that were entered in the contest are on bye that week than any week other than week 9. So you're probably going to be in an even bigger hole than you anticipated.

Iggy, you are a master of the database! Yes, that is my entry. I admit that it was ballsy, especially considering Vick is the most injury prone QB. However, things have to work out just perfect to make it to the final 250 anyway, regardless of strategy.As for bye week 7, what you are missing is the quality of the starters on bye in week 7, not the quantity. Most of the higher scoring players that were value in the contest have byes in week 5 and 7.

 

[Jayrod]

Last year we debated a definition of a "junk" entry. I don't think there's any definitive criteria, but I suggested that any roster that is taking a guaranteed zero at a position in any week qualifies (e.g. if you only rostered 2 RBs, then you'll be taking a zero at RB when each of them is on bye). It's not a perfect definition but I think it's a start.

With that in mind, here are the number of entries that are taking a guaranteed zero at some position at some point this year:

Size Count Percent18 1043 29.2%19 267 19.2%20 117 11.0%21 76 9.1%22 43 5.6%23 35 5.5%24 18 3.3%25 5 1.3%26 10 2.4%27 12 4.1%28 7 2.6%29 3 1.4%30 15 4.0%So basically 30% of 18-man rosters are going to be shorthanded at least once this season. Note that I didn't account for byes here, I was just looking for teams that had fewer than the absolute minimum required at a position (2 QB, 3 RB, etc). So surely the numbers are greater than what I presented here, since there might be a team that, for example, has 4 RBs but three of them are on bye the same week. My query wouldn't have counted that team even though they would fall under this definition of "junk" entries.

4% of 30 man rosters still have a spot where they can't fill the required starters... I think these entries are 20 kicker guy and $232 QB guy.

My roster has 30 and I will fall into the 4%. I did it intentionally with one QB on bye week 7, which was the second worst bye week (behind week 5) for entries. I expect a low cut line this week and for my other positions to make up the gap. I finished 150th or so last year and feel comfortable with the strategy.

Chicken Dinner?Honestly, that seems like a silly strategy, imo. QB is the highest scoring position, and you're intentionally taking a zero there halfway through the year (not to mention you're susceptible to any other down weeks Vick may have). I don't see how you could expect your other players to make up the deficit that week. It's not like you can start any more of them that week than any other week. I'm not saying you'll definitely be eliminated that week, but you purposely put yourself at a pretty significant disadvantage.

FTR it looks like week 7 is actually the second best bye week for entries; that is, fewer players that were entered in the contest are on bye that week than any week other than week 9. So you're probably going to be in an even bigger hole than you anticipated.

Week 7 always seemed to be a light week anytime I checked the byes on my umpteen hundred submissions. I think it will be a fairly high cut week compared to weeks 5 and 9 (and maybe 11)

 

[Norman Paperman]

Chicken Dinner?

I don't think week 7 will be the only 0 for QB for this team.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention one exciting* development.* - only to people in this thread.This year, just for fun, I recorded all your entries. The "winner" is KingPrawn, who submitted 886 legal entries before the deadline. Next highest was something like 450. Actually, I only started counting a couple days after it went live, so that doesn't count any changes made in the first few days. Because I don't want to be charged with cruel and unusual punishment, I will NOT be telling you how many of your unsubmitted entries would have won the whole thing had you stuck with them. Or maybe I will. The Turk has to have some fun after his week 3 elimination.

Gotta love the Turk-QG

 

[Touchdown There]

Chicken Dinner?

I don't think week 7 will be the only 0 for QB for this team.

Yeah, I already tackled that above and worked it into my strategy. If Vick is injured anywhere between weeks 1-7 I am still OK with it. It may knock me out, may not. If he is injured after week 7 my entry is dead in the water. Took a calculated chance on some guys that I thought had uniqueness.For example, many entries have D Moore and A Brown. I felt that both of them were WR3 on their respective teams in a rotation. They were cheap with a lot of hype. I checked and unchecked them again and again on test entries before the lock. In the end I felt a little uniqueness in Mo Mass and Naanee (as starters on their teams) may give the same points with a unique angle.

Keep in mind that the entries in this thread are usually pretty good because they are by FBG members that gave it a lot of thought and discussion. There are many "junk" entries that will be filtered in the early part of the season and injuries will decimate 18 man rosters by week 7. No worries.

 

[apalmer]

Chicken Dinner?

I don't think week 7 will be the only 0 for QB for this team.

Hey, his only two currently starting RBs both have a week 5 bye, with Hunter, Harrison, Karim, LSH and Taiwan Jones to cover for them. As Butch Cassidy would say: "Why worry about swimming in Week 7? The Week 5 fall will probably kill us."

 

[Touchdown There]

Chicken Dinner?

I don't think week 7 will be the only 0 for QB for this team.

Hey, his only two currently starting RBs both have a week 5 bye, with Hunter, Harrison, Karim, LSH and Taiwan Jones to cover for them. As Butch Cassidy would say: "Why worry about swimming in Week 7? The Week 5 fall will probably kill us."

Again, this was intentional. I gave my bye weeks a lot of thought. Entries are overloaded with week 5 byes.

 

[Touchdown There]

And I was not even going to post my roster until I made it through week 7...thanks Iggy.

 

[gregjcross]

Last year we debated a definition of a "junk" entry. I don't think there's any definitive criteria, but I suggested that any roster that is taking a guaranteed zero at a position in any week qualifies (e.g. if you only rostered 2 RBs, then you'll be taking a zero at RB when each of them is on bye). It's not a perfect definition but I think it's a start.With that in mind, here are the number of entries that are taking a guaranteed zero at some position at some point this year:

Size	Count	Percent18	1043	29.2%19	267	19.2%20	117	11.0%21	76	9.1%22	43	5.6%23	35	5.5%24	18	3.3%25	5	1.3%26	10	2.4%27	12	4.1%28	7	2.6%29	3	1.4%30	15	4.0%

So basically 30% of 18-man rosters are going to be shorthanded at least once this season. Note that I didn't account for byes here, I was just looking for teams that had fewer than the absolute minimum required at a position (2 QB, 3 RB, etc). So surely the numbers are greater than what I presented here, since there might be a team that, for example, has 4 RBs but three of them are on bye the same week. My query wouldn't have counted that team even though they would fall under this definition of "junk" entries.

Has an 18 or 19 man roster finished in top 10 last few years?

 

[apalmer]

Last year we debated a definition of a "junk" entry. I don't think there's any definitive criteria, but I suggested that any roster that is taking a guaranteed zero at a position in any week qualifies (e.g. if you only rostered 2 RBs, then you'll be taking a zero at RB when each of them is on bye). It's not a perfect definition but I think it's a start.With that in mind, here are the number of entries that are taking a guaranteed zero at some position at some point this year:

Size    Count    Percent18    1043    29.2%19    267    19.2%20    117    11.0%21    76    9.1%22    43    5.6%23    35    5.5%24    18    3.3%25    5    1.3%26    10    2.4%27    12    4.1%28    7    2.6%29    3    1.4%30    15    4.0%

So basically 30% of 18-man rosters are going to be shorthanded at least once this season. Note that I didn't account for byes here, I was just looking for teams that had fewer than the absolute minimum required at a position (2 QB, 3 RB, etc). So surely the numbers are greater than what I presented here, since there might be a team that, for example, has 4 RBs but three of them are on bye the same week. My query wouldn't have counted that team even though they would fall under this definition of "junk" entries.

Has an 18 or 19 man roster finished in top 10 last few years?

2 of them did it last year. Didn't check beyond that.

 

[BroadwayG]

And I was not even going to post my roster until I made it through week 7...thanks Iggy.

There are no secrets on the internet

 

[FF Ninja]

$16 Cutler/8

$11 McNabb/9

$10 McCoy/5

I am really high on Cutler this year and pretty high on McNabb. I had Beck but had to change him at the last second. Switched Jacobs for Hightower to get that extra $2. Given the 6pt/td 1pt/int scoring, I like 3QB because I'm basically guaranteed 2-3 TD/wk and thus 20 points. $37 is not bad for a diverse QB portfolio. Almost left Beck in, hoping he surfaces in the 2nd half of the season, but too much of a gamble for $8 and for a position only 3 guys deep.

$26 Ingram/11

$16 Wells/6

$14 Hightower/5

$11 McGahee/6

$10 M.Bush/8

$03 Tate/11

Made the switch from Lynch, who I'm really high on, to Ingram based solely on fear after watching TJax play QB for Seattle. I hate paying that much for a RB, but I had the money free so I went for it. I wish the roster could've been 35ish. I was really down on Wells last year, but quite high on him this year now that they have a decent QB. I was going to take him before Williams go hurt. Hightower I'm not sold on, but I wasn't sold on Jacobs, either. I've been a M.Bush fan for a while, so I loved his price. With him and McGahee, I hope to get some TD production. Tate (in place of Barber) was a knee jerk pick after his first preseason game and I just never removed him. My initial game plan was to pick a group that will get me two guys that score a single TD each per week, thus yielding 2 double digit scores. Was not looking to fill my flex spot with a RB. If it happens, then that's a bonus.

$19 Collie/11

$19 Ocho/7

$10 Evans/5

$10 Moore/11

$08 Burleson/9

$08 Bennett/8

$07 Hester/8

$05 Berrian/9

$03 Brown/11

I've got a lot of week 11 byes but I can weather is as I've got 9WR. Lots of guys that burned me last year on here in Evans, Hester, and Berrian. They were cheaper this year and in better situations, so easy choices. I was really thinking about removing Collie last night, but I don't need him early. He could be a driving force for the home stretch. Ocho I really like as well. Moore and Burleson were guys I almost took last year. Very happy to have them this year. I switched Amendola for Bennett a few days ago. I'm really gambling on the Bears' passing game. At one point Roy Williams was on my roster (pre-Bennett). Brown was a can't pass in a best ball format. Especially for $3.

$12 Daniels/11

$07 Boss/8

$06 Kendricks/5

$02 Moore/5

$02 Pitta/5

I swapped my initial picks of Watson and Dicksen for their counterparts in Moore and Pitta a couple days after the contest opened and saved $10. Started out with Olsen and Heap, but soon switched to Boss and Kendricks. Campbell produces good TE stats. Can't be certain about Newton. Daniels was a steal. Obviously I wasn't the only one to think so. I loved the value here and with 1.5 pt/rec I was going 5TE even if I paid $15 more. My initial game plan was to get my flex out of my TE the majority of the time.

$2 Lindell/7

$2 Feely/6

$2 Dawson/5

Wanted 3-4, and at that number, no need to go more than $2, imo. Got mildly lucky that out of the few $2 kickers who were actually still on teams had different byes.

$3 Hou/11

$2 Buf/7

$2 Den/6

$2 Jax/9

Wanted 3-4. Was disappointed there weren't four $2 teams. Just gotta hope for a pick 6 from one of these teams each week. I didn't know Houston would be so popular. I thought I was allowing myself a little bit of homerism.

Overall, I felt a lot better about this contest a couple weeks ago. Now that I'm looking at it, I've got 2/6 RBs, 3/9 WRs, 1/5 TEs, and 1/4 Ds on bye in week 11. That doesn't scare me much, but if Manning isn't playing and Ocho doesn't pan out then I wasted $38 on two WR. Those two factors combine to make me feel less excited than I anticipated.

That's a healthy helping of Bears. Going to make or break you.

They are very undervalued. Glance in the Culter spotlight thread (link in original post). I expect their 32nd ranking in pass attempts to jump up to at least 10th. With 9WR, I can afford for only one of Bennett or Hester to work out, although it is not out of the realm of reasonable possibility for both to outperform their modest values. I just hope Bennett doesn't tank AND Amendola explodes. That would be really irritating...

 

[Ariakis]

I finished in the money last year with a 30 man roster and came back to it again with some surprisingly high end guys mixed in with some of the major sleepers. I think I like this team a lot.

Philip Rivers $24

Matthew Stafford $18

Taking a risk by not adding a 3rd QB although I love the value of these guys to usually have atleast one solid game barring injury. Last year both of my main QB's got hurt and my flier was Vick which propelled me into the money. I just couldn't fit a 3rd QB in without downgrading my starters and decided to go with what turns out to be the most popular pair.

Ray Rice $35

Felix Jones $23

Chris Wells $16

Jerome Harrison $5

Deji Karim $3

Ben Tate $3

Isaac Redman $2

Taiwan Jones $2

I doubt many teams don't have Felix, Harrison, Tate, or Tai Jones but I added a few more upside guys that may not be as common. Week 5 is a concern but I just need Wells and one of my fliers to come through. Rice seemed like a huge bargain and overall I really like this unit and the blend of stud and value.

Vincent Jackson $25

Mike Wallace $23

Nate Burleson $8

Harry Douglas $4

Cecil Shorts $3

Antonio Brown $3

Randall Cobb $3

Denarius Moore $3

Dexter McCluster $2

I think VJax, Burleson, Moore, and Brown will also be on a lot of rosters but I'm hoping my 2 studs plus upside guys is unique enough. If Charles gets hurt McCluster could be money and may already be with Moeaki out. I'm all in on Burleson this year and again managed to fit in two studs and a lot of upside.

Owen Daniels $12

Greg Olsen $9

Fred Davis $5

Evan Moore $2

I had Pitta in here too but gave up on a 5th TE. Daniels seemed to represent the best value and I learned my lesson from last year when all my TE's got hurt by mid-year and added a 4th guy in a TE friendly format. I'm hoping my TE can be my flex a few times but again I like my ratio.

Josh Brown $3

Rian Lindell $2

Jay Feely $2

Phil Dawson $2

I felt it important to fit in a 4th guy for the free points for a big week from any of them.

Houston Texans $3

Arizona Cardinals $3

Denver Broncos $2

I like my upside picks for cheap defenses that play a bunch of bad offenses and mesh well together.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Here are the number of players off each week, by position-rank. QB-1 means the team's most expensive QB; WR-4 means a team's 4th most expensive WR, etc. So QB1, RB1 RB2, WR1, WR2, WR3, etc. are like a team's "starters".

Week:	5	6	7	8	9	11QB-1	925	2807	1629	1834	2156	1425QB-2	3307	1763	654	1633	2814	382QB-3	1960	618	499	289	651	12QB-4	299	73	86	18	94	4QB-5	42	20	14	7	25	1QB-6	13	5	6	5	2	1QB-7	8	3	2	3	3	1QB-8	3	3	1	1	6	QB-9	4	1	4		2	QB-10	3		1	1		QB-11		1			1	QB-12		1				QB-13					1	QB-14			1			QB-15	1					QB-16			1			QB-17	1					QB-18	1					QB-19					1	RB-1	3693	1199	930	2025	1378	1551RB-2	3732	2037	1199	2166	747	895RB-3	4001	3329	1416	912	359	669RB-4	3361	1753	1296	902	761	1957RB-5	1371	973	592	930	1096	2667RB-6	475	607	125	662	580	1892RB-7	171	300	22	430	189	1026RB-8	49	163	1	216	46	478RB-9	18	85	1	94	11	142RB-10	1	32	1	32	4	34RB-11	1	5		6	3	8RB-12		1		1		5RB-13		1				2RB-14		1				1WR-1	1005	3962	1359	1681	1099	1670WR-2	2200	2146	2761	1605	514	1550WR-3	2337	752	3036	2201	899	1538WR-4	2176	972	1769	2247	1804	1595WR-5	1739	1491	1127	2241	1624	1540WR-6	896	1229	676	2042	879	1391WR-7	454	711	325	1312	335	843WR-8	224	398	179	691	121	381WR-9	116	189	94	311	73	144WR-10	48	88	40	128	20	39WR-11	26	43	19	32	14	8WR-12	5	16	4	9	3	3WR-13	3	3	3	4	1	WR-14	3	2	2		1	WR-15	1		1		1	1WR-16		1		1		WR-17					1	WR-18		1				WR-19	1					WR-20			1			WR-21						WR-22	1					TE-1	748	758	2242	1692	1477	3859TE-2	3519	812	2155	537	2335	835TE-3	2525	254	429	84	618	321TE-4	547	43	49	3	98	83TE-5	60	10	12		13	19TE-6	12		2		2	2TE-7	3				2	PK-1	1976	1515	1963	3063	892	1367PK-2	2363	2037	1303	1448	1168	1631PK-3	777	1043	467	311	409	389PK-4	215	211	81	49	64	69PK-5	62	46	18	17	20	11PK-6	21	15	12	4	9	13PK-7	6	8	6	11	1	3PK-8	8	4	1	7	4	2PK-9	5	3	4	6		1PK-10	4	6	2	3	2	PK-11	3		1	2	5	3PK-12	1	3	2	1	2	3PK-13	2	3	2	2	1	PK-14	3	1	1		2	PK-15	1	3	1	1		PK-16		1	1		1	PK-17	1				1	1PK-18	1	1	1			PK-19		1				PK-20	1					DST-1	1549	973	2017	2154	1526	2557DST-2	2497	2647	1274	967	903	1639DST-3	706	1253	512	157	418	281DST-4	94	228	111	20	145	25DST-5	14	42	19	3	35	7DST-6	7	9	3		11	1DST-7	4	1	2	1	3	2DST-8	1	3		1	1	DST-9			2		1	TOTALS	52411	39719	32572	37216	28488	36980

 

[Saint]

Iggy, love the DB!

 

[bweiser]

is the deadline tonight or sunday?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

is the deadline tonight or sunday?

Wednesday, actually.

 

[Saint]

is the deadline tonight or sunday?

At this point, next year Wednesday before kickoff.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Final roster with some commentary... This is my first time playing this contest so it was a learning experience composing this roster.

QB - Matt Stafford ($18)

QB - Kevin Kolb ($15)

Stafford is a guy I am betting heavily on in almost every single league I am in. He reminds me of Matt Schaub the year before he blew up, in that his talent does not match up with his price due to injury concerns. Kolb is a guy who I think will have some big weeks mixed in with some average ones, but in a best ball format I like him for that price.

RB - Mark Ingram ($26)

RB - Felix Jones ($23)

RB - Chris Wells ($16)

RB - Tim Hightower ($14)

RB - Jerome Harrison ($5)

RB - Deji Karim ($3)

RB - Bilal Powell ($3)

I had Ray Rice in here for a long time, but realized I needed some of that money to add more depth to my team. I like the starting core of Ingram, Jones, Wells, and Hightower. Between Harrison, Karim and Powell I think I should be able to get a couple of big games throughout the course of the year.

WR - Calvin Johnson ($31)

WR - Dez Bryant ($21)

WR - Mario Manningham ($19)

WR - Nate Burleson ($8)

WR - Danny Amendola ($8)

WR - Denarious Moore ($3)

WR - Josh Cribbs ($2)

WR - Dexter McCluster ($2)

I am predicting Stafford stays healthy and puts up top 5-8 numbers this year, so that makes Calvin a must to me. 15+ TD's wouldn't surprise me this year. Dez and Mario have explosive potential at a reasonable price. Burleson is a big time steal at $8 IMO. Amendola won't have any monster weeks but I like the idea of a steady PPR type to set a nice floor of production for my team. Between Cribbs and McCluster I hope to have a couple weeks where one of them breaks a long TD. Decent gamble at $4 total.

TE - Brandon Pettigrew ($11)

TE - Lance Kendricks ($6)

TE - Evan Moore ($2)

Continuing with my heavy Lions emphasis, I like Pettigrew to have a big season. I thought about Daniels and Hernandez, but I feel Pettigrew has a higher ceiling and that was the deciding factor. Kendricks and Moore are good options in a 1.5 PPR as I don't think they will get many TD's but the catches should be high.

K - Rian Lindell ($2)

K - Phil Dawson ($2)

K - Jay Feely ($2)

Took the board advice and went with 3 kickers, but the cheapest 3 I could get with different bye weeks.

D - San Diego Chargers ($5)

D - Houston Texans ($3)

I looked for defenses that play in bad divisions primarily. Houston is particular stood out to me (as it did to many apparently). A new D coordinator in Wade Phillips, and 4 matchups this season against the McCown/Gabbert and Collins/Painter combos.

Any thoughts for my first year playing?

 

[Das Boot]

One entry two weeks ago and I don't remember one person on my roster. at everyone obsessing on their entries. At best, you've got a 1/2000 chance.

I love guys that think like this.

 

[jdoggydogg]

One entry two weeks ago and I don't remember one person on my roster. at everyone obsessing on their entries. At best, you've got a 1/2000 chance.

I love guys that think like this.

Welcome to the internet. If we reduce every discussion to "what matters," it's all nonsense to fill our lives until we die.In the mean time, I don't think anyone's obsessed here - it's just fun.

 

[BassNBrew]

Number of entries by roster size================================18 356819 139320 105921 83622 76623 64124 54725 39626 41527 29628 26929 21430 376Is 18 always this high?Could have sworn the last few years early 20's was the highest?

Seems eerily similar to last years #s.

Glad to see people didn't learn anything from last year. Let the 18 man roster carnage begin.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Number of entries by roster size================================18 356819 139320 105921 83622 76623 64124 54725 39626 41527 29628 26929 21430 376Is 18 always this high?Could have sworn the last few years early 20's was the highest?

Seems eerily similar to last years #s.

Glad to see people didn't learn anything from last year. Let the 18 man roster carnage begin.

I think there are proportionately fewer small rosters this year. It is conceivable that zero 18-man rosters will make the final 250.

 

[Saint]

What did we define the optimal roster size as last year? Wasn't it 24-26 or so?

Edit: I dug out the stats from last year's thread. Here it is:

Table Breakdown (Size - # in 250 (Percent) - Avg Pts Scored for Roster size

[*]18 - 53 (21.2%) - 483.22

[*]19 - 28 (11.2%) - 473.24

[*]20 - 22 (8.8%) - 508.70

[*]21 - 16 (6.4%) - 507.24

[*]22 - 21 (8.4%) - 525.71

[*]23 - 19 (7.6%) - 512.65

[*]24 - 16 (6.4%) - 493.06

[*]25 - 19 (7.6%) - 521.83

[*]26 - 13 (5.2%) - 494.18

[*]27 - 8 (3.2%) - 489.33

[*]28 - 12 (4.8%) - 513.75

[*]29 - 5 (6.4%) - 539.82

[*]30 - 19 (2.0%) - 527.47

So, as a brief reminder from way earlier. I believe 18 and 19 man rosters comprised of almost 46% of the total entries, so they have a higher proportion in the playoffs. As many of us speculated due to variability, the larger rosters (by average) outscored the smaller rosters consistently.

But of course, we have outliers, so here is a look at how folks have finished:

Roster Size - Top 10 - Top 25 - Top 50 - Top 100 - Percent of roster size that survived that made the top 100:

[*]18 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 15 (28% of 18-man rosters made the top 100)

[*]19 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 4 (14%)

[*]20 - 1 - 3 - 6 - 8 (36%)

[*]21 - 0 - 2 - 3 - 8 (50%)

[*]22 - 2 - 5 - 8 - 12 (55%)

[*]23 - 0 - 0 - 3 - 10 (53%)

[*]24 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 4 (25%)

[*]25 - 1 - 3 - 7 - 12 (63%)

[*]26 - 0 - 1 - 4 - 5 (38%)

[*]27 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 3 (38%)

[*]28 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 6 (50%)

[*]29 - 1 - 2 - 2 - 3 (60%)

[*]30 - 1 - 2 - 7 - 10 (53%)

Staggering isn't it? Rosters with sizes of 18 and 19 players were down around 28% - 14%, whereas if you had a larger roster you had almost (and sometimes over) a 50/50 shot of being in the top 100. Even at the Top 10 (if you run the percentages), the larger rosters still win.

So the Myth that smaller rosters with a bunch of studs is better, is definitely that... a myth. BUSTED! Larger rosters win out again.

 

[wollac]

The sim will show everyone with 100% chance to advance this week, so there's no need for that.

I disagree. Even though it shows everyone at 100%, it will also show how many points we can expect to obtain (even if for just week one), and where we rank among all the other entries. For all the hard work we've poured into filling out our rosters, I'm sure I'm not the only one looking for a little "feedback". Come on Doug, throw us a bone!

 

[gregjcross]

Jordy was my final addition. Liking that

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2011/100724.php

 

[Das Boot]

Didn't expect to get points from Cobb so quickly.

Looks like I should have loaded up on a few more Packers though - wow.

 

[chocula]

Number of entries by roster size================================18 356819 139320 105921 83622 76623 64124 54725 39626 41527 29628 26929 21430 376Is 18 always this high?Could have sworn the last few years early 20's was the highest?

I am shocked by the number of teams with 18 or 19 players. I made a comment about trying to go all studs and thought of trying myself. After seeing last year's winning team, I decided to take more players. The other reason was that I looked at Arian Foster's numbers from last year and he had some low weeks.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Do we know yet the number of teams that own each player? Would love to see that.

Jordy Nelson!!!

 

[DWI]

Posted Today, 10:06 PM

Do we know yet the number of teams that own each player? Would love to see that.

Jordy Nelson!!!

Check page 16

 

[chocula]

Among teams that only took 1 QB, here were the most popular:Among teams that took exactly 19 QBs, here is the most popular combo:

1 Stafford / Flacco / Cutler / Cassel / Kolb / Sanchez / Newton / Orton / Fitzpatrick / Campbell / Jackson / Hasselbeck / McNabb / Smith / McCoy / Dalton / Grossman / Henne / Gabbert

This made me laugh out loud. Can we somehow track these teams during the season. Any chance the 19 QB team and the Manning/Garrard team post here and tell us why?