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

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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.

Four teams had all five of my most expensive players. Three of us are still alive. I expect at least one more of us will be eliminated this week.

 

[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?

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).

This is where it gets tricky.Yes, if you gambled on the right stud (Brady, Calvin Johnson, McCoy, etc.) then you are loving it. If you gambled on the wrong stud (Jamaal Charles, Roddy White, Chris Johnson, etc.) then you are regretting that. Here's the problem with the Stud Theory™: it's not that studs don't produce at a high level. They do. It's the risk of injury and underperforming you need to cope with.

Look at my stud player points, and look at their cheaper backups on my team:

Philip Rivers ($24) 90.8 points

Colt McCoy ($10) 85.2 points

Hakeem Nicks ($29) 67.4 points

Santana Moss ($16) 57.6 points

Denarius Moore ($3) 54.7 points

I understand that there are plenty of $3 that are worthless. But there are also plenty of studs that never live up to their +$25 price tag.

 

[QuizGuy66]

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.

Out of the 1 entries that have my top 5 $ players, 1 are left. (Brady/ADP/VJax/Benson/S Moss)I'm the only entry with Brady/ADP/VJax/BensonI'm one of only 2 entries with Brady/ADP/VJax/SMoss (the other entry has 18 players)-QG

 

[Liquid Courage]

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.

I'm the only 1 with Greene, Shonn/Jones, Felix/Schaub, Matt/Manningham, Mario/Wells, ChrisHowever, at this point in time... That doesn't make me feel very good relying on Shonn Greene, Felix Jones and Mario Manningham as my top players. Even with a 26 player roster.

 

[massraider]

my top 5 most expensive are SJax--Felix--Stevie--Dez--harvin.

I am the only one, and I have Staff and Fitz at QB. But a LOT of week 5 byes. I need Redman to have a nice game this week.

 

[Modog814]

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.

Not trying to draw conclusion over the course of a whole year, but at this point in the season in the last 2 years, I believe we saw a lot more "steals" and "busts" than we have this year.

 

[FUBAR]

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.

I'm the only 1 with Greene, Shonn/Jones, Felix/Schaub, Matt/Manningham, Mario/Wells, ChrisHowever, at this point in time... That doesn't make me feel very good relying on Shonn Greene, Felix Jones and Mario Manningham as my top players. Even with a 26 player roster.

I have Schaub, Mario and Wells. So I'll be hoping Greene and Jones break legs

 

[YoUnG GuNz]

I'm the only person w/ these 5.

Hillis

Marshall

Mike Wallace

Maclin

Manningham

5 of 6 teams alive have this

Hillis

Marshall

Wallace

 

[Modog814]

This is where it gets tricky.

Yes, if you gambled on the right stud (Brady, Calvin Johnson, McCoy, etc.) then you are loving it. If you gambled on the wrong stud (Jamaal Charles, Roddy White, Chris Johnson, etc.) then you are regretting that. Here's the problem with the Stud Theory™: it's not that studs don't produce at a high level. They do. It's the risk of injury and underperforming you need to cope with.Look at my stud player points, and look at their cheaper backups on my team:

Philip Rivers ($24) 90.8 points

Colt McCoy ($10) 85.2 points

Hakeem Nicks ($29) 67.4 points

Santana Moss ($16) 57.6 points

Denarius Moore ($3) 54.7 points

I understand that there are plenty of $3 that are worthless. But there are also plenty of studs that never live up to their +$25 price tag.

Here's my problem with your problem with the Stud Theory™: It's true regardless of if you went stud theory or large roster theory. You need to select the correct players bottom line.

In general selecting many players in this format is a good idea, as it'll help you survive and get to the Top 250. However, that many players are worthless if not enough of them "break out". And Iggy pointed out that it's a little early to be drawing comparisons to past seasons, which I agree with, but the fact remains that larger roster teams are being eliminated at a higher rate than they have the past 2 seasons because not enough of them are breaking out.

In general*, selecting lower quantity, higher quality rosters may be a good idea, as it'll help you beat the other 249 teams should you get to the top 250. However, if one or two injuries or dud games occur at the wrong time, this roster is also worthless.

(* I say in generaly and may because this is what I believe is the main argument behind selecting a "stud" roster, there isn't any conclusive data either way to opine on it's validity.)

And to muddy the waters even more, as you can see with your roster example is that their is and will be overlap between selecting the correct studs and correct cheap guys. A team can have Brady and Moore on it.

 

[eaglezzz]

Well now I am down to 6 WR's with Parrish and Amendola both done for the year. I thought 8 total would be a decent number since last year I went with 11 and found it to be a waste of roster space.

Fitzgerald, VJax, Dez Bryant, McCluster, A. Brown, and D. Moore will have to carry me now

 

[Modog814]

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.

Not sure if this is what you're looking for but here are roster sizes for Week 5 (not including injuries). Original roster size down the side, "active" roster for week 5 across the top.

Orig	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	Grand Total18		3	12	34	110	232	391	499	502	321	141	31											227619			1	10	29	82	136	178	202	177	98	35	4										95220	1			6	14	35	70	121	155	160	113	41	10	3									72921				1	4	9	29	60	114	132	121	59	33	14	1								57722				1	1	6	18	33	81	106	136	88	59	17	4	1							55123					1	4	7	23	39	74	100	83	63	31	14	1	1						44124						2		6	21	41	73	94	70	54	28	7	2						39825								1	6	23	38	55	56	54	32	10	7		1				28326						1			8	16	28	44	48	55	45	22	7	6					28027						1		1		6	12	22	30	34	37	25	17	4	2	1			19228									1	6	5	13	22	31	38	31	20	11	7				18529											2	6	11	21	33	38	26	11	3	2			15330											3	5	12	21	32	39	37	36	25	17	7	2	236Total	1	3	13	52	159	372	651	922	1129	1062	870	576	418	335	264	174	117	68	38	20	7	2	7253

 

[BaBastage]

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.

Team Sneaky Bastages Top 4 players (Roethlisberger, Turner, Calvin Johnson, Finley):
Survival Rate Overall Contest Survival RateTotal teams with these players 1 Still Alive 1 100.00 67.47Eliminated in week 1 100.00 0.00Eliminated in week 2 100.00 93.02Eliminated in week 3 100.00 85.02Eliminated in week 4 100.00 85.31Big Ben isn't exactly lighting things up, but at least I'm unique!Doing well with the bargain pickups of D. Moore, Dexter McCluster, and Josh Cribbs. (45 of 52 teams with that combination are still alive.)

 

[LittlePhatty]

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

I'm probably not going to be able to check this thread as much as I'd like. So if anyone spots anything fishy, please shoot me an email. (My last name) at footballguys.com. Thanks.

 

[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.

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

I agree with your point to an extent which is why I didn't post my players. Alot of people have posted "I'm the only guy with player A, B, C, and D. This didn't really surprise me as I thought most teams would fall into this category given the number of combinations possible. Out of curiosity I checked my roster and found 7 people still shared my top 5 players which shocked me. I asked the question to see if this was more common thaan I thought or if I just had a very ununique team.

 

[BassNBrew]

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.

Not sure if this is what you're looking for but here are roster sizes for Week 5 (not including injuries). Original roster size down the side, "active" roster for week 5 across the top.

Orig	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	Grand Total18		3	12	34	110	232	391	499	502	321	141	31											227619			1	10	29	82	136	178	202	177	98	35	4										95220	1			6	14	35	70	121	155	160	113	41	10	3									72921				1	4	9	29	60	114	132	121	59	33	14	1								57722				1	1	6	18	33	81	106	136	88	59	17	4	1							55123					1	4	7	23	39	74	100	83	63	31	14	1	1						44124						2		6	21	41	73	94	70	54	28	7	2						39825								1	6	23	38	55	56	54	32	10	7		1				28326						1			8	16	28	44	48	55	45	22	7	6					28027						1		1		6	12	22	30	34	37	25	17	4	2	1			19228									1	6	5	13	22	31	38	31	20	11	7				18529											2	6	11	21	33	38	26	11	3	2			15330											3	5	12	21	32	39	37	36	25	17	7	2	236Total	1	3	13	52	159	372	651	922	1129	1062	870	576	418	335	264	174	117	68	38	20	7	2	7253

We lose 1150 this week. 1251 teams will have 13 or less players going before injuries are factored into the equation.

 

[Balco]

It would be a miracle for me to make it through this week. Lots of byes and come very ill timed injuries.

It would be a great time for Mario Manningham to wake up (cannot believe I fell for the hype), and Aaron Hernandez to play.

 

[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.

I agree with your point to an extent which is why I didn't post my players. Alot of people have posted "I'm the only guy with player A, B, C, and D. This didn't really surprise me as I thought most teams would fall into this category given the number of combinations possible. Out of curiosity I checked my roster and found 7 people still shared my top 5 players which shocked me. I asked the question to see if this was more common thaan I thought or if I just had a very ununique team.

Based on the bolded, Id say you dont agree. Your post was a challenge that will result in dozens of people posting their top 5 players, burying any interesting analysis of rosters and strategy.This "Im the only team with A, B, C, D, and E" stuff happens every year. Its boring.

 

[rustycolts]

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.

I agree with your point to an extent which is why I didn't post my players. Alot of people have posted "I'm the only guy with player A, B, C, and D. This didn't really surprise me as I thought most teams would fall into this category given the number of combinations possible. Out of curiosity I checked my roster and found 7 people still shared my top 5 players which shocked me. I asked the question to see if this was more common thaan I thought or if I just had a very ununique team.

Based on the bolded, Id say you dont agree. Your post was a challenge that will result in dozens of people posting their top 5 players, burying any interesting analysis of rosters and strategy.This "Im the only team with A, B, C, D, and E" stuff happens every year. Its boring.

Ummm boring to some is not boring to all.I enjoy reading this thread every year.The forum police tend to leave it alone.

 

[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.

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

I agree with your point to an extent which is why I didn't post my players. Alot of people have posted "I'm the only guy with player A, B, C, and D. This didn't really surprise me as I thought most teams would fall into this category given the number of combinations possible. Out of curiosity I checked my roster and found 7 people still shared my top 5 players which shocked me. I asked the question to see if this was more common thaan I thought or if I just had a very ununique team.

Based on the bolded, Id say you dont agree. Your post was a challenge that will result in dozens of people posting their top 5 players, burying any interesting analysis of rosters and strategy.This "Im the only team with A, B, C, D, and E" stuff happens every year. Its boring.

I think you missed my point.

"Im the only team with A, B, C, D, and E" stuff happens every year.

My response was going to be, big deal...that pretty much describes every team. Then I looked at my team and it didn't match my theory...hence generating my question.

 

[Saint]

Ummm boring to some is not boring to all.I enjoy reading this thread every year.The forum police tend to leave it alone.

Have to agree. I find this thread fascinating every year. Sorry if some folks find it boring, thanks for telling us that you do. Personally, the concept on uniqueness is discussed every year, and the concept always involve posting of players and then the analysis follows.

 

[chocula]

Ummm boring to some is not boring to all.I enjoy reading this thread every year.The forum police tend to leave it alone.

Have to agree. I find this thread fascinating every year. Sorry if some folks find it boring, thanks for telling us that you do. Personally, the concept on uniqueness is discussed every year, and the concept always involve posting of players and then the analysis follows.

I am out of the contest and still enjoy readfing this post. If someone posts something I do not like, I just skip it. I am pretty sure it will not work, but I am reading to prepare for next year.

 

[elbowrm]

I dig the querier. i'm the only team with McCoy, McFadden, and Forte.

 

[jdoggydogg]

This is where it gets tricky.

Yes, if you gambled on the right stud (Brady, Calvin Johnson, McCoy, etc.) then you are loving it. If you gambled on the wrong stud (Jamaal Charles, Roddy White, Chris Johnson, etc.) then you are regretting that. Here's the problem with the Stud Theory™: it's not that studs don't produce at a high level. They do. It's the risk of injury and underperforming you need to cope with.Look at my stud player points, and look at their cheaper backups on my team:

Philip Rivers ($24) 90.8 points

Colt McCoy ($10) 85.2 points

Hakeem Nicks ($29) 67.4 points

Santana Moss ($16) 57.6 points

Denarius Moore ($3) 54.7 points

I understand that there are plenty of $3 that are worthless. But there are also plenty of studs that never live up to their +$25 price tag.

Here's my problem with your problem with the Stud Theory™: It's true regardless of if you went stud theory or large roster theory. You need to select the correct players bottom line.

In general selecting many players in this format is a good idea, as it'll help you survive and get to the Top 250. However, that many players are worthless if not enough of them "break out". And Iggy pointed out that it's a little early to be drawing comparisons to past seasons, which I agree with, but the fact remains that larger roster teams are being eliminated at a higher rate than they have the past 2 seasons because not enough of them are breaking out.

In general*, selecting lower quantity, higher quality rosters may be a good idea, as it'll help you beat the other 249 teams should you get to the top 250. However, if one or two injuries or dud games occur at the wrong time, this roster is also worthless.

(* I say in generaly and may because this is what I believe is the main argument behind selecting a "stud" roster, there isn't any conclusive data either way to opine on it's validity.)

And to muddy the waters even more, as you can see with your roster example is that their is and will be overlap between selecting the correct studs and correct cheap guys. A team can have Brady and Moore on it.

I don't disagree with anything you said. It's all quite logical. But you did say something key: "You need to select the correct players bottom line." I'd argue that selecting the "correct" players for an 18 man roster is more difficult than it is for a 30 man roster. With injury and underachievement, picking mostly stud players increases your risk. Unless you're not paying attention to the preseason, there are always a lot of cheap players available that help mitigate risk during the season. Just looking at the tight end prices, I think we had a handful of insanely high priced top tier players and a large group of very affordable, talented players. I honestly don't know why someone would spend $27 on Jermichael Finley. You could have drafted several iterations of two or three TEs that will almost assuredly outperform Finley at that price.

 

[Modog814]

I don't disagree with anything you said. It's all quite logical. But you did say something key: "You need to select the correct players bottom line."

I'd argue that selecting the "correct" players for an 18 man roster is more difficult than it is for a 30 man roster. With injury and underachievement, picking mostly stud players increases your risk. Unless you're not paying attention to the preseason, there are always a lot of cheap players available that help mitigate risk during the season. Just looking at the tight end prices, I think we had a handful of insanely high priced top tier players and a large group of very affordable, talented players. I honestly don't know why someone would spend $27 on Jermichael Finley. You could have drafted several iterations of two or three TEs that will almost assuredly outperform Finley at that price.

While I for one think this statement is probably correct, I also don't think it's as clear you think it is. Yes selecting a smaller roster increases your risk due to untimely injuries and underachievement. But these players also have a higher probability of achieving (meaning adding significant value to your team).

While selecting many players mitigates the injury risk and the untimely underachievement risk, these players also have a lower probability of achieving (meaning adding significant value to your team).

Yes, you could have drafted several iterations of 3 Te's that outproduce Finley for $22. But you could also produce several iterations of 3 TE's that don't outproduce Finley.

Selecting more "lesser quality" players is a different risk. I mean if you choose to select Heath Miller, Celek and Zach Miller instead of Finley, it doesn't look like it really worked out for you. If you selected Gronkowski, F. Davis and E.Moore, it looks like you made the right decision.

I guess my point is, if you choose to select more players to mitigate the injury/underperformace risk, you still need those players to perform. And now you have more players but with a lesser individual probability. But as a group do they have a higher probability than that one stud? I think you're answer to this question is yes, I think I would tend to agree, but I don't know how you would quantify it.

In the end, it's not about how many players you have on your team. It's about having the right players. Should I downgrade from Finley if I thought he was going to have a truly monster year? For example, say I thought Finley and Gronkowski would have each other stats at this point in the year, should i have downgraded? If I thought Welker was going to crash and burn this year, should I have upgraded if possible?

It's just more questions for an incredible contest that I believe has as many strategies as it does player combinations. And I love discussing them all.

 

[Modog814]

We lose 1150 this week. 1251 teams will have 13 or less players going before injuries are factored into the equation.

Okay I think I got all the definitely not playing this week (due to injury, bye or being cut) This doesn't include players like Mendenhall or Hernandez whom haven't officially been ruled out yet.

Orig	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	Grand Total18		7	18	50	132	297	426	521	437	262	107	19											227619			3	14	34	92	153	198	190	156	86	24	2										95220	1		2	8	17	40	83	129	169	138	99	35	7	1									72921				2	6	11	39	67	118	130	115	53	27	8	1								57722				1	3	10	17	42	86	112	131	87	47	11	3	1							55123				1	1	3	9	31	51	85	87	79	57	26	10	1							44124					1	1		10	25	43	80	95	71	43	23	4	2						39825							1	1	8	26	45	52	64	46	25	8	6	1					28326						1		3	9	17	34	51	47	54	36	17	8	3					28027						1		1	1	8	18	19	31	40	33	19	14	5	2				19228									2	6	9	15	29	29	39	26	20	7	3				18529										1	2	11	13	22	34	39	21	6	3	1			15330									1		4	8	15	28	34	37	36	35	26	7	3	2	236Total	1	7	23	76	194	456	728	1003	1097	984	817	548	410	308	238	152	107	57	34	8	3	2	7253

 

[Touchdown There]

It will be a good week to have a large roster.

 

[eaglezzz]

It will be a good week to have a large roster.

8 guys on bye week and 3 injuries for me this week making my 29 man roster a 18 man roster for week 5. Worried about my TE's with only having Celek going this week (Hernandez injury is hurting me)

 

[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

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

I was leery of santana moss...good pickup on your part.Really irritated with the vikings and rams who are going in the wrong direction. mcnabb, shianco, berrian, kendricks and simswalker is a lot of exposure to these floundering teams. darren sproles is invalidating the value of pierre thomas. sparano is invalidating the value of reggie bush. for these reasons, as well as mario manningham being apparently supplanted by cruz, i'm not very optimistic.

ben tate and nate washington were on my team until days before the deadline...kicking myself over it.

 

[dino259]

Well now I am down to 6 WR's with Parrish and Amendola both done for the year. I thought 8 total would be a decent number since last year I went with 11 and found it to be a waste of roster space.Fitzgerald, VJax, Dez Bryant, McCluster, A. Brown, and D. Moore will have to carry me now

I need a lot of luck this week. Only went with 6 WR and one of those being Roscoe Parish. 3 of my WR are on bye, Marshall, Bryant, Little. So I am cheering hard for everybody's favorite Denarious Moore and Dexter McCluster.

 

[eaglezzz]

Anyone else create a profile in their MYFBG with the Contest Scoring System? I like to do this to see where my team stands each week. All my top guys using the MYFBG rankings/projections estimate that I will score a 140.2 for Week 5

 

[eaglezzz]

Well now I am down to 6 WR's with Parrish and Amendola both done for the year. I thought 8 total would be a decent number since last year I went with 11 and found it to be a waste of roster space.Fitzgerald, VJax, Dez Bryant, McCluster, A. Brown, and D. Moore will have to carry me now

I need a lot of luck this week. Only went with 6 WR and one of those being Roscoe Parish. 3 of my WR are on bye, Marshall, Bryant, Little. So I am cheering hard for everybody's favorite Denarious Moore and Dexter McCluster.

Like you I was hoping Parrish would be what Nelson/Jones are doing in Buffalo now, we both took the wrong Bills WR I guess. You may only have 2 WR's going this week but you have 2 solid TE's in Daniels and Olsen which could help you out a lot (better then my lone TE Celek for the week). I like your Little pick I think he could have a strong 2nd half of the season

 

[BaBastage]

Ummm boring to some is not boring to all.I enjoy reading this thread every year.The forum police tend to leave it alone.

Have to agree. I find this thread fascinating every year. Sorry if some folks find it boring, thanks for telling us that you do. Personally, the concept on uniqueness is discussed every year, and the concept always involve posting of players and then the analysis follows.

I agree here too. This thread is not about helping your fantasy team and evaluating NFL players. It's purely for entertainment regarding the contest.What else should we discuss?

 

[shahekee]

Anyone else create a profile in their MYFBG with the Contest Scoring System? I like to do this to see where my team stands each week. All my top guys using the MYFBG rankings/projections estimate that I will score a 140.2 for Week 5

Neat idea! I just did this and am projected for 148.4 which I think would make it this week with all the byes.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I don't disagree with anything you said. It's all quite logical. But you did say something key: "You need to select the correct players bottom line."

I'd argue that selecting the "correct" players for an 18 man roster is more difficult than it is for a 30 man roster. With injury and underachievement, picking mostly stud players increases your risk. Unless you're not paying attention to the preseason, there are always a lot of cheap players available that help mitigate risk during the season. Just looking at the tight end prices, I think we had a handful of insanely high priced top tier players and a large group of very affordable, talented players. I honestly don't know why someone would spend $27 on Jermichael Finley. You could have drafted several iterations of two or three TEs that will almost assuredly outperform Finley at that price.

While I for one think this statement is probably correct, I also don't think it's as clear you think it is. Yes selecting a smaller roster increases your risk due to untimely injuries and underachievement. But these players also have a higher probability of achieving (meaning adding significant value to your team).

While selecting many players mitigates the injury risk and the untimely underachievement risk, these players also have a lower probability of achieving (meaning adding significant value to your team).

Yes, you could have drafted several iterations of 3 Te's that outproduce Finley for $22. But you could also produce several iterations of 3 TE's that don't outproduce Finley.

Selecting more "lesser quality" players is a different risk. I mean if you choose to select Heath Miller, Celek and Zach Miller instead of Finley, it doesn't look like it really worked out for you. If you selected Gronkowski, F. Davis and E.Moore, it looks like you made the right decision.

I guess my point is, if you choose to select more players to mitigate the injury/underperformace risk, you still need those players to perform. And now you have more players but with a lesser individual probability. But as a group do they have a higher probability than that one stud? I think you're answer to this question is yes, I think I would tend to agree, but I don't know how you would quantify it.

In the end, it's not about how many players you have on your team. It's about having the right players. Should I downgrade from Finley if I thought he was going to have a truly monster year? For example, say I thought Finley and Gronkowski would have each other stats at this point in the year, should i have downgraded? If I thought Welker was going to crash and burn this year, should I have upgraded if possible?

It's just more questions for an incredible contest that I believe has as many strategies as it does player combinations. And I love discussing them all.

Well said.

I enjoy the discussion, as well. I was never strong in math. But I'm interested in statistics and probability in the NFL.

I wanted to address one point:

Selecting more "lesser quality" players is a different risk. I mean if you choose to select Heath Miller, Celek and Zach Miller instead of Finley, it doesn't look like it really worked out for you. If you selected Gronkowski, F. Davis and E.Moore, it looks like you made the right decision.

See, that's just it: I don't know why anyone would have been enamored with Miller. Celek was hot a couple of years ago, but did little last year. Miller is the only guy I could have made a case for as a very strong TE. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're watching a lot of preseason games or pouring over game reports, those reports reveal a lot about rising stars. Denarious Moore is a perfect example. Oakland was raving about Moore during the preseason. And there's a team that's pretty thin at WR. But his $3 price in no way reflected the fact that Moore had a good shot to make a nice impact.This is something we haven't discussed yet. But the fascinating aspect of this contest is the relationship between the staff's assessment of these players vs. their dollar figures in this contest. If you read a lot of FBG pre-season pieces, we all kind of know who their favorite sleepers were. But some of the pricing in this contest represents great value. I'm not talking about the lottery pick $2 players. I'm talking about the $6 to $10 players. The contest pricing is set up early, so a late preseason star will come cheap in this contest. Still, the pricing in this contest is structured much more as a redraft league than a dynasty league. Yes, this is a redraft-style contest. However, in some ways, you have to treat it like a dynasty format because you're looking for value at low prices.

Anyway...I do go on

 

[jdoggydogg]

Ummm boring to some is not boring to all.I enjoy reading this thread every year.The forum police tend to leave it alone.

Have to agree. I find this thread fascinating every year. Sorry if some folks find it boring, thanks for telling us that you do. Personally, the concept on uniqueness is discussed every year, and the concept always involve posting of players and then the analysis follows.

I agree here too. This thread is not about helping your fantasy team and evaluating NFL players. It's purely for entertainment regarding the contest.What else should we discuss?

What are we supposed to discuss in this thread? Hank Williams, Jr.? Justin Bieber?

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

2 started and 2 left with my top 3 (Rivers, Jennings, Bowe).

5 started and 2 left with my bottom 3 (Tate, Celek, Crabtree).

I don't think the focus should be on the total points scored by a particular player, at least until you start talking about the finals. Week-to-week you have to have consistency. It doesn't matter as much that a player has X points through 4 games. What matters more is the distribution of his scores. If he's scored X/8, X/8, X/4, and X/2, chances are he's only helped your team twice, even if "X" is a large number. If "X" isn't a particularly large number, he may have only helped your team once. On the other hand, if the distribution is even, that player has likely helped you 3 or 4 weeks so far, making him very valuable indeed.

If you've invested $20+ on a player, he must produce for you most every week. That doesn't mean he has to be a stud every week, only that he has to produce reasonable numbers week-to-week. And if the feast-or-famine $3 guy hits in a week and bumps that guy out of your "starting lineup", that's all the better.

Finally, someone commented on Chris Johnson owners not being happy as an example. I beg to differ to a certain extent. If I'm a Chris Johnson owner AND I'm still alive, I'm frigging elated. 165 competitors (nearly 50%) have been eliminated.

 

[massraider]

Well said.

I enjoy the discussion, as well. I was never strong in math. But I'm interested in statistics and probability in the NFL.

I wanted to address one point:

Selecting more "lesser quality" players is a different risk. I mean if you choose to select Heath Miller, Celek and Zach Miller instead of Finley, it doesn't look like it really worked out for you. If you selected Gronkowski, F. Davis and E.Moore, it looks like you made the right decision.

See, that's just it: I don't know why anyone would have been enamored with Miller. Celek was hot a couple of years ago, but did little last year. Miller is the only guy I could have made a case for as a very strong TE. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're watching a lot of preseason games or pouring over game reports, those reports reveal a lot about rising stars. Denarious Moore is a perfect example. Oakland was raving about Moore during the preseason. And there's a team that's pretty thin at WR. But his $3 price in no way reflected the fact that Moore had a good shot to make a nice impact.This is something we haven't discussed yet. But the fascinating aspect of this contest is the relationship between the staff's assessment of these players vs. their dollar figures in this contest. If you read a lot of FBG pre-season pieces, we all kind of know who their favorite sleepers were. But some of the pricing in this contest represents great value. I'm not talking about the lottery pick $2 players. I'm talking about the $6 to $10 players. The contest pricing is set up early, so a late preseason star will come cheap in this contest. Still, the pricing in this contest is structured much more as a redraft league than a dynasty league. Yes, this is a redraft-style contest. However, in some ways, you have to treat it like a dynasty format because you're looking for value at low prices.

Anyway...I do go on

Yeah. To me, those mid-tier players are where you make your bones in this contest. Picking the right studs....there's a certain amount of luck, avoiding injuries. Some is not luck, like identifying the stud you think is going to disappoint, and avoiding him. But if someone gets bounced because they have Andre Johnson, and they get a zero from him the next month, that's not lack of skill, it's bad luck.

And the cheapo guys, some are obvious, like Denarius Moore. And some are backup RBs that need an injury in front of them. Bit of luck needed for a Redman to become relevant (thank you Mendy for getting hurt on Felix and Sjax's by weeks, much appreciated).

But those mid-tier guys, identifying the guys that you think will dramatically outperform their ADP (and thus their price tag), that's the best shot at giving yourself depth needed in a best ball format, whether you have 18 or 28 roster spots. It's no big deal if a $2 back doesn't score for me, but an $8 WR? I need him to contribute.

When I put my team together, I first go through and look for the guys I think are obvious bargains, that are going to be on every version of my team. This year, those players were Fitz and Staff (plugged them in first day, and never looked back), Stevie, Hester (oof) Lance Kendricks (we get points for drops, right?)and Evan Moore.

Thing about that is, and I learned this early on in the contest, everyone has the same sleepers. I always look for the guy that isn't going to be owned by a lot of people. Hasving Denarius Moore is a defensive move, you got him because it's a solid $3 spent, and if you are the only guy that doesn't have him, it can hurt you. But he isn't winning anyone the title, because so many people have him.

To that end, looking for unpopular sleepers is the toughest part to me. You are really going against the grain, I am trying pick a player that isn't a stud, and isn't even considered a good bargain at his price, with some upside. And if you are trying to win the whole thing, I feel like you have to take some risks. I took a few at RB with SJax and Felix, hoping they avoid injury, and spent money on less popular cheapos, Cecil Shorts and Mark Clayton.

If every single player on your team is heavily owned, you sit there, hoping your 3rd kicker goes nuts.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Well said.

I enjoy the discussion, as well. I was never strong in math. But I'm interested in statistics and probability in the NFL.

I wanted to address one point:

Selecting more "lesser quality" players is a different risk. I mean if you choose to select Heath Miller, Celek and Zach Miller instead of Finley, it doesn't look like it really worked out for you. If you selected Gronkowski, F. Davis and E.Moore, it looks like you made the right decision.

See, that's just it: I don't know why anyone would have been enamored with Miller. Celek was hot a couple of years ago, but did little last year. Miller is the only guy I could have made a case for as a very strong TE. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're watching a lot of preseason games or pouring over game reports, those reports reveal a lot about rising stars. Denarious Moore is a perfect example. Oakland was raving about Moore during the preseason. And there's a team that's pretty thin at WR. But his $3 price in no way reflected the fact that Moore had a good shot to make a nice impact.This is something we haven't discussed yet. But the fascinating aspect of this contest is the relationship between the staff's assessment of these players vs. their dollar figures in this contest. If you read a lot of FBG pre-season pieces, we all kind of know who their favorite sleepers were. But some of the pricing in this contest represents great value. I'm not talking about the lottery pick $2 players. I'm talking about the $6 to $10 players. The contest pricing is set up early, so a late preseason star will come cheap in this contest. Still, the pricing in this contest is structured much more as a redraft league than a dynasty league. Yes, this is a redraft-style contest. However, in some ways, you have to treat it like a dynasty format because you're looking for value at low prices.

Anyway...I do go on

Yeah. To me, those mid-tier players are where you make your bones in this contest. Picking the right studs....there's a certain amount of luck, avoiding injuries. Some is not luck, like identifying the stud you think is going to disappoint, and avoiding him. But if someone gets bounced because they have Andre Johnson, and they get a zero from him the next month, that's not lack of skill, it's bad luck.

And the cheapo guys, some are obvious, like Denarius Moore. And some are backup RBs that need an injury in front of them. Bit of luck needed for a Redman to become relevant (thank you Mendy for getting hurt on Felix and Sjax's by weeks, much appreciated).

But those mid-tier guys, identifying the guys that you think will dramatically outperform their ADP (and thus their price tag), that's the best shot at giving yourself depth needed in a best ball format, whether you have 18 or 28 roster spots. It's no big deal if a $2 back doesn't score for me, but an $8 WR? I need him to contribute.

When I put my team together, I first go through and look for the guys I think are obvious bargains, that are going to be on every version of my team. This year, those players were Fitz and Staff (plugged them in first day, and never looked back), Stevie, Hester (oof) Lance Kendricks (we get points for drops, right?)and Evan Moore.

Thing about that is, and I learned this early on in the contest, everyone has the same sleepers. I always look for the guy that isn't going to be owned by a lot of people. Hasving Denarius Moore is a defensive move, you got him because it's a solid $3 spent, and if you are the only guy that doesn't have him, it can hurt you. But he isn't winning anyone the title, because so many people have him.

To that end, looking for unpopular sleepers is the toughest part to me. You are really going against the grain, I am trying pick a player that isn't a stud, and isn't even considered a good bargain at his price, with some upside. And if you are trying to win the whole thing, I feel like you have to take some risks. I took a few at RB with SJax and Felix, hoping they avoid injury, and spent money on less popular cheapos, Cecil Shorts and Mark Clayton.

If every single player on your team is heavily owned, you sit there, hoping your 3rd kicker goes nuts.

Certainly. Although, trying to account for uniqueness is tough sometimes. I mean, I added Denarious because I think he had the potential to blow up - not as a defensive move because I assumed he'd be heavily-owned.

 

[jdoggydogg]

When I put my team together, I first go through and look for the guys I think are obvious bargains, that are going to be on every version of my team. This year, those players were Fitz and Staff (plugged them in first day, and never looked back), Stevie, Hester (oof) Lance Kendricks (we get points for drops, right?)and Evan Moore.

Actually, this could be a fascinating discussion. Perhaps we should discuss four or five guys we had an almost every version of our submissions. I must have submitted 100 teams, but these guys were in almost every iteration:

Phillip Rivers

- Insane value. A stud QB for about $10 less than the super studs.

Tim Hightower

- Yes, I know he's on a lot of teams. Yes, Shanny's favoring Torrain now. But I think Hightower easily outperforms his price this year.

Santana Moss

- Never a sexy pick, but always seems to outperform his price.

Owen Daniels

- A top five talent for a nice price.

 

[pocketducks]

When I put my team together, I first go through and look for the guys I think are obvious bargains, that are going to be on every version of my team. This year, those players were Fitz and Staff (plugged them in first day, and never looked back), Stevie, Hester (oof) Lance Kendricks (we get points for drops, right?)and Evan Moore.

Actually, this could be a fascinating discussion. Perhaps we should discuss four or five guys we had an almost every version of our submissions. I must have submitted 100 teams, but these guys were in almost every iteration:

Phillip Rivers

- Insane value. A stud QB for about $10 less than the super studs.

Tim Hightower

- Yes, I know he's on a lot of teams. Yes, Shanny's favoring Torrain now. But I think Hightower easily outperforms his price this year.

Santana Moss

- Never a sexy pick, but always seems to outperform his price.

Owen Daniels

- A top five talent for a nice price.

Agreed I think this is a great idea. My overall goal in filling out my roster was to find guys who were not top 10 studs but load up on 2nd tier guys that could have top 10 games. Guys I had pretty much from the get go were:

Mike Wallace

- Third year WR who was the go to guy and I thought primed for a breakout year at a good cost $23

Wes Welker

- Looked finally over his ACL injury during the preseason and wanted a guy with a high floor. Didn't realize he was going to explode on the scene. I don't think he'll keep up his 160 catch 2,200+ yard pace however.

Felix Jones

- RB that was finally getting the starting job for himself that would get some catches out of the backfield.

Ahmad Bradshaw

- Similar as Jones as I thought the NYG would be behind a lot and he would get a lot passes and more playing time then Jacobs

I also had played with Blount, SJax, Ryan Mathews as well and decided on Blount based on price and bye weeks (a little buyers remorse here).

Aaron Hernandez and Brandon Pettigrew

- I also wanted 3 Big time TEs. Two of which were always Pettigrew and Aaron Hernandez to get pieces of the DET and NE passing games. Also had Graham, Gronk, Olsen at one point but finally decided on Owen Daniels as third based on bye weeks and cost. I figured that I could get 2 high producing TE's and that my flex would come from here often.

Antonio Brown, Dexter McCluster, Denarius Moore

- As far as cheap players I always had Antonio Brown as insurance for Wallace. Dexter McCluster as a 3rd down RB disguised as a WR. Denarius Moore was good talent for the price.

By the way what are people's definition of studs?

 

[Modog814]

When I put my team together, I first go through and look for the guys I think are obvious bargains, that are going to be on every version of my team. This year, those players were Fitz and Staff (plugged them in first day, and never looked back), Stevie, Hester (oof) Lance Kendricks (we get points for drops, right?)and Evan Moore.

Actually, this could be a fascinating discussion. Perhaps we should discuss four or five guys we had an almost every version of our submissions. I must have submitted 100 teams, but these guys were in almost every iteration:

Phillip Rivers

- Insane value. A stud QB for about $10 less than the super studs.

Tim Hightower

- Yes, I know he's on a lot of teams. Yes, Shanny's favoring Torrain now. But I think Hightower easily outperforms his price this year.

Santana Moss

- Never a sexy pick, but always seems to outperform his price.

Owen Daniels

- A top five talent for a nice price.

I did something similar to massraider in selecting my team.

Players in almost every iteration:

Rivers -> same reason as jdoggydogg

Wells -> Cheap RB1 with basically no competition

Hightower-> Thought he was in a similar situation to Wells. Although it might be good thing if Torain steals a few carries for a couple week before inevitably getting hurt to narrow the amount of teams with Hightower.

Fitz -> Cheapest "uberstud" WR

Daniels -> if he stays healthy thought he could be a monster

E.Moore -> Big Red Zone threat, think the possibilities for multi-td games are there.

 

[eaglezzz]

When I put my team together, I first go through and look for the guys I think are obvious bargains, that are going to be on every version of my team. This year, those players were Fitz and Staff (plugged them in first day, and never looked back), Stevie, Hester (oof) Lance Kendricks (we get points for drops, right?)and Evan Moore.

Actually, this could be a fascinating discussion. Perhaps we should discuss four or five guys we had an almost every version of our submissions. I must have submitted 100 teams, but these guys were in almost every iteration:

Phillip Rivers

- Insane value. A stud QB for about $10 less than the super studs.

Tim Hightower

- Yes, I know he's on a lot of teams. Yes, Shanny's favoring Torrain now. But I think Hightower easily outperforms his price this year.

Santana Moss

- Never a sexy pick, but always seems to outperform his price.

Owen Daniels

- A top five talent for a nice price.

Agreed I think this is a great idea. My overall goal in filling out my roster was to find guys who were not top 10 studs but load up on 2nd tier guys that could have top 10 games. Guys I had pretty much from the get go were:

Mike Wallace

- Third year WR who was the go to guy and I thought primed for a breakout year at a good cost $23

Wes Welker

- Looked finally over his ACL injury during the preseason and wanted a guy with a high floor. Didn't realize he was going to explode on the scene. I don't think he'll keep up his 160 catch 2,200+ yard pace however.

Felix Jones

- RB that was finally getting the starting job for himself that would get some catches out of the backfield.

Ahmad Bradshaw

- Similar as Jones as I thought the NYG would be behind a lot and he would get a lot passes and more playing time then Jacobs

I also had played with Blount, SJax, Ryan Mathews as well and decided on Blount based on price and bye weeks (a little buyers remorse here).

Aaron Hernandez and Brandon Pettigrew

- I also wanted 3 Big time TEs. Two of which were always Pettigrew and Aaron Hernandez to get pieces of the DET and NE passing games. Also had Graham, Gronk, Olsen at one point but finally decided on Owen Daniels as third based on bye weeks and cost. I figured that I could get 2 high producing TE's and that my flex would come from here often.

Antonio Brown, Dexter McCluster, Denarius Moore

- As far as cheap players I always had Antonio Brown as insurance for Wallace. Dexter McCluster as a 3rd down RB disguised as a WR. Denarius Moore was good talent for the price.

By the way what are people's definition of studs?

When I think of Studs I would say L. McCoy, Rice, A. Foster, ADP, Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Calvin, AJ, FitzBtw you team is pretty nice, I have the same QB combo of Rivers/Ryan, I really like your TE's and you RB's are decent with all 3 Bradshaw/Blount/F Jones bringing some huge upside.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Wes Welker

Omitting Welker from consideration was one of my only true mistakes. My RB corps is weak, but I knew that going in. While my WR corps is pretty strong, I looked at Welker's price and said, "meh."

 

[BassNBrew]

I'm regretting not having taken a stud RB

Felix Jones

Chris Wells

Reggie Bush

Jerome Harrison

Montario Hardesty

Deji Karim

Ben Tate

Derrick Ward

Marion Barber

LaRod Stephens-Howling

Just doesn't seem like I have enough punch to hang with the big boys. Really need an injury or two to crop up so one of my cheap backups gets some playing time. This approach looks good on paper with 10 names to score until the season starts and you see some of the scores guys like Rice post. I did have Rice in my first few iterations, but didn't like him sharing a bye week with Felix. Probably spent too much at QB with Stafford/Brady.

 

[5-ish Finkle]

While my WR corps is pretty strong, I looked at Welker's price and said, "meh."

Pretty much my only legitimate regret as well, that isn't injury related anyway. Maybe Kendricks over Fred Davis is in the running too. I had Welker worked in at a couple different points...and talked myself out of him both times and replaced him with different players. My WR corps has turned out "pretty damn good" so far, but with Welker it would be be "great" and I'd feel a lot more confident going forward.I think there were 6 players that when I first looked over the salaries I figured I would have on my team "no matter" what, given cost vs. my projected output for them. I think I wound up rostering 5 of those 6 with Owen Daniels being the lone exception(I carpet bombed TE with Hernandez and several cheaper options instead). So far those 5 have worked out pretty well. Keeping fingers crossed that the Daniels thing doesn't wind up making me want to eat my liver later on.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm regretting not having taken a stud RBFelix Jones Chris Wells Reggie Bush Jerome Harrison Montario Hardesty Deji Karim Ben Tate Derrick Ward Marion Barber LaRod Stephens-Howling Just doesn't seem like I have enough punch to hang with the big boys. Really need an injury or two to crop up so one of my cheap backups gets some playing time. This approach looks good on paper with 10 names to score until the season starts and you see some of the scores guys like Rice post. I did have Rice in my first few iterations, but didn't like him sharing a bye week with Felix. Probably spent too much at QB with Stafford/Brady.

My RB corps is similar, but worse:Felix Jones $23 Tim Hightower $14 Pierre Thomas $7 Thomas Jones $7 Roy Helu $7 Cadillac Williams $3 Marion Barber $3 Taiwan Jones $2 I hoped my WR corps would make up for it. So far, that's happened. But guys like Lee Evans and Danny Amendola are killing my depth.

 

[jdoggydogg]

While my WR corps is pretty strong, I looked at Welker's price and said, "meh."

Pretty much my only legitimate regret as well, that isn't injury related anyway. Maybe Kendricks over Fred Davis is in the running too. I had Welker worked in at a couple different points...and talked myself out of him both times and replaced him with different players. My WR corps has turned out "pretty damn good" so far, but with Welker it would be be "great" and I'd feel a lot more confident going forward.I think there were 6 players that when I first looked over the salaries I figured I would have on my team "no matter" what, given cost vs. my projected output for them. I think I wound up rostering 5 of those 6 with Owen Daniels being the lone exception(I carpet bombed TE with Hernandez and several cheaper options instead). So far those 5 have worked out pretty well. Keeping fingers crossed that the Daniels thing doesn't wind up making me want to eat my liver later on.

Yeah, I was big on Daniels this year. Drafted him in my dynasty league, and I platooned him in this contest along with Aaron Hernandez and Fred Davis.

 

[Saint]

Actually, this could be a fascinating discussion. Perhaps we should discuss four or five guys we had an almost every version of our submissions.

Interesting idea jdoggy. Like you, many many iterations, but I always built around a couple of key items:
[*]At least 1 stud player at QB/RB/WR, where their bye weeks all fall on different weeks.

[*]QB: Tom Brady. Every iteration had Brady in it. In addition I liked his bye week compared to the other players.

[*]RB: Marion Barber. Figured he would vulch all the TDs from Forte. Glad he is starting to come on. Couldn't keep consistent on RB though.

[*]WR: Calvin Johnson, Santana Moss, and Denarious Moore. Moss is underrated every year, yet always consistently does well. I gambled on CJ as I felt of all the stud WRs, he was due for a big year. Moore was overly hyped and I felt if he got the nod. Good money for a solid starter.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Actually, this could be a fascinating discussion. Perhaps we should discuss four or five guys we had an almost every version of our submissions.

Interesting idea jdoggy. Like you, many many iterations, but I always built around a couple of key items:At least 1 stud player at QB/RB/WR, where their bye weeks all fall on different weeks.

[*]

[*]QB: Tom Brady. Every iteration had Brady in it. In addition I liked his bye week compared to the other players.

[*]RB: Marion Barber. Figured he would vulch all the TDs from Forte. Glad he is starting to come on. Couldn't keep consistent on RB though.

[*]WR: Calvin Johnson, Santana Moss, and Denarious Moore. Moss is underrated every year, yet always consistently does well. I gambled on CJ as I felt of all the stud WRs, he was due for a big year. Moore was overly hyped and I felt if he got the nod. Good money for a solid starter.

Yeah, I had Barber on all my teams, as well.

 

[rustycolts]

Anyone else create a profile in their MYFBG with the Contest Scoring System? I like to do this to see where my team stands each week. All my top guys using the MYFBG rankings/projections estimate that I will score a 140.2 for Week 5

I just created a profile looks like bad news for me 123.10 is what was projected.Tried to get most of my byes done early think I over did it though.