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

[Saint]

So I just created a spreadsheet for this contest based solely upon the kickers.I created a formula to assign a value to each relevant kicker based upon 3 factors:1) staff rankings (with double emphasis on Herman's rankings)2) player cost for contest3) bye week (less variation here, but I wanted kickers with earlier byes to be more valuable) Is this too much?

Why do you ask that? I broke down a spreadsheet based on projections, determined weekly points, standard deviations, estimated ceilings and floors, and then applied cost factors to it. What's wrong with that?

 

[Jayrod]

Perhaps I need to look closer but I fail to understand why you would spend $18 on Stafford when his ceiling is probably what your base expectations are for a guy like Rivers. Is the $6 really worth that much more somewhere else?

Also, if you're going to go with non-stud, fragile QBs, you HAVE to take 3.

In a regular fantasy league, you guys are right.....but in best ball format, the thinking should be different. I have a strong personal preference toward 3 QB's this season. I think the players and the money dictates it. Stafford should be a key piece to any 3 QB team this year. The way things look right now, there is a good chance that he has several weeks as a top 3 QB. Sure he is an injury risk, but if you aren't willing to take risks in this contest you have no shot of winning.Oh, and $6 is like gold. Look at the jumps at the other positions or all of the quality additions you could make with $6 (like 2-3 MORE KICKERS!!!).

 

[Jayrod]

So I just created a spreadsheet for this contest based solely upon the kickers.I created a formula to assign a value to each relevant kicker based upon 3 factors:1) staff rankings (with double emphasis on Herman's rankings)2) player cost for contest3) bye week (less variation here, but I wanted kickers with earlier byes to be more valuable) Is this too much?

Why do you ask that? I broke down a spreadsheet based on projections, determined weekly points, standard deviations, estimated ceilings and floors, and then applied cost factors to it. What's wrong with that?

Admission is the first step, my friend:1. We admitted we were powerless over the subscriber contest—that our lives had become unmanageable.2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other subscribers, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

 

[Ian F]

Perhaps I need to look closer but I fail to understand why you would spend $18 on Stafford when his ceiling is probably what your base expectations are for a guy like Rivers. Is the $6 really worth that much more somewhere else?

Also, if you're going to go with non-stud, fragile QBs, you HAVE to take 3.

In a regular fantasy league, you guys are right.....but in best ball format, the thinking should be different. I have a strong personal preference toward 3 QB's this season. I think the players and the money dictates it. Stafford should be a key piece to any 3 QB team this year. The way things look right now, there is a good chance that he has several weeks as a top 3 QB. Sure he is an injury risk, but if you aren't willing to take risks in this contest you have no shot of winning.Oh, and $6 is like gold. Look at the jumps at the other positions or all of the quality additions you could make with $6 (like 2-3 MORE KICKERS!!!).

If you are taking 3 QBs then you don't have any extra $ to take other positions. In that case the debate is more about Rivers + McCoy types vs 3 QBs like Bradford, Stafford and ? for extra $ on the QB spot

 

[fightingillini]

Perhaps I need to look closer but I fail to understand why you would spend $18 on Stafford when his ceiling is probably what your base expectations are for a guy like Rivers. Is the $6 really worth that much more somewhere else?

Also, if you're going to go with non-stud, fragile QBs, you HAVE to take 3.

In a regular fantasy league, you guys are right.....but in best ball format, the thinking should be different. I have a strong personal preference toward 3 QB's this season. I think the players and the money dictates it. Stafford should be a key piece to any 3 QB team this year. The way things look right now, there is a good chance that he has several weeks as a top 3 QB. Sure he is an injury risk, but if you aren't willing to take risks in this contest you have no shot of winning.Oh, and $6 is like gold. Look at the jumps at the other positions or all of the quality additions you could make with $6 (like 2-3 MORE KICKERS!!!).

I disagree that you should take 3 QBs, unless you plan on taking 3 cheap ones. Taking a top 10 QB and pairing with one midrange QB and one cheap QB will cost too much of your cap. IMO, the optimal strategy is to spend the least amount of $$$$ at QB and get your 20-25 pts a week. You need that extra money spent at RB/WR/TE where the flex position is.

 

[Gamma1210]

Perhaps I need to look closer but I fail to understand why you would spend $18 on Stafford when his ceiling is probably what your base expectations are for a guy like Rivers. Is the $6 really worth that much more somewhere else?

Also, if you're going to go with non-stud, fragile QBs, you HAVE to take 3.

In a regular fantasy league, you guys are right.....but in best ball format, the thinking should be different. I have a strong personal preference toward 3 QB's this season. I think the players and the money dictates it. Stafford should be a key piece to any 3 QB team this year. The way things look right now, there is a good chance that he has several weeks as a top 3 QB. Sure he is an injury risk, but if you aren't willing to take risks in this contest you have no shot of winning.Oh, and $6 is like gold. Look at the jumps at the other positions or all of the quality additions you could make with $6 (like 2-3 MORE KICKERS!!!).

I disagree that you should take 3 QBs, unless you plan on taking 3 cheap ones. Taking a top 10 QB and pairing with one midrange QB and one cheap QB will cost too much of your cap. IMO, the optimal strategy is to spend the least amount of $$$$ at QB and get your 20-25 pts a week. You need that extra money spent at RB/WR/TE where the flex position is.

Normally QB is the first spot I figure out but I keep going back and forth on 2 vs. 3. Going to 3 and spending extra really hurts the other spots but I feel gives me a better shot for those 25pts per week. Only spot I think I'm good on is TE and even that might change.

 

[fightingillini]

Perhaps I need to look closer but I fail to understand why you would spend $18 on Stafford when his ceiling is probably what your base expectations are for a guy like Rivers. Is the $6 really worth that much more somewhere else?

Also, if you're going to go with non-stud, fragile QBs, you HAVE to take 3.

In a regular fantasy league, you guys are right.....but in best ball format, the thinking should be different. I have a strong personal preference toward 3 QB's this season. I think the players and the money dictates it. Stafford should be a key piece to any 3 QB team this year. The way things look right now, there is a good chance that he has several weeks as a top 3 QB. Sure he is an injury risk, but if you aren't willing to take risks in this contest you have no shot of winning.Oh, and $6 is like gold. Look at the jumps at the other positions or all of the quality additions you could make with $6 (like 2-3 MORE KICKERS!!!).

I disagree that you should take 3 QBs, unless you plan on taking 3 cheap ones. Taking a top 10 QB and pairing with one midrange QB and one cheap QB will cost too much of your cap. IMO, the optimal strategy is to spend the least amount of $$$$ at QB and get your 20-25 pts a week. You need that extra money spent at RB/WR/TE where the flex position is.

Normally QB is the first spot I figure out but I keep going back and forth on 2 vs. 3. Going to 3 and spending extra really hurts the other spots but I feel gives me a better shot for those 25pts per week. Only spot I think I'm good on is TE and even that might change.

You have to gamble somewhere, I like to gamble with a "cheap" stud QB and a medium priced backup and spend less than $40. I did with with Rivers and Orton last year and hit the jackpot. I only spent $31 and averaged 25 a week.

 

[Jayrod]

Perhaps I need to look closer but I fail to understand why you would spend $18 on Stafford when his ceiling is probably what your base expectations are for a guy like Rivers. Is the $6 really worth that much more somewhere else?

Also, if you're going to go with non-stud, fragile QBs, you HAVE to take 3.

In a regular fantasy league, you guys are right.....but in best ball format, the thinking should be different. I have a strong personal preference toward 3 QB's this season. I think the players and the money dictates it. Stafford should be a key piece to any 3 QB team this year. The way things look right now, there is a good chance that he has several weeks as a top 3 QB. Sure he is an injury risk, but if you aren't willing to take risks in this contest you have no shot of winning.Oh, and $6 is like gold. Look at the jumps at the other positions or all of the quality additions you could make with $6 (like 2-3 MORE KICKERS!!!).

I disagree that you should take 3 QBs, unless you plan on taking 3 cheap ones. Taking a top 10 QB and pairing with one midrange QB and one cheap QB will cost too much of your cap. IMO, the optimal strategy is to spend the least amount of $$$$ at QB and get your 20-25 pts a week. You need that extra money spent at RB/WR/TE where the flex position is.

Normally QB is the first spot I figure out but I keep going back and forth on 2 vs. 3. Going to 3 and spending extra really hurts the other spots but I feel gives me a better shot for those 25pts per week. Only spot I think I'm good on is TE and even that might change.

You have to gamble somewhere, I like to gamble with a "cheap" stud QB and a medium priced backup and spend less than $40. I did with with Rivers and Orton last year and hit the jackpot. I only spent $31 and averaged 25 a week.

As I said earlier, I thought 3 QB's was the way to go. But upon looking at the winners from the past 4 years, every single one of them went with 2 QB's. That is having me re-evaluate. I guess I had just started with a couple of guys I feel have upside and added a third as they were both risky. But in looking at it now, perhaps there is a stud/safe backup option that is the same price and could outperform.I'll now spend the rest of my days up until the deadline trying to figure out the optimum combo here.....and there is a 95% chance I'll be wrong.

 

[butcher boy]

I think you only need 3 if one or both of your QBs is an injury risk. Stafford qualifies.

Taking only 2 QBs is a risk you probably want to take though, but to minimize that risk, don't include the fragile ones in your pair.

My pair of QBs include a solid, consistent 16 game/year stud who will average 20+ points a week and a cheaper guy with big upside.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So I just created a spreadsheet for this contest based solely upon the kickers.I created a formula to assign a value to each relevant kicker based upon 3 factors:1) staff rankings (with double emphasis on Herman's rankings)2) player cost for contest3) bye week (less variation here, but I wanted kickers with earlier byes to be more valuable) Is this too much?

Oh, you don't even want to see the Excel workbook I have built for this thing.

 

[Kev4029]

Perhaps I need to look closer but I fail to understand why you would spend $18 on Stafford when his ceiling is probably what your base expectations are for a guy like Rivers. Is the $6 really worth that much more somewhere else?

Stafford is a high ceiling/low floor player. It wouldn't surprise me to see him finish in the top 3 this year, nor would it surprise me to see him finish outside the top 20 (healthy or not). If you have a steady QB to team him with, his risk/reward may really pan out.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Perhaps I need to look closer but I fail to understand why you would spend $18 on Stafford when his ceiling is probably what your base expectations are for a guy like Rivers. Is the $6 really worth that much more somewhere else?

Also, if you're going to go with non-stud, fragile QBs, you HAVE to take 3.

In a regular fantasy league, you guys are right.....but in best ball format, the thinking should be different. I have a strong personal preference toward 3 QB's this season. I think the players and the money dictates it. Stafford should be a key piece to any 3 QB team this year. The way things look right now, there is a good chance that he has several weeks as a top 3 QB. Sure he is an injury risk, but if you aren't willing to take risks in this contest you have no shot of winning.Oh, and $6 is like gold. Look at the jumps at the other positions or all of the quality additions you could make with $6 (like 2-3 MORE KICKERS!!!).

I disagree that you should take 3 QBs, unless you plan on taking 3 cheap ones. Taking a top 10 QB and pairing with one midrange QB and one cheap QB will cost too much of your cap. IMO, the optimal strategy is to spend the least amount of $$ at QB and get your 20-25 pts a week. You need that extra money spent at RB/WR/TE where the flex position is.

Interesting. I have three QBs right now. I would rather pick two QBs and use the money elsewhere, but if you lose just one of your two QBs, aren't you taking a huge risk if one QB is on a bye while the other is out with an injury?

 

[Mainevent]

QB $37 (2)

RB $86 (4)

WR $91 (7)

TE $19 (2)

PK $7 (3)

TD $10 (2)

That's what I ended up with. My first run at this thing.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

I'm currently looking at:

QB $38 (2)

RB $82 (6)

WR $91 (8)

TE $23 (2)

K $5 (2)

DST $9 (2)

I can see myself putting a little more money into K and DST, probably taken from the WR position but bye weeks are killing me.

 

[fightingillini]

Perhaps I need to look closer but I fail to understand why you would spend $18 on Stafford when his ceiling is probably what your base expectations are for a guy like Rivers. Is the $6 really worth that much more somewhere else?

Also, if you're going to go with non-stud, fragile QBs, you HAVE to take 3.

In a regular fantasy league, you guys are right.....but in best ball format, the thinking should be different. I have a strong personal preference toward 3 QB's this season. I think the players and the money dictates it. Stafford should be a key piece to any 3 QB team this year. The way things look right now, there is a good chance that he has several weeks as a top 3 QB. Sure he is an injury risk, but if you aren't willing to take risks in this contest you have no shot of winning.Oh, and $6 is like gold. Look at the jumps at the other positions or all of the quality additions you could make with $6 (like 2-3 MORE KICKERS!!!).

I disagree that you should take 3 QBs, unless you plan on taking 3 cheap ones. Taking a top 10 QB and pairing with one midrange QB and one cheap QB will cost too much of your cap. IMO, the optimal strategy is to spend the least amount of $$ at QB and get your 20-25 pts a week. You need that extra money spent at RB/WR/TE where the flex position is.

Interesting. I have three QBs right now. I would rather pick two QBs and use the money elsewhere, but if you lose just one of your two QBs, aren't you taking a huge risk if one QB is on a bye while the other is out with an injury?

That is a risk you have to take. Playing it safe will never get you to the final 250, let alone win. I wouldn't be concerned with that. Even if the worse case scenario happened and took a zero at the QB spot, you still could advance if you had a big week at the other positions.That risk is real, though, and I understand that. You can mitigate that risk somewhat by taking 2 durable QBs.Your QBs getting injured may or may not happen, but if you take 3 QBs and spend say $55, you won't have enough talent and/or enough depth at RB/WR/TE to go really far in the contest. If you take a stud, a midrange QB and a cheap QB, most likely your stud is going to carry you and your cheap QB is a waste of money.

 

[Saint]

Revamped again. Now I went from 27 back to 24. This is probably change #42. Changing at least twice a day, but for some reason starting to think this is coming together. Took 41 times before I finally *removed* Stafford from my lineup.

QB $37 (2)

RB $83 (7)

WR $80 (6)

TE $29 (3)

K $8 (3)

DST $13 (3)

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

Revamped again. Now I went from 27 back to 24. This is probably change #42. Changing at least twice a day, but for some reason starting to think this is coming together. Took 41 times before I finally *removed* Stafford from my lineup.QB $37 (2)RB $83 (7)WR $80 (6)TE $29 (3)K $8 (3)DST $13 (3)

I don't understand spending more money on RB than WR when your starting requirements have 50% more WRs than RBs.

 

[WisWolvrns]

Perhaps I need to look closer but I fail to understand why you would spend $18 on Stafford when his ceiling is probably what your base expectations are for a guy like Rivers. Is the $6 really worth that much more somewhere else?

Also, if you're going to go with non-stud, fragile QBs, you HAVE to take 3.

In a regular fantasy league, you guys are right.....but in best ball format, the thinking should be different. I have a strong personal preference toward 3 QB's this season. I think the players and the money dictates it. Stafford should be a key piece to any 3 QB team this year. The way things look right now, there is a good chance that he has several weeks as a top 3 QB. Sure he is an injury risk, but if you aren't willing to take risks in this contest you have no shot of winning.Oh, and $6 is like gold. Look at the jumps at the other positions or all of the quality additions you could make with $6 (like 2-3 MORE KICKERS!!!).

I disagree that you should take 3 QBs, unless you plan on taking 3 cheap ones. Taking a top 10 QB and pairing with one midrange QB and one cheap QB will cost too much of your cap. IMO, the optimal strategy is to spend the least amount of $$ at QB and get your 20-25 pts a week. You need that extra money spent at RB/WR/TE where the flex position is.

Interesting. I have three QBs right now. I would rather pick two QBs and use the money elsewhere, but if you lose just one of your two QBs, aren't you taking a huge risk if one QB is on a bye while the other is out with an injury?

That is a risk you have to take. Playing it safe will never get you to the final 250, let alone win. I wouldn't be concerned with that. Even if the worse case scenario happened and took a zero at the QB spot, you still could advance if you had a big week at the other positions.That risk is real, though, and I understand that. You can mitigate that risk somewhat by taking 2 durable QBs.Your QBs getting injured may or may not happen, but if you take 3 QBs and spend say $55, you won't have enough talent and/or enough depth at RB/WR/TE to go really far in the contest. If you take a stud, a midrange QB and a cheap QB, most likely your stud is going to carry you and your cheap QB is a waste of money.

Yep, it is a risk which Romo owners are too well aware of from last year... doh!

 

[jdoggydogg]

Perhaps I need to look closer but I fail to understand why you would spend $18 on Stafford when his ceiling is probably what your base expectations are for a guy like Rivers. Is the $6 really worth that much more somewhere else?

Also, if you're going to go with non-stud, fragile QBs, you HAVE to take 3.

In a regular fantasy league, you guys are right.....but in best ball format, the thinking should be different. I have a strong personal preference toward 3 QB's this season. I think the players and the money dictates it. Stafford should be a key piece to any 3 QB team this year. The way things look right now, there is a good chance that he has several weeks as a top 3 QB. Sure he is an injury risk, but if you aren't willing to take risks in this contest you have no shot of winning.Oh, and $6 is like gold. Look at the jumps at the other positions or all of the quality additions you could make with $6 (like 2-3 MORE KICKERS!!!).

I disagree that you should take 3 QBs, unless you plan on taking 3 cheap ones. Taking a top 10 QB and pairing with one midrange QB and one cheap QB will cost too much of your cap. IMO, the optimal strategy is to spend the least amount of $ at QB and get your 20-25 pts a week. You need that extra money spent at RB/WR/TE where the flex position is.

Interesting. I have three QBs right now. I would rather pick two QBs and use the money elsewhere, but if you lose just one of your two QBs, aren't you taking a huge risk if one QB is on a bye while the other is out with an injury?

That is a risk you have to take. Playing it safe will never get you to the final 250, let alone win. I wouldn't be concerned with that. Even if the worse case scenario happened and took a zero at the QB spot, you still could advance if you had a big week at the other positions.That risk is real, though, and I understand that. You can mitigate that risk somewhat by taking 2 durable QBs.Your QBs getting injured may or may not happen, but if you take 3 QBs and spend say $55, you won't have enough talent and/or enough depth at RB/WR/TE to go really far in the contest. If you take a stud, a midrange QB and a cheap QB, most likely your stud is going to carry you and your cheap QB is a waste of money.

I don't disagree. The two QB iteration I just completed sure does give me a sweet WR corps.

 

[WisWolvrns]

studs lineup...

QB - Aaron Rodgers - GB - $31

QB - Colt McCoy - CLE - $10

RB - Arian Foster - HOU - $38

RB - Ray Rice - BAL - $35

RB - Thomas Jones - KC - $7

RB - Ben Tate - HOU - $3

WR - Andre Johnson - HOU - $33

WR - Andre Roberts - ARI - $9

WR - James Jones - GB - $9

WR - Derrick Mason - NYJ - $7

WR - Vincent Brown - SD - $6

WR - Titus Young - DET - $4

WR - Denarius Moore - OAK - $3

TE - Antonio Gates - SD - $29

TE - Ben Watson - CLE - $7

TE - Brent Celek - PHI - $7

PK - Shayne Graham - DAL - $2

PK - Jay Feely - ARI - $2

PK - Phil Dawson - CLE - $2

TD - Buffalo Bills - BUF - $2

TD - Denver Broncos - DEN - $2

TD - Jacksonville Jaguars - JAX - $2

Total value: 250

 

[Bobcat10]

Revamped again. Now I went from 27 back to 24. This is probably change #42. Changing at least twice a day, but for some reason starting to think this is coming together. Took 41 times before I finally *removed* Stafford from my lineup.QB $37 (2)RB $83 (7)WR $80 (6)TE $29 (3)K $8 (3)DST $13 (3)

I don't understand spending more money on RB than WR when your starting requirements have 50% more WRs than RBs.

Sure seems like it's harder to build a solid RB group in this contest vs a solid WR group...based on values and rb tandems.

 

[FUBAR]

What players have you wanted to get but currently aren't?

I've had or wanted and currently don't:

Colt McCoy - cheap and decent upside but I like him a lot more when I have 3 QBs.

Fitzpatrick - surprisingly good last year, not sure how losing Evans affects him

Mendenhall - just ends up being too expensive

Forte - same as Mendenhall

Felix - love the upside, not sure about the injury risk

Hightower - could pay off huge, but there's the risk that he won't be the starter later in the year

Andre Johnson - I wanted a stud WR, none are better but the price is high

Amendola - Could be good consistent but I like others in the range better in a best ball format

Cotchery - could make for cheap decent depth

Graham - love the upside

 

[Saint]

Revamped again. Now I went from 27 back to 24. This is probably change #42. Changing at least twice a day, but for some reason starting to think this is coming together. Took 41 times before I finally *removed* Stafford from my lineup.QB $37 (2)RB $83 (7)WR $80 (6)TE $29 (3)K $8 (3)DST $13 (3)

I don't understand spending more money on RB than WR when your starting requirements have 50% more WRs than RBs.

Yeah I know. My 6 WRs are some solid studs + mixed bag. I think the RBs are deeeeppp this year. So I tossed extra bucks in for the Ringer/Howling/Barber sweepstakes. 3 Guys that could become huge game changers if CJ don't show, Forte holds out, and with Williams out, Howling will way outperform his $2 price tag. So I spent $8 in RB that I didn't plan and it cost me a WR. Thought the upside was worth it.If CJ does sign, then I'll drop Ringer and add back to my WR squad.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Note: looks like Dexter McCluster was moved from the WR column over to the RB column last night.

That's only change I've noticed so far, but maybe there are others?

 

[jacobo_moses]

Well dang it. I had him as one of my low end WR's that could suprise.

Note: looks like Dexter McCluster was moved from the WR column over to the RB column last night.

That's only change I've noticed so far, but maybe there are others?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Note: looks like Dexter McCluster was moved from the WR column over to the RB column last night.

That's only change I've noticed so far, but maybe there are others?

Wow, that's pretty unprecedented I think. They never make changes to the entry form once it's released, for obvious reasons. Wonder if Drinen will weigh in on that decision.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Wow, that's pretty unprecedented I think. They never make changes to the entry form once it's released, for obvious reasons. Wonder if Drinen will weigh in on that decision.

Yeah, I know they've said they would never add/remove players or change dollar values, but I've never heard anything about moving a player to a different position. He's much more attractive as a WR because more receivers can count to your weekly total. I know I won't keep him if he stays in the RB column.

 

[5-ish Finkle]

Newest attempt...

QBs: 2@37

RBs: 7@71

WRs: 9@95

TEs: 3@28

PKs: 3@8

TDs: 3@11

Really like the WRs and TEs in this pack, QB1 is a stud, and I feel pretty okay about the RBs and peripherals( although I wouldn't mind a fourth option at one of K or D), but I really, really worry about the second QB(although his upside is considerable).

Think I'm drawing a bead here, finally. Only massaging I think I may do moving forward would be trying to maybe move the shells around at TE to upgrade that 2nd quarterback to someone a little less "all or nothing."

Of course, in a setup like this an "all or nothing" type is likely what winds up being the difference between advancing deeply in this and petering out. I may just stand pat.

 

[David Dodds]

Note: looks like Dexter McCluster was moved from the WR column over to the RB column last night.

That's only change I've noticed so far, but maybe there are others?

I changed our master database last night without any regard that this would change the contest. I do consider McCluster a RB now, but I changed it back to WR as we don't want to mess with the contest (and all the databases are linked).

 

[HellToupee]

Note: looks like Dexter McCluster was moved from the WR column over to the RB column last night.

That's only change I've noticed so far, but maybe there are others?

Wow, that's pretty unprecedented I think. They never make changes to the entry form once it's released, for obvious reasons. Wonder if Drinen will weigh in on that decision.

Thats the 1st time I ever seen a change after the contest has been opened

 

[HellToupee]

Note: looks like Dexter McCluster was moved from the WR column over to the RB column last night.

That's only change I've noticed so far, but maybe there are others?

Wow, that's pretty unprecedented I think. They never make changes to the entry form once it's released, for obvious reasons. Wonder if Drinen will weigh in on that decision.

Thats the 1st time I ever seen a change after the contest has been opened

 

[Tickle Monster]

QB 3/$45 (I haven't changed these since my first attempt)

RB 5/$78

WR 7/$88

TE 3/$20

PK 5/$14

TD 2/$5

25/$250

ETA: re-tweaked.....

 

[LittlePhatty]

Thats the 1st time I ever seen a change after the contest has been opened

Mr. Dodds explains it above, it seems it was an accident. It has already been changed back.

 

[gpalmer]

QB $40 (2)

RB $90 (7)

WR $77 (11)

TE $27 (4)

PK $8 (3)

TD $8 (3)

Going with 30 players. Pretty happy with my current team, I'm sure I'll change it 500 more times before the deadline.

Spent some $ on a stud QB and two solid RBs.

For WR|TE|PK|TD my strategy is just to pick a bunch of value plays with decent upside.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Man, I am so torn between spending the $ for one stud RB or splitting it between two middle of the road guys.

I like my team a lot so far, and it's pretty much set. But this one issue has me vexed.

 

[Polish Hammer]

QB - $52 (3)

RB - $67 (4)

WR - $71 (6)

TE - $36 (3)

PK - $8 (2)

TD - $16 (3)

It seems that I'm having a hard time really shooting for the "best ball" aspect and instead have money tied up in bone fide starters for a fantasy team (since I only have 21 players). Does it seem like I have too much focus on any one position?

 

[jdoggydogg]

QB - $52 (3)RB - $67 (4)WR - $71 (6)TE - $36 (3)PK - $8 (2)TD - $16 (3)It seems that I'm having a hard time really shooting for the "best ball" aspect and instead have money tied up in bone fide starters for a fantasy team (since I only have 21 players). Does it seem like I have too much focus on any one position?

That seems like a lot of money for QBs. I'd rather shave off $10 or $15 from your QB budget and get a couple more WRs.

 

[Polish Hammer]

QB - $52 (3)RB - $67 (4)WR - $71 (6)TE - $36 (3)PK - $8 (2)TD - $16 (3)It seems that I'm having a hard time really shooting for the "best ball" aspect and instead have money tied up in bone fide starters for a fantasy team (since I only have 21 players). Does it seem like I have too much focus on any one position?

That seems like a lot of money for QBs. I'd rather shave off $10 or $15 from your QB budget and get a couple more WRs.

I was kind of thinking that. I had one stud QB, one top 12 guy, and an upside guy. I dropped the top 12 guy for Whitehurst and added two WRs, upgraded another, and added a kicker. Thanks!

 

[jdoggydogg]

QB - $52 (3)RB - $67 (4)WR - $71 (6)TE - $36 (3)PK - $8 (2)TD - $16 (3)It seems that I'm having a hard time really shooting for the "best ball" aspect and instead have money tied up in bone fide starters for a fantasy team (since I only have 21 players). Does it seem like I have too much focus on any one position?

That seems like a lot of money for QBs. I'd rather shave off $10 or $15 from your QB budget and get a couple more WRs.

I was kind of thinking that. I had one stud QB, one top 12 guy, and an upside guy. I dropped the top 12 guy for Whitehurst and added two WRs, upgraded another, and added a kicker. Thanks!

I had three QBs on my roster up until a week ago. But an astute poster here pointed out that the past few champions in this contest all had two QBs. Obviously, you'll want two durable QBs.

 

[jacobo_moses]

QB - $52 (3)RB - $67 (4)WR - $71 (6)TE - $36 (3)PK - $8 (2)TD - $16 (3)It seems that I'm having a hard time really shooting for the "best ball" aspect and instead have money tied up in bone fide starters for a fantasy team (since I only have 21 players). Does it seem like I have too much focus on any one position?

That seems like a lot of money for QBs. I'd rather shave off $10 or $15 from your QB budget and get a couple more WRs.

I was kind of thinking that. I had one stud QB, one top 12 guy, and an upside guy. I dropped the top 12 guy for Whitehurst and added two WRs, upgraded another, and added a kicker. Thanks!

I had three QBs on my roster up until a week ago. But an astute poster here pointed out that the past few champions in this contest all had two QBs. Obviously, you'll want two durable QBs.

So does Mathew STafford fall under that category of "two durable QB's."?????

 

[Bonfire]

I didnt see it in the thread (or missed it), but could someone post or link previous year's winners. Or even top whatever places. With $ of course, would like to take a better look at previous winning entries.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

missed it

This. I posted it in here somewhere, but on an iPhone right now so it'd be hard for me to dig up. I posted them by year iirc so ctrl-f on "2008" should find it pretty quickly.

 

[Bruce Leroy]

(2)QB - $38

(8)RB - $77

(10)WR - $81

(6)TE - $41

(2)K - $7

(2)Def - $6

Really starting to like my team

 

[5-ish Finkle]

I didnt see it in the thread (or missed it), but could someone post or link previous year's winners. Or even top whatever places. With $ of course, would like to take a better look at previous winning entries.

It's on page five, here.Like IE said, just CTRL+F on one of the years(2007-2010) and you can jump to it.

 

[5-ish Finkle]

The post that keeps on giving. (stupid fingers)

 

[ScoobySnack]

missed it

This. I posted it in here somewhere, but on an iPhone right now so it'd be hard for me to dig up. I posted them by year iirc so ctrl-f on "2008" should find it pretty quickly.

The info is on page 5 if you are still looking for it.

 

[BaBastage]

Sigh. I'm on revision 70-something.

Have run the gamut between "very few studs" and "30 scrubs".

Thanks FGB; this contest kicks butt.

 

[jdoggydogg]

(2)QB - $38(8)RB - $77(10)WR - $81(6)TE - $41(2)K - $7(2)Def - $6Really starting to like my team

I was about to ask, "Why so much money for TEs?!" but actually, I am interested in your strategy there. Care to share?

 

[BaBastage]

I was about to ask, "Why so much money for TEs?!" but actually, I am interested in your strategy there. Care to share?

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but TE's score heavy at 1.5 ppr. Your top TE always scores, but often your second scores high enough to be your flex play.I'm currently sitting at:QB 2 / $41RB 5 / $62WR 6 / $75TE 3 / $52PK 3 / $7TD 3 / $13Statistically I have an undersized team at 22 players, and I'd like to bump up a WR. Just like everyone else, the question is, "where does the sacrifice come from?" Sigh.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I was about to ask, "Why so much money for TEs?!" but actually, I am interested in your strategy there. Care to share?

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but TE's score heavy at 1.5 ppr. Your top TE always scores, but often your second scores high enough to be your flex play.I'm currently sitting at:QB 2 / $41RB 5 / $62WR 6 / $75TE 3 / $52PK 3 / $7TD 3 / $13Statistically I have an undersized team at 22 players, and I'd like to bump up a WR. Just like everyone else, the question is, "where does the sacrifice come from?" Sigh.

My opinion? Defense.