***Official*** 2012 FBG Subscriber Contest Thread (3 Viewers)

[Cliff Clavin]

Still going strong and team is looking decent. Week 5 is my challenge with no QB and no McFadden.

Why did you only take 1 QB? seems like a very odd strategy..

I wanted to stack my team at RB and WR.

I know plenty of people subscribe to this theory, but I have a hard time believing spending a few bucks on a scrub backup like Tannehill determines whether your RB/WR are "stacked" or not.

Fade this theory the same way that the entire FFA fades LHUCKS' wagering picks.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Still going strong and team is looking decent. Week 5 is my challenge with no QB and no McFadden.

Why did you only take 1 QB? seems like a very odd strategy..

I wanted to stack my team at RB and WR.

I know plenty of people subscribe to this theory, but I have a hard time believing spending a few bucks on a scrub backup like Tannehill determines whether your RB/WR are "stacked" or not.

I agree. $4 isn't going to radically alter your strategy at RB and WR.

 

[Hybrid]

At 138 with Dez (-6) remaining. Uh oh. Just a terrible week all around with Hernandez out and my backup TE Heath Miller on a bye, DMAC, Doug Martin, Percy, and Julio sucking it up, I'm expecting to be out.

 

[JoeSteeler]

soo...unless Hester puts up 20-25 pts i am out

 

[CalBear]

There has to be some upset Julio Jones owners this morning.

But...Roddy White is 31!

 

[HairySasquatch]

Still going strong and team is looking decent. Week 5 is my challenge with no QB and no McFadden.

Why did you only take 1 QB? seems like a very odd strategy..

I wanted to stack my team at RB and WR.

I know plenty of people subscribe to this theory, but I have a hard time believing spending a few bucks on a scrub backup like Tannehill determines whether your RB/WR are "stacked" or not.

The idea is that Tannehill isn't good enough to count on any week besides your top guy's bye week (that was before he dropped 400 yards yesterday). If you think you can get by your starters bye week (and it's an early bye week), then it's a wasted 4 dollars. For a small roster, 4 dollars is a big deal. If I had a bigger roster, I would have gone with more than one QB. It's a gamble. I went with Brees....he is mister consistent. He just tied the record for having 47 straight games with a TD.

 

[CalBear]

The idea is that Tannehill isn't good enough to count on any week besides your top guy's bye week (that was before he dropped 400 yards yesterday).

1) The idea is wrong.2) Your starter has a bye week.

 

[atcdav]

Still going strong and team is looking decent. Week 5 is my challenge with no QB and no McFadden.

Why did you only take 1 QB? seems like a very odd strategy..

I wanted to stack my team at RB and WR.

I know plenty of people subscribe to this theory, but I have a hard time believing spending a few bucks on a scrub backup like Tannehill determines whether your RB/WR are "stacked" or not.

Fade this theory the same way that the entire FFA fades LHUCKS' wagering picks.

I dont understand not covering a bye at any position much less at QB, but at least with an early bye the points cutoff should be relatively low

 

[LHUCKS]

Still going strong and team is looking decent. Week 5 is my challenge with no QB and no McFadden.

Why did you only take 1 QB? seems like a very odd strategy..

I wanted to stack my team at RB and WR.

I know plenty of people subscribe to this theory, but I have a hard time believing spending a few bucks on a scrub backup like Tannehill determines whether your RB/WR are "stacked" or not.

Fade this theory the same way that the entire FFA fades LHUCKS' wagering picks.

I dont understand not covering a bye at any position much less at QB, but at least with an early bye the points cutoff should be relatively low

Not only that, but I'm banking on Stafford performing at a high level in the critical weeks. How many weeks do you think a guy like Tannenhill is going to score more than Stafford? And when he does, by how much?

 

[LHUCKS]

The idea is that Tannehill isn't good enough to count on any week besides your top guy's bye week (that was before he dropped 400 yards yesterday).

1) The idea is wrong.2) Your starter has a bye week.

week 5 and my team is pretty stacked elsewhere that week.It's a risk, no questions. We'll see what happens.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

There has to be some upset Julio Jones owners this morning. I have him and will survive, thank you Amendola for picking up the slack.

I am fine with it. I am going to advance comfortably with Julio doing nothing, so it is only thinning the herd of Julio owners. Same goes for McFadden.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I average about 190 points per week, but my weak RB corps is really going to have to step it up to give me a shot at this thing.

 

[LHUCKS]

There has to be some upset Julio Jones owners this morning. I have him and will survive, thank you Amendola for picking up the slack.

I am fine with it. I am going to advance comfortably with Julio doing nothing, so it is only thinning the herd of Julio owners. Same goes for McFadden.

As a Julio and McFadden owner, I'm glad to see them underperforming...hopefully the teams with either of those will be quickly eliminated and my uniqueness increases.:sharkmove:

 

[CalBear]

Not only that, but I'm banking on Stafford performing at a high level in the critical weeks. How many weeks do you think a guy like Tannenhill is going to score more than Stafford? And when he does, by how much?

Well, I'd say at least 1/4. 2/5 counting next week.

 

[pocketducks]

Last Update - Cutoff: Sunday, September 30th 11:46pm Cutoff at that time: 148.15

Entry 106208Done at 173.9 thinking that I am safe if the above cut off is about correct. Though I am a little worried that Gabbert has counted for my team twice so far.

Question is where are you able to find the approximate cut off real time? Thanks!

 

[HairySasquatch]

Not only that, but I'm banking on Stafford performing at a high level in the critical weeks. How many weeks do you think a guy like Tannenhill is going to score more than Stafford? And when he does, by how much?

Well, I'd say at least 1/4. 2/5 counting next week.

Having Tannenhill or not having Tannenhill is not going to make a difference in my team making the final 250 imo. Unless Brees gets injured, but even then, I'm likely out if that happens either way.

 

[Kuz]

The idea is that Tannehill isn't good enough to count on any week besides your top guy's bye week (that was before he dropped 400 yards yesterday).

1) The idea is wrong.2) Your starter has a bye week.

week 5 and my team is pretty stacked elsewhere that week.It's a risk, no questions. We'll see what happens.

I think the bigger risk is that you took 1 QB that is also a QB that tends to get nicked up.. I would feel much safer with only having a Brees/Brady/Rodgers than Stafford

 

[LHUCKS]

I would feel much safer with only having a Brees/Brady/Rodgers than Stafford

I looked at schedules and liked Stafford's the most.

 

[atcdav]

Not only that, but I'm banking on Stafford performing at a high level in the critical weeks. How many weeks do you think a guy like Tannenhill is going to score more than Stafford? And when he does, by how much?

Well, I'd say at least 1/4. 2/5 counting next week.

It only takes 1 week, to get knocked out, every week matters and every possible. Why would anyone want to leave points on the table

 

[Organized Chaos]

Last Update - Cutoff: Sunday, September 30th 11:46pm Cutoff at that time: 148.15

Entry 106208Done at 173.9 thinking that I am safe if the above cut off is about correct. Though I am a little worried that Gabbert has counted for my team twice so far.

Question is where are you able to find the approximate cut off real time? Thanks!

You can see it here http://ffltools.com/fbg35k/teams/2012/106208It runs after the late games end on Sunday, then again after the Sunday Night game.

 

[atcdav]

Sitting on 188 with Ogletree and Da Bears. A lot to be said for the randomness. Week1 Ogletree stepped Up, Week2 no one special but main guys did their thing. Week 3 LeShoure was a difference maker, Week 4 FJax came back to help and some regs finally had good games. Surprisingly Amendola's points have counted every week for me. Graham is the only other player on my roster to have points count every week so far.

I looked at a few team around me with same score; very different rosters.

 

[tigerz]

187 with brandon marshall and robbie gould to go. Honestly, these cheap picks are the ones that are keeping me alive. Tannehill, Benson, Bess, and Amendola. Used them in like 3 out of 4 weeks.

 

[BaBastage]

I wanted to stack my team at RB and WR.

I know plenty of people subscribe to this theory, but I have a hard time believing spending a few bucks on a scrub backup like Tannehill determines whether your RB/WR are "stacked" or not.

Agreed. I couldn't justify *not* spending $4 to take Tannehill, and he's scored twice for me (backing up Stafford, although this week's increase over Stafford was only two tenths of one point.)

 

[BassNBrew]

I wanted to stack my team at RB and WR.

I know plenty of people subscribe to this theory, but I have a hard time believing spending a few bucks on a scrub backup like Tannehill determines whether your RB/WR are "stacked" or not.

Agreed. I couldn't justify spending $4 to take Tannehill, and he's scored twice for me (backing up Stafford, although this week's increase over Stafford was only two tenths of one point.)

He's only a good investment in two cases...1. He saves you from elimination.2. He nets you points in the final 250 that exceed the points you would have netted elsewhere.If Stafford isn't playing in the final three weeks and you just have Tannehill, you're not winning.

 

[LHUCKS]

He's only a good investment in two cases...

1. He saves you from elimination.

2. He nets you points in the final 250 that exceed the points you would have netted elsewhere.

If Stafford isn't playing in the final three weeks and you just have Tannehill, you're not winning.

correct

 

[pizzatyme]

He's only a good investment in two cases...

1. He saves you from elimination.

2. He nets you points in the final 250 that exceed the points you would have netted elsewhere.

If Stafford isn't playing in the final three weeks and you just have Tannehill, you're not winning.

correct

That's not necessarily true. You are saying there is no chance for Tannehill to come within 20% of Stafford's production? You're also banking on Stafford throwing up terrific final 3 week numbers.I thought you're team was "stacked" elsewhere? Why couldn't the uniqueness of Tannehill performing within 20% of Stafford be a good thing? Especially with your supposed "stacked" lineup elsewhere??

 

[LHUCKS]

That's not necessarily true. You are saying there is no chance for Tannehill to come within 20% of Stafford's production? You're also banking on Stafford throwing up terrific final 3 week numbers.

I'm not saying that, nor is BNB.

 

[CalBear]

He's only a good investment in two cases...1. He saves you from elimination.2. He nets you points in the final 250 that exceed the points you would have netted elsewhere.If Stafford isn't playing in the final three weeks and you just have Tannehill, you're not winning.

Some might have said that last year about Cam Newton. I once won a fantasy championship based on Kyle Boller's play in weeks 15-16 (540 yards, 6 TDs). When you have no idea how well a cheap player might be playing when it comes down to the wire, you can't predict whether he'll be valuable or not. At $4, it seems like a reasonable investment; you could have downgraded from Julio Jones to someone performing better, and had a better team.

 

[BassNBrew]

He's only a good investment in two cases...1. He saves you from elimination.2. He nets you points in the final 250 that exceed the points you would have netted elsewhere.If Stafford isn't playing in the final three weeks and you just have Tannehill, you're not winning.

Some might have said that last year about Cam Newton. I once won a fantasy championship based on Kyle Boller's play in weeks 15-16 (540 yards, 6 TDs). When you have no idea how well a cheap player might be playing when it comes down to the wire, you can't predict whether he'll be valuable or not. At $4, it seems like a reasonable investment; you could have downgraded from Julio Jones to someone performing better, and had a better team.

Regarding my last statement, I just think it's highly unlikely in weeks 14-16 that Tannehill + dead money + rest of team >/= Tannehill + live QB + rest of team

 

[CalBear]

He's only a good investment in two cases...1. He saves you from elimination.2. He nets you points in the final 250 that exceed the points you would have netted elsewhere.If Stafford isn't playing in the final three weeks and you just have Tannehill, you're not winning.

Some might have said that last year about Cam Newton. I once won a fantasy championship based on Kyle Boller's play in weeks 15-16 (540 yards, 6 TDs). When you have no idea how well a cheap player might be playing when it comes down to the wire, you can't predict whether he'll be valuable or not. At $4, it seems like a reasonable investment; you could have downgraded from Julio Jones to someone performing better, and had a better team.

Regarding my last statement, I just think it's highly unlikely in weeks 14-16 that Tannehill + dead money + rest of team >/= Tannehill + live QB + rest of team

Sure. But it's entirely plausible that Stafford+Tannehlil+$15 WR could be better than Stafford+$19 WR.

 

[Jed]

204.4 plus Gould (-18.00)

With I would have gone Tanny/Stud at QB. That's some sweet production for $4 this year.

 

[J. Cyrus]

My team is ballin'

http://ffltools.com/fbg35k/teams/2012/100241

Matt Ryan ATL QB 0.00% $19 41.45 24.85 30.15 34.45 bye Andrew Luck IND QB 0.00% $11 16.35 25.30 30.65 bye Marshawn Lynch SEA RB 0.00% $19 11.70 18.20 10.90 25.50 bye Stevan Ridley NEP RB 0.00% $16 23.20 12.50 3.70 22.60 bye David Wilson NYG RB 0.00% $9 0.40 0.60 1.10 0.00 bye Kendall Hunter SFO RB 0.00% $6 4.10 6.40 1.20 11.60 bye Robert Turbin SEA RB 0.00% $6 1.70 5.90 0.00 7.80 bye Rash Mendenhall PIT RB 0.00% $4 0.00 0.00 0.00 bye Jonathan Dwyer PIT RB 0.00% $4 7.40 5.00 1.00 bye Cedric Benson GBP RB 0.00% $3 1.80 15.60 16.40 14.60 bye Evan Royster WAS RB 0.00% $3 1.00 3.10 5.40 4.90 bye Jordy Nelson GBP WR 0.00% $20 11.40 14.40 3.90 23.30 bye Marques Colston NOS WR 0.00% $19 11.10 7.90 7.00 30.30 bye Antonio Brown PIT WR 0.00% $17 11.80 15.80 21.70 bye Torrey Smith BAL WR 0.00% $16 9.00 7.10 30.70 21.70 bye Pierre Garcon WAS WR 0.00% $14 20.90 0.00 0.00 3.00 bye Alshon Jeffery CHI WR 0.00% $6 17.00 1.70 9.50 0.00 bye Danny Amendola STL WR 0.00% $6 12.20 37.00 11.60 18.10 bye Jon Baldwin KCC WR 0.00% $4 0.00 9.20 6.60 9.00 bye Kyle Rudolph MIN TE 0.00% $11 14.20 14.00 23.10 3.80 bye Greg Olsen CAR TE 0.00% $11 14.60 2.80 20.30 23.90 bye Dwayne Allen IND TE 0.00% $2 0.00 7.80 11.00 bye Rob Bironas TEN PK 0.00% $3 7.00 4.00 16.00 2.00 bye Matt Prater DEN PK 0.00% $3 5.00 3.00 15.00 18.00 bye Greg Zuerlein STL PK 0.00% $3 15.00 15.00 11.00 21.00 bye San Franci49ers SFO Def 0.00% $6 5.00 4.00 4.00 17.00 bye Buffalo Bills BUF Def 0.00% $5 2.00 17.00 8.00 5.00 bye Seatt Seahawks SEA Def 0.00% $4 5.00 11.00 8.00 4.00 Total 175.25 184.80 189.35 237.85
I hope Mendenhall, Baldwin, Jeffrey and Wilson emerge in the coming weeks..

 

[LHUCKS]

So where is the projected cut line again?

 

[JoeSteeler]

soo...unless Hester puts up 20-25 pts i am out

Well he has 12.8 so far. Another TD or 50-60 yards. I might just make it.

 

[Hybrid]

Dez is killing me. This will be a close one...at 151 points.

 

[Mr. Soup Nazi]

I may be done. A lot of meh across the board. I'm at 148 w/ Marshall (-14.1). Hoping for a big game from him. I think 155 will be safe.

YESSSSSSS!!!!

 

[LittlePhatty]

Dez is killing me. This will be a close one...at 151 points.

Me too.Scoring:

No points scored for 2 point conversions

 

[Hybrid]

Dez is killing me. This will be a close one...at 151 points.

Me too.Scoring:

No points scored for 2 point conversions

Yeah, I had to look that up and be disappointed as well.

 

[Organized Chaos]

just kicked off the script to calculate the current cut line, it should be up at ffltools within 30/45 minutes. Night all, good luck.

 

[wollac]

195.55 and on to week 5.

 

[Mario Kart]

Last Update - Cutoff: Monday, October 1st 11:48pm Cutoff at that time: 156.85

If the live scoring is correct. I'm at 159.45. Thanks, Brandon Marshall.

 

[LHUCKS]

186...with down weeks from McFadden and Julio.

Next week is the big test...no QB.

 

[Mr. Soup Nazi]

Next week could be tough. I only have 1 QB (Vick), One TE (Gates) and basically only 2 RB's (Benson & FJax...also have no-show Wilson). All of my WR's are active, though so I need a couple of 25+ pointers there to survive.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Done at 190.25.

-QG

 

[Ministry of Pain]

193

 

[HairySasquatch]

The idea is that Tannehill isn't good enough to count on any week besides your top guy's bye week (that was before he dropped 400 yards yesterday).

1) The idea is wrong.2) Your starter has a bye week.

Them be fighting words Cal... I would have thought someone that is associated with UC Berkley would be a little more accepting and tolerant of other's views and strategies.Look, this is one strategy out of many. It isn't right or wrong...it's just a strategy. Everyone who decided to go with it will be the first to admit that it is risky and could lead to an early exit. And thank you for pointing out that my starter has a bye week. However, it's now a little late for this information. Where were you when I was constructing my team back in August?

 

[atcdav]

Still going strong and team is looking decent. Week 5 is my challenge with no QB and no McFadden.

Why did you only take 1 QB? seems like a very odd strategy..

I wanted to stack my team at RB and WR.

How did you end up this week?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Still going strong and team is looking decent.

Week 5 is my challenge with no QB and no McFadden.

Why did you only take 1 QB? seems like a very odd strategy..

I wanted to stack my team at RB and WR.

How did you end up this week?

This entry is still alive.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

We've officially burned through half of the 18-man rosters:

SIZE	ALL	ALIVE	SURV%18	4633	2302	49.7%19	1813	984	54.3%20	1376	792	57.6%21	1142	656	57.4%22	966	581	60.1%23	812	505	62.2%24	626	407	65.0%25	482	315	65.4%26	380	242	63.7%27	308	211	68.5%28	229	153	66.8%29	191	137	71.7%30	335	219	65.4%TOT	13293	7504	56.5%

 

[FUBAR]

173, 175, 174 consistency, thy name is FUBAR.