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

[Tennessee_ATO]

Maybe the reason the smaller rosters are holding together is that there haven't been many low-priced guys that are category killers this year. Be interested to see the correlation between price and performance compared to last year - I bet it's higher this year.-QG

I agree I wonder if any of the database guys have any information on which players are the highest fantasy points/$ per position? Though this might be skewed to the super cheap $2 guys.

I did this a couple of years ago and it is pretty jacked by lower cost guys. There has to be some sort of factor entered in to show true value instead of straight pts/$.

Yeah, straight points per dollar isn't a good metric. (Mike Nugent is the current leader, fwiw.) I've played around with different utility models in the past but never really settled on anything simple that I liked. To really determine how "valuable" a player has been in this contest you have to weigh the additional points vs the additional cost and what else you could acquire for that cost, cutting across positions, etc. Tom Brady has averaged 38 points a week, for $27. Matt Stafford has averaged 31 points a week, but only cost $18. Is it worth $9 to sacrifice 7 points at the QB position? Cam Newton has averaged more points than Stafford for $4 less, so clearly Stafford hasn't the best buy at QB. Hasselbeck has averaged 25 points per game for $11; guys like Grossman and Henne have only averaged 20 points per week but only cost $8. Is it worth it to take fewer points at QB if it means you free up that much more money for other positions? Etc. etc.

And even averages are a bad metric because a $2 player scoring 15, 0, 0, is better than a $2 player scoring 5, 5, 5. I don't think it'd be possible to come up with "simple" metric that was also effective.

It seems to me that the "best" players to have as your backbone are low-volatility, high scorers. Obviously you can't assemble an entire roster of those guys since the salary constraints get you, but those are the guys you have to build around. The reason is that the worst week of a player is just as important as the best week of a player. If your whole team is a bunch of those 15, 0, 0 guys, you're doomed. On the flip side, if your team is nothing but a bunch of 5, 5, 5 players, you're doomed.I firmly believe that while low-volatility, high scorers are what you have to build around, in order to win you need to fill-out the roster with $2 15, 0, 0 guys. The 5, 5, 5 guy is useless -- completely and utterly useless. If you're relying on any of those guys, give it up. All of that leads me to conclude that a shorter roster is the way to go. You may not be able to spread the risk around as much, but you should have enough low-risk players that it shouldn't matter.Obviously you have to plan your byes appropriately and you can be prone to the injury bug. But isn't that pretty much true of every fantasy football game/league/contest?

 

[jdoggydogg]

All of that leads me to conclude that a shorter roster is the way to go. You may not be able to spread the risk around as much, but you should have enough low-risk players that it shouldn't matter.

I don't have the stats in front of me, but didn't almost all of the small roster teams get eliminated late in last year's contest?

 

[Modog814]

All of that leads me to conclude that a shorter roster is the way to go. You may not be able to spread the risk around as much, but you should have enough low-risk players that it shouldn't matter.

I don't have the stats in front of me, but didn't almost all of the small roster teams get eliminated late in last year's contest?

Yes, a good portion of them did. But...1) I think most people with small rosters will agree there is a greater chance of them getting eliminated before the final 250 (compared to the larger rosters). They believe that should they get there they have a greater chance of winning the whole thing (compared to the larger rosters). Does there belief have merit? I'd say it's inconclusive so far, but I'm leaning toward yes, but not enough of an advantage to offset the risk of not getting to the top 250.2) Last year (and the year before) are single data points in this contest. In both those years, it worked out well for larger rosters, since a fair amount of low cost players had great years, and a fair amount of "stud" players didn't live up to their billing. 2 Data points is hardly conclusive to determine an optimal strategy. As we're so far seeing this year, there haven't been many (any?) low cost players that have really produced the way they have the last 2 years. And a good amount of high priced players (Rodgers, Brady, Welker, Megatron ect) are living up to their cost. Should this continue we may end up with a data point that shows that small rosters outsurvive larger rosters. Will it continue? I obviously don't know.

 

[jimmy b]

Next week is going to hurt me with my WR's. I will have Fitzgerald, V. Jackson and McCluster all on byes. I drafted 8 WR's thinking I would be fine but with those players on byes plus Amendola and Parrish injuries I am left with just Dez Bryant, A. Brown, and D. Moore as my 3 WR's for next week. Anyways should worry more about this week I have Hillis/Hardesty/Bryant/Amendola/Kendricks/Moore/Pitta/Dawson all on byes. Rolling with McFadden, Harrison, Karim, Tate, Redman, T. Jones as my RB's - McFadden will be alright but will need one of the others to put up a decent game.

V. Jackson week 5 bye- ---------Week 6 bye

 

[jdoggydogg]

All of that leads me to conclude that a shorter roster is the way to go. You may not be able to spread the risk around as much, but you should have enough low-risk players that it shouldn't matter.

I don't have the stats in front of me, but didn't almost all of the small roster teams get eliminated late in last year's contest?

Yes, a good portion of them did. But...1) I think most people with small rosters will agree there is a greater chance of them getting eliminated before the final 250 (compared to the larger rosters). They believe that should they get there they have a greater chance of winning the whole thing (compared to the larger rosters). Does there belief have merit? I'd say it's inconclusive so far, but I'm leaning toward yes, but not enough of an advantage to offset the risk of not getting to the top 250.2) Last year (and the year before) are single data points in this contest. In both those years, it worked out well for larger rosters, since a fair amount of low cost players had great years, and a fair amount of "stud" players didn't live up to their billing. 2 Data points is hardly conclusive to determine an optimal strategy. As we're so far seeing this year, there haven't been many (any?) low cost players that have really produced the way they have the last 2 years. And a good amount of high priced players (Rodgers, Brady, Welker, Megatron ect) are living up to their cost. Should this continue we may end up with a data point that shows that small rosters outsurvive larger rosters. Will it continue? I obviously don't know.

This is merely a hunch, but doesn't pretty much every year consist of stud who underachieve (or get hurt) and lesser-known players that become stars?

 

[5-ish Finkle]

Yeah, straight points per dollar isn't a good metric. (Mike Nugent is the current leader, fwiw.)

Outside of Forte, Nuge is pretty much my friggin' MVP at this point. My group has been very inconsistent. I think Nuge and Forte are the only guys who've scored for me every week.Made it through in the low 160's in a week for both my rostered QBs totally shat the mattress. I'd like to say I feel okay now that I've made it to the first of the bye weeks....but now injuries are starting to rear their ugly heads. Hoping a couple of the fliers I took at RB can help out for a week or two or I'm probably stewed.On the plus side, I can't feature I'll have a worse week from my QB spot all year(allow me my delusions, jerks!), so at least I got that out of the way.

 

[eaglezzz]

Just a heads up everyone still alive has a 1 in 29 chance of making it to the finals now (or 3.45% chance)

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Just a heads up everyone still alive has a 1 in 29 chance of making it to the finals now (or 3.45% chance)

My chances are at least 3X that.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I have been playing around on the querier. How many entry's share your 3 most expensive players? How many are left alive?

For me only 5 teams had Brady, Hillis, and S Jackson. 3 are left.

 

[eaglezzz]

McFadden, Fitzgerald, Hillis = 15 people still alive

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

All of that leads me to conclude that a shorter roster is the way to go. You may not be able to spread the risk around as much, but you should have enough low-risk players that it shouldn't matter.

I don't have the stats in front of me, but didn't almost all of the small roster teams get eliminated late in last year's contest?

Yes, a good portion of them did. But...1) I think most people with small rosters will agree there is a greater chance of them getting eliminated before the final 250 (compared to the larger rosters). They believe that should they get there they have a greater chance of winning the whole thing (compared to the larger rosters). Does there belief have merit? I'd say it's inconclusive so far, but I'm leaning toward yes, but not enough of an advantage to offset the risk of not getting to the top 250.2) Last year (and the year before) are single data points in this contest. In both those years, it worked out well for larger rosters, since a fair amount of low cost players had great years, and a fair amount of "stud" players didn't live up to their billing. 2 Data points is hardly conclusive to determine an optimal strategy. As we're so far seeing this year, there haven't been many (any?) low cost players that have really produced the way they have the last 2 years. And a good amount of high priced players (Rodgers, Brady, Welker, Megatron ect) are living up to their cost. Should this continue we may end up with a data point that shows that small rosters outsurvive larger rosters. Will it continue? I obviously don't know.

This is merely a hunch, but doesn't pretty much every year consist of stud who underachieve (or get hurt) and lesser-known players that become stars?

I would guess yes. There's always turnover among the top players at the skill positions from year to year, and there are always players that perform better than expectations. Yes, we can say that last year is only one data point, but my hunch is the same as yours - that every year there have been "cheap" players that have made the leap to become big performers, and there have been "expensive" players that have disappointed. And if that's the case, then I think not only have larger rosters done better the last year or two, but that they'll pretty much always do better over the course of the first 13 weeks.I would also argue that we've already seen important contributions from low cost players. My team has literally been carried through the first four weeks by Ben Tate, Antonio Brown, Denarious Moore, etc., while most of my higher-priced players have totally let me down. Only time will tell whether these guys will continue to be regular producers, or whether some other cheap players will become studs, or whether none of them will. But I don't think the last two years have been some kind of anomaly with surprise breakout performances from cheap guys and disappointing letdowns from expensive "studs". That happens every year - the only question is which studs will underperform and which cheap guys will overperform.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Size	Total	Alive	Surv%18	3568	2276	63.8%19	1393	952	68.3%20	1059	729	68.8%21	836	577	69.0%22	766	553	72.2%23	641	444	69.3%24	547	399	72.9%25	396	283	71.5%26	415	283	68.2%27	296	194	65.5%28	269	188	69.9%29	214	153	71.5%30	375	239	63.7%

If the playoffs had been held in weeks 2-4, these would be the top five finishers:

Entry #	Size	Total100511	19	675.10103802	24	660.65109757	18	658.80108488	20	657.85102682	18	653.50

How about week 5 byes per roster size, if possible. Thanks for all the contest info you provide.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I have been playing around on the querier. How many entry's share your 3 most expensive players? How many are left alive?

For me only 5 teams had Brady, Hillis, and S Jackson. 3 are left.

22 teams (out of 32 that started) have my combo of Brady, ADP, and V Jackson.-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

I have been playing around on the querier. How many entry's share your 3 most expensive players? How many are left alive?

For me only 5 teams had Brady, Hillis, and S Jackson. 3 are left.

22 teams (out of 32 that started) have my combo of Brady, ADP, and V Jackson.-QG

Looked at the opposite side of the coin and queried my 3 least expensive skill players: I Redman, J Cribbs, and E Moore:13 teams (out of 19 that started) have that combo

-QG

 

[Bruce Leroy]

I have been playing around on the querier. How many entry's share your 3 most expensive players? How many are left alive?

For me only 5 teams had Brady, Hillis, and S Jackson. 3 are left.

5 teams have Rivers, Ryan Matthews, Mark Ingram (Not happy about him being $26 either. Damn you FBG! ). 4 are left but I think 2 will be eliminated in week #6 (massive players on a bye)Only 1 team has Rivers, Ryan Matthews, Mark Ingram & Jermichael Finley

 

[Saint]

Top 3 cost players (Sjax and VJax cost the same amount):

[*]Brady/Calvin/SJax - 7 teams

[*]Brady/Calvin/VJax - 25 teams

[*]Brady/Calvin/SJax/VJax - Only 2 of us...

Lowest 3 cost players (skill positions)

[*]Barber/McCluster/Moore - 73 teams

Have to admit the steal may be McCluster by the end of the year with Jamaal Charles going down. For $2 you have a guy getting upwards of 10 carries a game, plus receptions basically splitting time as the leading back.

 

[Mustang Man]

Had my best week so far this week 215.45. Got to lean on Forte and Wells to have big weeks again. Felix Hightower and Dez Ravens def on byes. If I can get by weeks 5 and 6 I will be looking good. Week 6 is the big week for me. Cause my QB'S are weak. I got Rivers (off week6) and only other qb's are Mcnaab and Ponder. So if Rivers goes down I do too. Have not been hit by the injury bug yet crossing fingers! Really need Manningham and Hightower to get their starting roles back.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Top 3 cost players (Sjax and VJax cost the same amount):

[*]Brady/Calvin/SJax - 7 teams

[*]Brady/Calvin/VJax - 25 teams

[*]Brady/Calvin/SJax/VJax - Only 2 of us...

Lowest 3 cost players (skill positions)

[*]Barber/McCluster/Moore - 73 teams

Have to admit the steal may be McCluster by the end of the year with Jamaal Charles going down. For $2 you have a guy getting upwards of 10 carries a game, plus receptions basically splitting time as the leading back.

Well if you throw in my 4th most expensive guy ya get Brady/ADP/VJax/Benson. I'm the only entry that has all 4 of those -QG

 

[Touchdown There]

8 teams left with my top 3 $ players of Vick, Calvin Johnson, and Mike Wallace. 100% survival rate.

 

[kevzilla]

Ten teams started with SJax, VJax, and Ryan Mathews. Six remain, including me.

Even better for uniqueness' sake, only eight teams started with Mathews and Fred Jackson, and they are carrying me.

 

[smarchit]

My 3 Most Expensive....,

Jahvid Best ($25), Felix Jones ($23), Wes Welker ($23) ---> 15/18 rosters with this combo still alive

My 3 Least Expensive...

Jay Feeley ($2), Evan Moore ($2), Josh Cribbs ($2) ---> 35/47 rosters with this combo still alive

The top 3 are my only $20 players. The bottom 3 are my only $2 players. I own eight $3 players though, so it's a good thing we're not going any deeper with this bottom end disclosure.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Rivers, Felix Jones, Holmes - 12 out of 20 left. Suckers.

 

[kardplayer]

Top 3: Stafford/Wallace/Lynch 11 out of 19 are alive

18 players - 5 of 11 alive

19 - 1 of 1

21 - 2 of 3

24 - 1 of 1

29 - 0 of 1

30 - 2 of 2

My three "MVPs": Wallace/Graham/Stafford: 113 out of 118 are alive

My three "MVPs" (take 2): Wallace/Graham/Wells: 71 out of 73 are alive

My four "MVPs" Wallace/Graham/Stafford/Wells: 38 out of 38 are alive

 

[Mustang Man]

My top 3 paid are Rivers Forte V.Jackson. Not sure how many else have that.

 

[5-ish Finkle]

7 teams have my same top three most expensive(8 if you include staff). One bit the dust this past week.

79 teams have my three least expensive players with 26 of them having been eliminated.

 

[Saint]

My top 3 paid are Rivers Forte V.Jackson. Not sure how many else have that.

40 people have that combo. You can check it out on the subscriber querier located on the first page of this thread.

 

[Mustang Man]

My top 3 paid are Rivers Forte V.Jackson. Not sure how many else have that.

40 people have that combo. You can check it out on the subscriber querier located on the first page of this thread.

Hey thanks there was 59 with that combo and now it is down to 40. All 19 got knocked out week 3 and I made the cut by 6 points that week. Pretty interesting stuff.

 

[Mustang Man]

Only 4 teams with my top 5 highest paid players. 3 are still left

 

[FUBAR]

I have been playing around on the querier. How many entry's share your 3 most expensive players? How many are left alive?

For me only 5 teams had Brady, Hillis, and S Jackson. 3 are left.

Forte, Welker, Schaub - 10 teams, all still alive. Add Mario Manningham and I'm the only team with all 4. Two of us share my top QB/RB/TE/WR - Forte, Welker, Schaub, Daniels - but he has an 18 man roster with only 2 WRs active this week.

 

[Bonfire]

Five of us had

Romo/R.Rice/M.Austin

2 of us left

....all weeks 5 byes.

Tried to front load struds early. Hope to survive this week with big roster then have studs the rest of the way.

 

[H8fulHuck]

3 most expensive players

Brady/Roethlisberger/Starks 2 of 3 still alive

most expensive with different positions for skill players:

Brady/Starks/Gronkowski 4 of 6 still alive

Cheap players sans K/D: have (1) $2 player and (4) $3 players

Rare combo

Redman/Ward/Cobb 6 of 12 still alive

Most popular cheap trio

Redman/D Moore/A Brown 219/269 alive

 

[QuizGuy66]

By the way out of 21 entries with the most expensive QB/RB/WR combo (Rodgers/A Foster/A Johnson) 12 out of 21 are still in it.

-QG

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

My 3 most expensive...

Calvin (31), Ingram (26), Felix Jones (23)

16 total teams with that combo, 11 of us are still alive.

I took Ingram primarily because I expected him to heat up in the 2nd half of the year (when I expected Hightower to fall off). I still hope he can do that.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

2 teams left with Brady/ADP/VJax/MikeWallace/AaronHernandez.

Me and one other guy, but he's got an 18 man roster, so...

My 22...

Brady/McNabb/McCoy

ADP/Beanie/Reggie/Pierre

VJax/MikeWallace/Manningham/SimsWalker/Berrian/ABrown

AHernandez/LKendricks/VShiancoe

Bryant/Bironas/Scobee

Raiders/Bills/Broncos

 

[Modog814]

All of that leads me to conclude that a shorter roster is the way to go. You may not be able to spread the risk around as much, but you should have enough low-risk players that it shouldn't matter.

I don't have the stats in front of me, but didn't almost all of the small roster teams get eliminated late in last year's contest?

Yes, a good portion of them did. But...1) I think most people with small rosters will agree there is a greater chance of them getting eliminated before the final 250 (compared to the larger rosters). They believe that should they get there they have a greater chance of winning the whole thing (compared to the larger rosters). Does there belief have merit? I'd say it's inconclusive so far, but I'm leaning toward yes, but not enough of an advantage to offset the risk of not getting to the top 250.2) Last year (and the year before) are single data points in this contest. In both those years, it worked out well for larger rosters, since a fair amount of low cost players had great years, and a fair amount of "stud" players didn't live up to their billing. 2 Data points is hardly conclusive to determine an optimal strategy. As we're so far seeing this year, there haven't been many (any?) low cost players that have really produced the way they have the last 2 years. And a good amount of high priced players (Rodgers, Brady, Welker, Megatron ect) are living up to their cost. Should this continue we may end up with a data point that shows that small rosters outsurvive larger rosters. Will it continue? I obviously don't know.

This is merely a hunch, but doesn't pretty much every year consist of stud who underachieve (or get hurt) and lesser-known players that become stars?

Singularly, yes your most likely right. But in terms of this contest, I don't know. Who's been the low priced player that has become a star this year? Maybe David Nelson? Isaac Redman has perhaps a chance starting this week. McCluster has an opportunity but so far hasn't lived up to it. I guess Eric Decker is the best choice, but he's only on 349 remaining rosters. Then you have players like D.Moore and A.Brown and B.Tate who were cheap but also pretty highly hyped in the pre-season that I'd think (a hunch, haven't actually checked it) that they're as likely to appear on a small roster as a larger roster. As for the "studs", compared to years past, as a group I think they've be worth the cost so far this year. Sure there are some "duds" due to injuries (Charles, Britt, Gates) and some due to performance (CJIII so far), but as a whole they've performed just as expected, if not better. I guess what I'm trying to say is that at the top there haven't been as many busts as the last 2 years. And at the bottom there haven't been as many "steals" as the last 2 years. And in between, I think you see much more players reaching bust status (S.Greene, Ingram, Collie, Ocho, Bradford).

 

[Cliff Clavin]

33 out of 42 with Rivers, L. McCoy and Bryant. And I'm the only one with my top 4 most expensive guys (Ocho).

 

[Modog814]

I would guess yes. There's always turnover among the top players at the skill positions from year to year, and there are always players that perform better than expectations. Yes, we can say that last year is only one data point, but my hunch is the same as yours - that every year there have been "cheap" players that have made the leap to become big performers, and there have been "expensive" players that have disappointed. And if that's the case, then I think not only have larger rosters done better the last year or two, but that they'll pretty much always do better over the course of the first 13 weeks.

I would also argue that we've already seen important contributions from low cost players. My team has literally been carried through the first four weeks by Ben Tate, Antonio Brown, Denarious Moore, etc., while most of my higher-priced players have totally let me down. Only time will tell whether these guys will continue to be regular producers, or whether some other cheap players will become studs, or whether none of them will. But I don't think the last two years have been some kind of anomaly with surprise breakout performances from cheap guys and disappointing letdowns from expensive "studs". That happens every year - the only question is which studs will underperform and which cheap guys will overperform.

As I mentioned in my post above, I specifically mention these 3 players. I checked, and they are significantly more likely be on larger rosters than smaller ones, so I take that part back.

An anomaly? No. Of course it happens every year, and you're right that it's a question of which ones. And a part I think that is overlooked is that while you're is being carried by the combined efforts of Tate, Brown and Moore, a small roster is single handedly being carried by Brady, Rodgers, Calvin or Welker.

But I also don't think that should this year no cheap guy emerges to become a true stud, that it would be an anomaly. In fact, I believe that fact that we see so few Cheap Players becoming "steals" and less Studs becoming "busts" is in part due to the excellent job Doug and Co. did pricing the players this year. Of course, thats not the only reason (they don't affect the way players actually play) but even a player like Decker was $6. Not exactly cheap for an unknown quantity in a uncertain position.

 

[BassNBrew]

Anyone got this beat...

Take your top five $ players and see how many are left. I my case it's 7 of 9. Obviously my team is not very unique.

 

[hal9000]

Anyone got this beat...Take your top five $ players and see how many are left. I my case it's 7 of 9. Obviously my team is not very unique.

Please stop.This thread is unreadable when its full of one-off posts about people's rosters.

 

[northwoods]

Anyone got this beat...Take your top five $ players and see how many are left. I my case it's 7 of 9. Obviously my team is not very unique.

Please stop.This thread is unreadable when its full of one-off posts about people's rosters.

Hal9000 pops the subscriber contest thread balloon...What else are we supposed to talk about mid-week in this thread?

 

[jdoggydogg]

Anyone got this beat...Take your top five $ players and see how many are left. I my case it's 7 of 9. Obviously my team is not very unique.

Please stop.This thread is unreadable when its full of one-off posts about people's rosters.

Hal9000 pops the subscriber contest thread balloon...What else are we supposed to talk about mid-week in this thread?

 

[drater]

4 left out of 4 with McFadden, Fitz, Forte

1 left out of 1 with Stafford, McFadden, Forte, Beanie, Fitz

Last team standing out of 4 with Bradford, Amendola, Alexander, Kendricks, Rams D.

I'm done, that tool is beyond addicting.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Anyone got this beat...Take your top five $ players and see how many are left. I my case it's 7 of 9. Obviously my team is not very unique.

Please stop.This thread is unreadable when its full of one-off posts about people's rosters.

Hal9000 pops the subscriber contest thread balloon...What else are we supposed to talk about mid-week in this thread?

started to type a post about which side I agree with here, but felt that doing so could cause the fantasy gods to make it rain some seriously bad karma on my punk ###....

 

[apalmer]

Not to change the subject, but where's the Turk been? Hasn't made an appearance in this thread for a long, long time.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Not to change the subject, but where's the Turk been? Hasn't made an appearance in this thread for a long, long time.

Was just thinking this yesterday. Hope everything's ok. Maybe he just assumed since we all have our own databses now we didn't need him anymore. :(

 

[rzrback77]

Some team stat information......

1) Top three cost - Brady, Hillis & V Jackson 22 left of 27 starting

2) Top four cost - Add Mike Wallace to above 7 of 9 remaining

3) Top five cost - Add Mike Williams TB to above 2 of 3 remaining

28-man roster already down to 26 with the loss of Shipley and Parrish, who never scored

Other rostered players still looking for their first score include Marion Barber, Amendola, Royal, Massaquoi, Kendricks, and Jay Feely.

survive and advance

 

[rzrback77]

Not to change the subject, but where's the Turk been? Hasn't made an appearance in this thread for a long, long time.

Was just thinking this yesterday. Hope everything's ok. Maybe he just assumed since we all have our own databses now we didn't need him anymore. :(

He mentioned early in the process that he was not going to have time to actively participate in the thread as much this year as he would like. He even stated that the contest was one of his season highlights.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that at the top there haven't been as many busts as the last 2 years. And at the bottom there haven't been as many "steals" as the last 2 years. And in between, I think you see much more players reaching bust status (S.Greene, Ingram, Collie, Ocho, Bradford).

Perhaps we should wait a little longer before we start drawing conclusions about the number of busts and steals this year compared to the past two years.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Not to change the subject, but where's the Turk been? Hasn't made an appearance in this thread for a long, long time.

Was just thinking this yesterday. Hope everything's ok. Maybe he just assumed since we all have our own databses now we didn't need him anymore. :(

:( we miss the Turk-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

2 teams left with Brady/ADP/VJax/MikeWallace/AaronHernandez.

Me and one other guy, but he's got an 18 man roster, so...

My 22...

Brady/McNabb/McCoy

ADP/Beanie/Reggie/Pierre

VJax/MikeWallace/Manningham/SimsWalker/Berrian/ABrown

AHernandez/LKendricks/VShiancoe

Bryant/Bironas/Scobee

Raiders/Bills/Broncos

I have 4 of those 5 (Brady/ADP/VJax/AaronHernandez). Santana Moss would be my player analogous to Mike Wallace.Of course I also have 27 players

Guys I have in common with you: Brady, McCoy, ADP, P Thomas, V Jax, Ant Brown, Hernandez, Buffalo

-QG