Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Secret Agent Man...
Easier to change his name to the number
(Don't do this as I think you cannot change it back for a few weeks)
-QG
So you're saying I won?! Sweet.
Congratulations SVBDS!!! Any tips for next year?So you're saying I won?! Sweet.
tip the waitstaff, heavily.Congratulations SVBDS!!! Any tips for next year?So you're saying I won?! Sweet.
Yeah, so much for the excitement over the new format. Hopefully next year, Doug can work a survivor component back into this contest.
Please. Most of us posting here would be eliminated already in the old format too.
Yeah, but we'd be talking about playing spoiler and making the cut.
| RD 1 | |||
| D PRESCOTT | DAL | QB | 47.65 |
| B PURDY | SF | QB | 42.20 |
| DK METCALF | SEA | WR | 35.60 |
| J ALLEN | BUF | QB | 35.60 |
| T LAWRENCE | JAX | QB | 35.20 |
| D JONES | GIANTS | QB | 34.85 |
| RD 1 TOTAL | 231.10 | ||
| RD 2 | |||
| T KELCE | KC | TE | 85.60 |
| J HURTS | PHI | QB | 58.20 |
| C LAMB | DAL | WR | 44.60 |
| C KIRK | JAX | WR | 40.00 |
| H HURST | CIN | TE | 38.80 |
| J MIXON | CIN | RB | 38.60 |
| RD 2 TOTAL | 305.80 | ||
| GTOTAL | 536.90 | ||
| RD 3 | |||
| P MAHOMES | KC | QB | 87.30 |
| M VALDES-SCANTLING | KC | WR | 70.80 |
| J BURROW | CIN | QB | 61.50 |
| T HIGGINS | CIN | WR | 60.90 |
| C MCCAFFREY | SF | RB | 55.80 |
| M SANDERS | PHI | RB | 51.00 |
| RD 3 TOTAL | 387.30 | ||
| GTOTAL | 924.20 |
What I meant was the teams that had the correct two finalists Currently towards the top of the standings, don’t have the best players queued up for the Super Bowl
What is apparent to me is that with so many of the leaders having only 2-3 players left for the Super Bowl, this constest is still wide open. Only 2 teams in the top 200 still have 6 players left in the Super Bowl. I think it's going to be an interesting finish. Someone with only 3 players left (and with a decent lead), might be able to hang on and win. Or someone with 5 or 6 remaining players may score enough to rise to the top, depending on the outcome of the game.
I think that 5x points will pull some teams close. It could be a low scoring game but likely not. If the three extra players average 20 points each that closes a 300 point gap. I think it’s highly likely the winning team has the Super Bowl winning qb roostered
I also had 22/24 players. 6 in round 1, 6 in round 2, 4 in round 3 and I have all 6 left (I went all Philly to be safe) problem is best I can finish is 5th place (10 people did what I did in the SB with same exact 6 Philly players and I am in 5th of those 10)
Agreed
Maybe this dude is playing 4D chess while we’re playing checkers
Still could have used him last week for a huge number. Just plain stupidity.Maybe this dude is playing 4D chess while we’re playing checkers
Still could have used him last week for a huge number. Just plain stupidity.Maybe this dude is playing 4D chess while we’re playing checkers
This entry picked the correct SB teams and had 6 players going. He got points from all 18 of his previous players thru the first 3 weeks, and still managed to be outscored by over 300 entries that had no SB players!
What I saying is that I was very surprised in a year where two number one seeds advanced there were any majors whiffs in the top finishing lineups. I would have expected that in a Dallas/Cinny final where there were fewer Super Bowl 6s competing.
Your displeasure with the new format is well documented. But I think I've heard more positive comments on the post-season contest than negative ones.
Winning this contest was just like any other, in that it involves a careful scrutiny of the specifics of the rules, and then the careful application of a strategy that one feels gives them the best chance to be successful.
The statement that the winning entries had serious flaws seems illogical to me. If "serious flaws" resulted in winning a prize, then perhaps they were not serious flaws. I might re-state that comment to say that the winning entry had fewer flaws than the rest of the entries did.
A simple reading of the rules makes it obvious that the most important element required to score the most points is having active and productive players still avilable and earning points in the weeks with the highest multiplers. That, in turn, requires accurately predicting which teams will win their games in each round. So whomever won the costest obviously did a better job at that than you and I did. If you are saying in hindsight that the winner might have done even better, then I agree with you. That will always be true because it's probably impossible to guess which teams will win every game, and also guess exactly which players will score the most in each game.
It will be interesting to see what unfolds for next season. That time can't come soon enough.
At least we have hockey.
Yeah, with so many favorites advancing I thought that winning the contest would require nailing your picks better. But the winning team had two zeros, one in the divisional round on a team that lost the WC (Justin Jefferson) and one in the Super Bowl who played but was held scoreless (PHI D). And they didn't do anything special with their other 5 Super Bowl players - I expect they were the 5 most highly rostered players who played (Mahomes, Hurts, Kelce, AJ Brown, Devonta Smith). The rest of the top finishers had similar issues.What I saying is that I was very surprised in a year where two number one seeds advanced there were any majors whiffs in the top finishing lineups. I would have expected that in a Dallas/Cinny final where there were fewer Super Bowl 6s competing.
Your displeasure with the new format is well documented. But I think I've heard more positive comments on the post-season contest than negative ones.
Winning this contest was just like any other, in that it involves a careful scrutiny of the specifics of the rules, and then the careful application of a strategy that one feels gives them the best chance to be successful.
The statement that the winning entries had serious flaws seems illogical to me. If "serious flaws" resulted in winning a prize, then perhaps they were not serious flaws. I might re-state that comment to say that the winning entry had fewer flaws than the rest of the entries did.
A simple reading of the rules makes it obvious that the most important element required to score the most points is having active and productive players still avilable and earning points in the weeks with the highest multiplers. That, in turn, requires accurately predicting which teams will win their games in each round. So whomever won the costest obviously did a better job at that than you and I did. If you are saying in hindsight that the winner might have done even better, then I agree with you. That will always be true because it's probably impossible to guess which teams will win every game, and also guess exactly which players will score the most in each game.
It will be interesting to see what unfolds for next season. That time can't come soon enough.
At least we have hockey.
Normally in contest like this it's EV+ to move off the favorites. I'm not sure if that's the case based on how things played out. One side of me says be different after seeing the SB6 teams absolutely swamp the final standings after virtually none of those teams being towards the top of the standings before the Super Bowl. The other side says play the favorites and just be conservative in the beginning and you'll have a shot at some coin.
