***Official*** 2011 FBG Subscriber Contest Thread (2 Viewers)

[Driver]

I think our RB/WR/TE allocations are very similar. We're both using the 30-player strategy and incorporating many low-cost value players on our team roster. To permit 3 QBs on my roster, I decided to go with only 2 kickers. If my kickers don't get hurt, I think I'll only sacrifice a point or two per week for 2 versus 3 kickers. If one of my kickers gets hurt, I'll be hurting for the rest of the season.

IMO, the best-ball format facilitates using a committee approach for each position and taking advantage of low-cost value players with upside. Using the maximum 30 player roster is only desirable if there are enough low-cost value players to compensate for a high-cost starting player. Like the comment "it's good to replace a single $15 WR with 5 $3 WRs." However, this only works if the 5 $3 WRs consistently outperform the single $15 WR. I think there are plenty of low-cost value players to fill-out a 30-player roster -- and the total performances of these players will most likely outperform a couple high-priced players.

Good luck to all.

You may only average a point or two difference per week, but kickers are just like any other position--scores fluctuate wildly and unpredictably. When you have 1 kicker on a bye and the other guy kicks 2 extra points, the $2 or $3 kicker who has 13 points will look like a much better investment than the $10 3rd QB who scores 15 but never outscores both your top 2.

Geez, I get criticized for taking 3 QBs instead of 2 -- and the argument is that the 3rd QB will never really add anything. Now I get criticized for the reverse -- taking only 2 kickers instead of 3.My $.02 FWIW. Both QB and kicker scores count for only the highest player on your roster (a single score for each position). The QB position is the highest-scoring position and there is substantial week-to-week variation for even stud players. The kicker position is one of the lowest-scoring positions (if not the absolute lowest-scoring position), and the kicker position has less week-to-week variation than any other position.

It would be nice if we could have 5 QBs and 5 kickers on our roster -- and we can if we want to devote that many roster slots to those positions. And I'm sure that each additional QB or kicker would add a few points to the team's total scores for Weeks 1-16. But I think it's ridiculous to have 5 QBs (or 5 kickers) on your roster. It's a waste of roster slots.

What's the optimum number for each position? Again, it's a very complicated problem with all the different trade-offs. But I maintain -- if you're going to allocate 5 roster slots to QBs and kickers -- I definitely want to have 3 QBs and 2 kickers, rather than the reverse.

Good luck to all.

 

[Driver]

Here is my 2011 Team

QB 2 ($32)= 12.8%

RB 8 ($84)= 33.6%

WR 9 ($96)= 38.4%

TE 5 ($26)= 10.4%

PK 3 ($6) = 2.4%

TD 3 ($6) = 2.4%

30 Man Roster = $250

From what I learned last year:

- I went with a max roster size (30) and it pushed me late into the contest (week 11 - and missed cut by less then a point)

- TE killed me as Finley went down - so this year I am focusing more on quantity and splitting my $ up. I think I went with 3 TE's last year and after Finley went down it hurt. So depth here helps with the 1.5 Pts Per Catch

- Backup QB's are not a huge deal, so safe your money. I went with 2 QB's Ben/Rivers and Ben was out first 4 games and it didn't effect me at all.

- RB's will get hurt so have some depth here, and try to pick up more of the PPR guys cause that 0.5 pts a catch can really help.

- WR's are the key. you have to start 3 each week and you have the option to use a 4th for a flex so you better grab an abundance of them. Injury worries are less for WR's then RB's so investing in a top WR is a little safer.

- Kickers - well the more the better I guess, I went with 3 last year and they never came into play for me.

- Defense - I went with 3 Defenses last year (NO, SF, and Det) and the top two I spent money on ended up being duds while the bottom one Det came out on top. Remember you get no points for Scores/Yardage so it is better just to take quantity here as well. I would rather have 4 low cost defenses then 2 of the best. I still might tweek my team (I know I will) maybe go 4 K, 4 Defenses and take a RB/TE off my team.

That is my 2 cents if anyone cares. I always love this contest so I probably take it a little too far. Best of Luck to everyone

Here's my team summary:QB 3 ($43) - 17.2% [2 players in eaglezzz' team above, with 12.8% of total dollars]

RB 8 ($84) - 33.6% [8, 33.6%]

WR 10 ($85) - 34.0% [9, 38.4%]

TE 4 ($27) - 10.8% [5, 10.4%]

K 2 ($4) - 1.6% [3, 2.4%]

D 3 ($7) - 2.8% [3, 2.4%]

Total - 30 players, $250 salary

My team is similar to Eaglezzz' team above, but there are several key differences. First, I have 3 QBs and invested 17.2% of total salary dollars in this position, while he has 2 QBs and invested 12.8%. The QB position scores heavily with 6 pts per passing TD. In addition to 2 mid-level QBs with upside for $33, I decided to add McCoy for $10. He has 2 QBs for $32. I like my strategy much better, even though I had to sacrifice at other parts of my roster.

I think our RB/WR/TE allocations are very similar. We're both using the 30-player strategy and incorporating many low-cost value players on our team roster. To permit 3 QBs on my roster, I decided to go with only 2 kickers. If my kickers don't get hurt, I think I'll only sacrifice a point or two per week for 2 versus 3 kickers. If one of my kickers gets hurt, I'll be hurting for the rest of the season.

IMO, the best-ball format facilitates using a committee approach for each position and taking advantage of low-cost value players with upside. Using the maximum 30 player roster is only desirable if there are enough low-cost value players to compensate for a high-cost starting player. Like the comment "it's good to replace a single $15 WR with 5 $3 WRs." However, this only works if the 5 $3 WRs consistently outperform the single $15 WR. I think there are plenty of low-cost value players to fill-out a 30-player roster -- and the total performances of these players will most likely outperform a couple high-priced players.

Good luck to all.

Your QB and K strategy has proven to not produce a winner.

This is true even in the year that Warner was tearing it up and on a majority of the squads, especially the 3 QB rosters. The eventual winner had two QBs and spent that extra cash on Antonio Bryant for 41.00 24.80 24.70 pts down the stretch or 15% of his team's winning total.

I guess my response to the 2 bolded statements above is that, with hindsight, you could construct a roster with only 17 players (2 QB, 4 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE, 2 D, and 2 K) that survived weeks 1-13 and produced more points than the team that won the contest last year (and every year). Also, the winning team was far from being optimal in terms of points production in weeks 14-16. Each year, I think each team has been unique, with no exact duplicates. But the number of possible team combinations is incredibly large.That being said, some strategies are better than others for surviving weeks 1-13 -- and scoring the most points in weeks 14-16. Can a wildcard team (put together in a random manner) be successful in the contest without using a good strategy? Sure. Does using an excellent strategy increase your probability of survival and finishing in the top-20? Definitely.

Basically, you need high point producers at all positions. Whether they come from studs or highly-ranked players or low-ranked players or medium-cost players doesn't really matter. And some low-cost players will turn out to be among the highest point producers, especially in weeks 14-16 when it counts the most. But predicting which low-cost players will turn out to be stars in 2011 is subject to a huge amount of chance and luck. The best strategy? Be very, very lucky!

 

[Modog814]

I think our RB/WR/TE allocations are very similar. We're both using the 30-player strategy and incorporating many low-cost value players on our team roster. To permit 3 QBs on my roster, I decided to go with only 2 kickers. If my kickers don't get hurt, I think I'll only sacrifice a point or two per week for 2 versus 3 kickers. If one of my kickers gets hurt, I'll be hurting for the rest of the season.

IMO, the best-ball format facilitates using a committee approach for each position and taking advantage of low-cost value players with upside. Using the maximum 30 player roster is only desirable if there are enough low-cost value players to compensate for a high-cost starting player. Like the comment "it's good to replace a single $15 WR with 5 $3 WRs." However, this only works if the 5 $3 WRs consistently outperform the single $15 WR. I think there are plenty of low-cost value players to fill-out a 30-player roster -- and the total performances of these players will most likely outperform a couple high-priced players.

Good luck to all.

You may only average a point or two difference per week, but kickers are just like any other position--scores fluctuate wildly and unpredictably. When you have 1 kicker on a bye and the other guy kicks 2 extra points, the $2 or $3 kicker who has 13 points will look like a much better investment than the $10 3rd QB who scores 15 but never outscores both your top 2.

Geez, I get criticized for taking 3 QBs instead of 2 -- and the argument is that the 3rd QB will never really add anything. Now I get criticized for the reverse -- taking only 2 kickers instead of 3.My $.02 FWIW. Both QB and kicker scores count for only the highest player on your roster (a single score for each position). The QB position is the highest-scoring position and there is substantial week-to-week variation for even stud players. The kicker position is one of the lowest-scoring positions (if not the absolute lowest-scoring position), and the kicker position has less week-to-week variation than any other position.

It would be nice if we could have 5 QBs and 5 kickers on our roster -- and we can if we want to devote that many roster slots to those positions. And I'm sure that each additional QB or kicker would add a few points to the team's total scores for Weeks 1-16. But I think it's ridiculous to have 5 QBs (or 5 kickers) on your roster. It's a waste of roster slots.

What's the optimum number for each position? Again, it's a very complicated problem with all the different trade-offs. But I maintain -- if you're going to allocate 5 roster slots to QBs and kickers -- I definitely want to have 3 QBs and 2 kickers, rather than the reverse.

Good luck to all.

I think we had this discussion somewhat in last years thread, specifically in regards to the numbers of kickers. I know I did some work on how many kickers was ideal, and I believe one of the staff members also did (maybe doug?), and maybe Ignoratio did too. I don't remember if I posted my data or only my results, but I believe doug posted everything. IIRC the conclusion was that a team gained "alot" by going from 2 to 3 kickers, and not quite as much going from 3 to 4, and even less going 4 to 5.

Not telling you what to do, but if I only had 5 spots to allot between QB's and kickers, it'd probably be 2 qbs, 3 kickers, or even 1 stud qb and 4 kickers before I went 3QB's and 2 kickers. I think the 3rd QB spot is a luxury, while the 3rd Kicker spot is a necessity. Trust me, when your two kickers either end up with just a couple pats or a single fg, while the other is on a bye, you'll wish you had a 3rd kicker.

From the kicker position, I'm looking to get 9 pts per week, thats 2 40yd fgs and an xp. Not easily done, but with 3 kickers (i actually have a 4th on my team this year), it's a lot more likely than 2 kickers. From the QB position, you're looking for 25 pts per week, whether you choose a stud and a cheap backup or 2 mid tier qbs, your chances are already pretty decent to get to 25 pts, so adding the 3rd low cost guy will increase your chances, but your chances are already pretty high as it were. Not to mention that the cheapest "starting" qb is what, $8? So not only do you benefit by using that roster spot on a kicker, you also have another $5-6 to spend elsewhere.

 

[Modog814]

Vick was unique last year. Arian Foster was not. The real trick is taking the obvious value and hitting on the long shot.

BassNBrew -- You make some great points about the QB position and the 6 points per TD. I went heavy on that strategy last year with Rivers/Ben as my QB's knowing they would get TD's with all their weapons. This year I would like to take guys that are not rostered by everyone else, I know last year I had one of the most common teams and I wasnt very unique and in the end that is why I fizzled out and my team only lasted but never really competed.

I will continue to make changes as we go along the next week. My current roster has $115 spent on WR's

I think the uniqueness quotient is overrated. Last year my team was consistently among the least unique in the contest according to the Turk's stats. It was that way in Week 1 and it was that way when I was virtually the "least unique" team to make the finals. Despite that, I finished in the top 20 and probably would have made the top 5 or 10 if I hadn't lost Rodgers to a concussion in weeks 14 & 15. When you start taking players "to be different" it probably means you're passing on guys you think have more value and that can't be a good thing.

I strongly agree with the two bolded statements above. This year, suppose there are 10 players that are "obviously the best values" -- either they were priced as backups and are now starters, or their value has increased substantially since the salaries were set (for whatever reason) and thus represent excellent value. I'd argue that any roster that doesn't have all 10 of these players is starting out at a definite disadvantage to the rosters that have all of these players. For example, last year about a third of the rosters did not have A. Foster. However, by week 11 or 12, about 98% of the surviving rosters had Foster -- meaning the third that didn't include Foster were at a severe disadvantage.The real trick is taking the obvious value and hitting on the long shot. To "hit on a long shot," you can't just pick one or two low-cost players with high upside. You increase your odds significantly if you include as many of these players (low-cost players with high upside) on your roster as possible. This means you use all 30 roster slots -- take a few studs and highly-ranked players -- and pack the rest of your lineup with the best available long shots.

I'd love to see your list (after rosters lock if you don't want to share prior) of the 10 best value players that you'd argue a teams needs to have otherwise they're starting at a disadvantage. Its weird, because I would actually have this list as 0. Sure there are some values out there, but none that that was so huge that I'd think every team would need to have him (a la Foster last year). I could take a guess on who you're referring to, and again I'd agree they were values, (Wells, R.Bush, Hightower), but Wells can't stay healthy and hasn't proven anything in the NFL and theres talk of Arizona bringing in another rb, Bush pretty much same deal plus has a high drafted rookie behind him, and Hightower is entering the world of Shanahan with Helu and Torain behind him. Torain already proved he can produce in that offense and it looks like Helu is showing the same. If someone decided they didn't want one of these players for these reasons, I wouldn't blame them, nor would I say their team is at a disadvantage.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What's the optimum number for each position? Again, it's a very complicated problem with all the different trade-offs. But I maintain -- if you're going to allocate 5 roster slots to QBs and kickers -- I definitely want to have 3 QBs and 2 kickers, rather than the reverse.

I disagree with this (NEED MOAR KICKERSSS!!!!) I agree that it's complicated and there's no proven "right" way to do it, but if I had to guess which part of your analysis I disagree with most, it's probably this:

The QB position is the highest-scoring position and there is substantial week-to-week variation for even stud players. The kicker position is one of the lowest-scoring positions (if not the absolute lowest-scoring position), and the kicker position has less week-to-week variation than any other position.

 

[comfortably numb]

I was all set to leave my team as is with 22, but opted to can Gore and Fitzgerald and now I am going shopping!

 

[Saint]

I was all set to leave my team as is with 22, but opted to can Gore and Fitzgerald and now I am going shopping!

based on that I am buying Fitz now to make my team unique. We all know uniqueness is where it is at.

 

[5-ish Finkle]

I have seriously tweaked this thing probably close to a 100 damn times.

I've pretty much decided on the major contributors, but I am friggin' agonizing over minutia now(three $2 dollar kickers and another flier at RB/WR vs. three $3 dollar kickers and no additional flier, etc. etc.)

I need an intervention. SOMEONE SAVE ME FROM MYSELF!

 

[HellToupee]

I need an intervention. SOMEONE SAVE ME FROM MYSELF!

The only cure is the deadline

 

[apalmer]

I have seriously tweaked this thing probably close to a 100 damn times. I've pretty much decided on the major contributors, but I am friggin' agonizing over minutia now(three $2 dollar kickers and another flier at RB/WR vs. three $3 dollar kickers and no additional flier, etc. etc.)I need an intervention. SOMEONE SAVE ME FROM MYSELF!

Have you considered 1 $3 kicker, 2 $2 kickers and a $2 flier? HTH

 

[comfortably numb]

I have seriously tweaked this thing probably close to a 100 damn times. I've pretty much decided on the major contributors, but I am friggin' agonizing over minutia now(three $2 dollar kickers and another flier at RB/WR vs. three $3 dollar kickers and no additional flier, etc. etc.)I need an intervention. SOMEONE SAVE ME FROM MYSELF!

Have you considered 1 $3 kicker, 2 $2 kickers and a $2 flier? HTH

or spend $9 on a RB

 

[Touchdown There]

The player with the least uniqueness this year will be LK.

 

[gamera]

I've made a jillion tweaks from my original roster, all of them easily justified individually. But now I'm down to four RBs and three of them have the same bye week. WTMF....

 

[5-ish Finkle]

I need an intervention. SOMEONE SAVE ME FROM MYSELF!

The only cure is the deadline

I fear you are right. Where's the needle again? Thanks.

 

[gpalmer]

My latest strategy is to team Peyton Manning with McNabb. This year Manning has a few things going for him in this contest:

[*]He won't have high ownership % because of his health status

[*]The Colts won't walk into the playoffs this year. You can bet he will be airing it out in weeks 14-16 to save his teams life.

Why McNabb? Not my first choice, but he has a late bye week to ensure Manning is back and playing, and the Vikes schedule looks pretty good. Ohh and he's only $11

Somebody talk me out of this....

 

[Touchdown There]

My latest strategy is to team Peyton Manning with McNabb. This year Manning has a few things going for him in this contest:

[*]He won't have high ownership % because of his health status

[*]The Colts won't walk into the playoffs this year. You can bet he will be airing it out in weeks 14-16 to save his teams life.

Why McNabb? Not my first choice, but he has a late bye week to ensure Manning is back and playing, and the Vikes schedule looks pretty good. Ohh and he's only $11

Somebody talk me out of this....

I would but it is like Plankton trying to get the Crabby Patty formula. I cannot tell you the secret formula, but it does not have Manning/McNabb in it. Trust me on this.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I cannot tell you the secret formula, but it does not have Manning/McNabb in it.

I don't see why it couldn't. Nothing wrong with that strategy.

 

[5-ish Finkle]

Have you considered 1 $3 kicker, 2 $2 kickers and a $2 flier? HTH

I have. About 15 different ways.

 

[HellToupee]

I've made oodles of different variations but they always have the same set of 4 TEs

 

[chocula]

Any chance I can get you guys to pick my players for this contest?

I continue to make adjustments and it gets worse each time.

 

[Touchdown There]

I cannot tell you the secret formula, but it does not have Manning/McNabb in it.

I don't see why it couldn't. Nothing wrong with that strategy.

Iggy, you know the going gets tough later in the season on this contest. McNabb will give way to the rook if Minnesota ends up stinking. The Vikings are in a real tough division, and if/when they look to the future it will not include McNabb at QB, who is getting fewer and fewer yards on his feet as he ages. That essentially leaves you with one QB that missed most of the preseason and is 35 coming off neck surgery. I love Peyton Manning and have him in a dynasty league. For the purposes of this contest, there are much better risk/reward combinations out there.

 

[rzrback77]

I believe that the salaries are definitely a more difficult challenge than a year ago. I am really struggling to identify bargains. I worked on this off and on all day and I am still not very excited about my roster.

At thois point I am spending the following:

QBs $42

RBs $90

WRs $69

TEs $31

PKs $7

DSTs $11

Even though I have nine WRs, I just feel like that position needs more help and may look to shift some RB money over to the WRs.

 

[gamera]

I've made a jillion tweaks from my original roster, all of them easily justified individually. But now I'm down to four RBs and three of them have the same bye week. WTMF....

Played with this thing all day. I still have four RBs, though they're all different. And three of them have the same bye week.

 

[Mapmaker]

Every year this is one of my favorite fantasy challenges to take part in, Thanks FootballGuys ...

So far I've probably redone my roster upwards of 50 times looking for that perfect combination that'll take me through ... at least into the final 250 ..

Everyone's got a theory on what the magic formula is ... Bigger's better ... No, No ya gotta go for this or that or the other ...

All I know is you can mix and match till yer blue in the face and you've pulled out half yer hair in frustration ... and tommorow if you look over your roster you'll probably change it again and again and again ... and that's a hugh part of what makes this such a fun contest ....

I'm done for now ... thanks again for running this FBG's and good luck to Everyone.

QB's x2 - $38.00

RB's x5 - $75.00

WR's x6 - $91.00

TE's x3 - $28.00

PK's x3 - $ 8.00

TD's x3 - $10.00

Never before have I payed so much for so few ...

 

[5-ish Finkle]

I've made oodles of different variations but they always have the same set of 4 TEs

My TEs, WRs and QB1 haven't changed in a while, and likely won't, but I keep moving the shells around at RB and QB2. Obsessively, even. :( I have one "main" TD that I have left alone for a good while, but the other two have been fluid based on what I've done at RB/QB2. PKs have been, and will likely remain, on a teeter-totter until the deadline forces me to cease and desist with this madness.

 

[HellToupee]

30 players

QB -2 $45

RB-6 $80

WR-12 $78

TE-4 $33

K-3 $7

D-3 $7

 

[kutta]

I'm taking a different approach this year.

Studs and QB, RB, TE, and tons of mid-low priced WR's. I'm too lazy to consider too much strategy, but it seems like a fun way to go.

 

[Saint]

Well Chester Taylor signing with ARI makes the $2 Howling position not as much of a value now. That requires changing at least 50% of my roster now to make the new numbers work.

 

[Bankerguy]

Been as low as 21 man roster up to 29 players, but have now settled in at 26. I am endlessly adjusting QB/WR/TE

 

[5-ish Finkle]

30 playersQB -2 $45RB-6 $80WR-12 $78TE-4 $33K-3 $7D-3 $7

And here I am thinking getting 10 wideouts was overkill. 30 playersQBs: $38(2)RBs: $73(8)WRs: $94(10)TEs: $27(4)PKs: $8(3)TDs: $6(3)

 

[fsufan]

QB - Philip Rivers - SD/6 - $24

QB - Donovan McNabb - MIN/9 - $11

RB - Frank Gore - SF/7 - $29

RB - Steven Jackson - STL/5 - $25

RB - Chris Wells - ARI/6 - $16

RB - Danny Woodhead - NE/7 - $10

WR - Hakeem Nicks - NYG/7 - $29

WR - Larry Fitzgerald - ARI/6 - $28

WR - Mike Wallace - PIT/11 - $23

WR - Steve Johnson - BUF/7 - $19

WR - Bernard Berrian - MIN/9 - $5

WR - Antonio Brown - PIT/11 - $3

TE - Aaron Hernandez - NE/7 - $10

TE - Heath Miller - PIT/11 - $9

PK - Rian Lindell - BUF/7 - $2

PK - Olindo Mare - CAR/9 - $2

TD - Arizona Cardinals - ARI/6 - $3

TD - Denver Broncos - DEN/6 - $2

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

QB - Philip Rivers - SD/6 - $24 QB - Donovan McNabb - MIN/9 - $11 RB - Frank Gore - SF/7 - $29 RB - Steven Jackson - STL/5 - $25 RB - Chris Wells - ARI/6 - $16 RB - Danny Woodhead - NE/7 - $10 WR - Hakeem Nicks - NYG/7 - $29 WR - Larry Fitzgerald - ARI/6 - $28 WR - Mike Wallace - PIT/11 - $23 WR - Steve Johnson - BUF/7 - $19 WR - Bernard Berrian - MIN/9 - $5 WR - Antonio Brown - PIT/11 - $3 TE - Aaron Hernandez - NE/7 - $10 TE - Heath Miller - PIT/11 - $9 PK - Rian Lindell - BUF/7 - $2 PK - Olindo Mare - CAR/9 - $2 TD - Arizona Cardinals - ARI/6 - $3 TD - Denver Broncos - DEN/6 - $2

Smells like chicken dinner to me.

 

[fsufan]

QB - Philip Rivers - SD/6 - $24 QB - Donovan McNabb - MIN/9 - $11 RB - Frank Gore - SF/7 - $29 RB - Steven Jackson - STL/5 - $25 RB - Chris Wells - ARI/6 - $16 RB - Danny Woodhead - NE/7 - $10 WR - Hakeem Nicks - NYG/7 - $29 WR - Larry Fitzgerald - ARI/6 - $28 WR - Mike Wallace - PIT/11 - $23 WR - Steve Johnson - BUF/7 - $19 WR - Bernard Berrian - MIN/9 - $5 WR - Antonio Brown - PIT/11 - $3 TE - Aaron Hernandez - NE/7 - $10 TE - Heath Miller - PIT/11 - $9 PK - Rian Lindell - BUF/7 - $2 PK - Olindo Mare - CAR/9 - $2 TD - Arizona Cardinals - ARI/6 - $3 TD - Denver Broncos - DEN/6 - $2

Smells like chicken dinner to me.

you better copy it because it is a winner

 

[Saint]

QB - Philip Rivers - SD/6 - $24 QB - Donovan McNabb - MIN/9 - $11 RB - Frank Gore - SF/7 - $29 RB - Steven Jackson - STL/5 - $25 RB - Chris Wells - ARI/6 - $16 RB - Danny Woodhead - NE/7 - $10 WR - Hakeem Nicks - NYG/7 - $29 WR - Larry Fitzgerald - ARI/6 - $28 WR - Mike Wallace - PIT/11 - $23 WR - Steve Johnson - BUF/7 - $19 WR - Bernard Berrian - MIN/9 - $5 WR - Antonio Brown - PIT/11 - $3 TE - Aaron Hernandez - NE/7 - $10 TE - Heath Miller - PIT/11 - $9 PK - Rian Lindell - BUF/7 - $2 PK - Olindo Mare - CAR/9 - $2 TD - Arizona Cardinals - ARI/6 - $3 TD - Denver Broncos - DEN/6 - $2

Smells like chicken dinner to me.

you better copy it because it is a winner

Not really. Let's reflect upon the greatness of Week 6. No points from defense (since they are both on bye), Rivers is out, so you are relying on McNabb, and Fitz is out. Smells like toast to me.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

QB - Philip Rivers - SD/6 - $24 QB - Donovan McNabb - MIN/9 - $11 RB - Frank Gore - SF/7 - $29 RB - Steven Jackson - STL/5 - $25 RB - Chris Wells - ARI/6 - $16 RB - Danny Woodhead - NE/7 - $10 WR - Hakeem Nicks - NYG/7 - $29 WR - Larry Fitzgerald - ARI/6 - $28 WR - Mike Wallace - PIT/11 - $23 WR - Steve Johnson - BUF/7 - $19 WR - Bernard Berrian - MIN/9 - $5 WR - Antonio Brown - PIT/11 - $3 TE - Aaron Hernandez - NE/7 - $10 TE - Heath Miller - PIT/11 - $9 PK - Rian Lindell - BUF/7 - $2 PK - Olindo Mare - CAR/9 - $2 TD - Arizona Cardinals - ARI/6 - $3 TD - Denver Broncos - DEN/6 - $2

Smells like chicken dinner to me.

you better copy it because it is a winner

Not really. Let's reflect upon the greatness of Week 6. No points from defense (since they are both on bye), Rivers is out, so you are relying on McNabb, and Fitz is out. Smells like toast to me.

Week 6 is early enough to survive a bunch of byes. Don't forget there will be thousands of junk entries to weed out first.

 

[fsufan]

QB - Philip Rivers - SD/6 - $24 QB - Donovan McNabb - MIN/9 - $11 RB - Frank Gore - SF/7 - $29 RB - Steven Jackson - STL/5 - $25 RB - Chris Wells - ARI/6 - $16 RB - Danny Woodhead - NE/7 - $10 WR - Hakeem Nicks - NYG/7 - $29 WR - Larry Fitzgerald - ARI/6 - $28 WR - Mike Wallace - PIT/11 - $23 WR - Steve Johnson - BUF/7 - $19 WR - Bernard Berrian - MIN/9 - $5 WR - Antonio Brown - PIT/11 - $3 TE - Aaron Hernandez - NE/7 - $10 TE - Heath Miller - PIT/11 - $9 PK - Rian Lindell - BUF/7 - $2 PK - Olindo Mare - CAR/9 - $2 TD - Arizona Cardinals - ARI/6 - $3 TD - Denver Broncos - DEN/6 - $2

Smells like chicken dinner to me.

you better copy it because it is a winner

Not really. Let's reflect upon the greatness of Week 6. No points from defense (since they are both on bye), Rivers is out, so you are relying on McNabb, and Fitz is out. Smells like toast to me.

Week 6 is early enough to survive a bunch of byes. Don't forget there will be thousands of junk entries to weed out first.

the week 6 DEF byes is an easy fix. I think Mcnabb is good value for $11.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

QB - Philip Rivers - SD/6 - $24 QB - Donovan McNabb - MIN/9 - $11 RB - Frank Gore - SF/7 - $29 RB - Steven Jackson - STL/5 - $25 RB - Chris Wells - ARI/6 - $16 RB - Danny Woodhead - NE/7 - $10 WR - Hakeem Nicks - NYG/7 - $29 WR - Larry Fitzgerald - ARI/6 - $28 WR - Mike Wallace - PIT/11 - $23 WR - Steve Johnson - BUF/7 - $19 WR - Bernard Berrian - MIN/9 - $5 WR - Antonio Brown - PIT/11 - $3 TE - Aaron Hernandez - NE/7 - $10 TE - Heath Miller - PIT/11 - $9 PK - Rian Lindell - BUF/7 - $2 PK - Olindo Mare - CAR/9 - $2 TD - Arizona Cardinals - ARI/6 - $3 TD - Denver Broncos - DEN/6 - $2

Smells like chicken dinner to me.

you better copy it because it is a winner

Not really. Let's reflect upon the greatness of Week 6. No points from defense (since they are both on bye), Rivers is out, so you are relying on McNabb, and Fitz is out. Smells like toast to me.

Week 6 is early enough to survive a bunch of byes. Don't forget there will be thousands of junk entries to weed out first.

the week 6 DEF byes is an easy fix. I think Mcnabb is good value for $11.

You're loaded with studs. Might as well get your byes out of the way early, while all the junk entries are getting eliminated and then dominate the rest of the year.

 

[rustycolts]

Final team after many many changes.This is the winner guys

QB - Matt Ryan - 21

QB - Colt McCoy - 10

RB - Michael Turner - 27

RB - Peyton Hillis - 27

RB - Reggie Bush - 15

RB - Tim Hightower - 14

RB - Pierre Thomas - 7

RB - Jason Snelling - 6

WR - Santana Moss - 16

WR - Davone Bess - 13

WR - Lance Moore - 10

WR - Braylon Edwards - 9

WR - Nate Burleson - 8

WR - Malcom Floyd - 8

WR - Steve Smith - 5

WR - Jordan Shipley - 4

WR - Denarius Moore - 3

WR - Dexter McCluster - 2

TE - Tony Gonzalez - 10

TE - Greg Olsen - 9

TE - Zach Miller - 9

PK - David Akers - 3

PK - Dan Carpenter - 3

PK - Nick Folk - 3

TD - Tampa Bay Buccaneers - 4

TD - Denver Broncos - 2

TD - Jacksonville Jaguars - 2

 

[atcdav]

QB - Philip Rivers - SD/6 - $24 QB - Donovan McNabb - MIN/9 - $11 RB - Frank Gore - SF/7 - $29 RB - Steven Jackson - STL/5 - $25 RB - Chris Wells - ARI/6 - $16 RB - Danny Woodhead - NE/7 - $10 WR - Hakeem Nicks - NYG/7 - $29 WR - Larry Fitzgerald - ARI/6 - $28 WR - Mike Wallace - PIT/11 - $23 WR - Steve Johnson - BUF/7 - $19 WR - Bernard Berrian - MIN/9 - $5 WR - Antonio Brown - PIT/11 - $3 TE - Aaron Hernandez - NE/7 - $10 TE - Heath Miller - PIT/11 - $9 PK - Rian Lindell - BUF/7 - $2 PK - Olindo Mare - CAR/9 - $2 TD - Arizona Cardinals - ARI/6 - $3 TD - Denver Broncos - DEN/6 - $2

Smells like chicken dinner to me.

you better copy it because it is a winner

Not really. Let's reflect upon the greatness of Week 6. No points from defense (since they are both on bye), Rivers is out, so you are relying on McNabb, and Fitz is out. Smells like toast to me.

Week 6 is early enough to survive a bunch of byes. Don't forget there will be thousands of junk entries to weed out first.

the week 6 DEF byes is an easy fix. I think McNabb is good value for $11.

You're loaded with studs. Might as well get your byes out of the way early, while all the junk entries are getting eliminated and then dominate the rest of the year.

McNabb will have a minimal benefit because he will be on the majority of rosters. Same for Fitz and Brown. Especially Brown, at $3 he will be on everyones roster.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

McNabb will have a minimal benefit because he will be on the majority of rosters. Same for Fitz

Doubtful.

 

[Saint]

Not really. Let's reflect upon the greatness of Week 6. No points from defense (since they are both on bye), Rivers is out, so you are relying on McNabb, and Fitz is out. Smells like toast to me.

Week 6 is early enough to survive a bunch of byes. Don't forget there will be thousands of junk entries to weed out first.

the week 6 DEF byes is an easy fix. I think McNabb is good value for $11.

You're loaded with studs. Might as well get your byes out of the way early, while all the junk entries are getting eliminated and then dominate the rest of the year.

McNabb will have a minimal benefit because he will be on the majority of rosters. Same for Fitz and Brown. Especially Brown, at $3 he will be on everyones roster.

Never a fan of leaving a chance you may not make a cut. Leaving D's as a 0 pt'er is a waste. I would fix it.As for McNabb, can't deny that he is a good fit... the main concern is whether or not he'll play all weeks or will he get replaced with the rookie. The other concern is he plays Detroit, Chicago and GB defenses twice each. I would rather buy McCoy for $10 as a guarantee starter for all weeks and he gets to play Cincy minus Jonathon Joseph this year. Saves a buck and less risk.

 

[apalmer]

QB - Philip Rivers - SD/6 - $24 QB - Donovan McNabb - MIN/9 - $11 RB - Frank Gore - SF/7 - $29 RB - Steven Jackson - STL/5 - $25 RB - Chris Wells - ARI/6 - $16 RB - Danny Woodhead - NE/7 - $10 WR - Hakeem Nicks - NYG/7 - $29 WR - Larry Fitzgerald - ARI/6 - $28 WR - Mike Wallace - PIT/11 - $23 WR - Steve Johnson - BUF/7 - $19 WR - Bernard Berrian - MIN/9 - $5 WR - Antonio Brown - PIT/11 - $3 TE - Aaron Hernandez - NE/7 - $10 TE - Heath Miller - PIT/11 - $9 PK - Rian Lindell - BUF/7 - $2 PK - Olindo Mare - CAR/9 - $2 TD - Arizona Cardinals - ARI/6 - $3 TD - Denver Broncos - DEN/6 - $2

Smells like chicken dinner to me.

you better copy it because it is a winner

Not really. Let's reflect upon the greatness of Week 6. No points from defense (since they are both on bye), Rivers is out, so you are relying on McNabb, and Fitz is out. Smells like toast to me.

Funny, I thought Week 7 was the problem.

 

[jacobo_moses]

Ok I'm done with mine. I'm going to call it good. This is my first year. And I've seriously put off school studying, work and sleep to adjust this lineup. This truly is an addiction. I can't take it anymore.

Ok guys now serious face so I can ask a serious question.

I have 8 WR's in my current roster. My top 2 are Hakeem Nicks and Percy Harvin. WOuld it be better to keep it that way and have the depth of Greg Little 13 and Johnny Knox 12. Or trim it to 7 WR's and get rid of Knox and Little and just snag Vincent Jackson at 25 and have just 7 WR's on my roster????

Please I'm a first timer. So what you guys think???

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

moar kickers imo

 

[jacobo_moses]

How does that make sense when the top 5 to 7 teams last year had anywhere from 2 to 3 kickers is all. I don't get that.

 

[ummich10]

moar kickers imo

Respectfully asking -what is the fascination with kickers? None of the top 250 finishers last year had 6 or more, and only a handful had 5. The majority had 2-4, and a few people went with only 1. Am I missing some sarcasm in the posts, am I taking the posts too literally?

 

[atcdav]

Ok I'm done with mine. I'm going to call it good. This is my first year. And I've seriously put off school studying, work and sleep to adjust this lineup. This truly is an addiction. I can't take it anymore. Ok guys now serious face so I can ask a serious question. I have 8 WR's in my current roster. My top 2 are Hakeem Nicks and Percy Harvin. WOuld it be better to keep it that way and have the depth of Greg Little 13 and Johnny Knox 12. Or trim it to 7 WR's and get rid of Knox and Little and just snag Vincent Jackson at 25 and have just 7 WR's on my roster????Please I'm a first timer. So what you guys think???

Grades, worry about grades. I do not subscribe to the max roster theory. I am going with 19 or so of the best players I can assemble, so I would trade depth for quality, just cover your byes

 

[Jed]

moar kickers imo

Respectfully asking -what is the fascination with kickers? None of the top 250 finishers last year had 6 or more, and only a handful had 5. The majority had 2-4, and a few people went with only 1. Am I missing some sarcasm in the posts, am I taking the posts too literally?

Stale sarcasm.

 

[apalmer]

moar kickers imo

Respectfully asking -what is the fascination with kickers? None of the top 250 finishers last year had 6 or more, and only a handful had 5. The majority had 2-4, and a few people went with only 1. Am I missing some sarcasm in the posts, am I taking the posts too literally?

Just Iggy having fun--loosen up and enjoy.

 

[Marauder]

Ignoratio killing ITT.