Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter David Dodds
- Start date
apalmer
Footballguy
2003. There's an article in the 2004 Archives written by the winner: http://footballguys.com/04defontes_survivorstale.htmThere was one year in there (2005?) when they changed the format--instead of picking one roster for the year, you had to pick a new rsoter every week, using each player only once during the year.
The Jerk
Footballguy
Thanks. I don't remember that one, so 2005 sounds right or 2004. I suppose I've just been in the last three times, then.I love the roster flexibility and the conflict between what will help get you through to what will help separate you from the rest should you make the finals.
sinatravolta
Footballguy
That article is pretty funny. Shows the amount of luck involved with all those weeks scraping by and things like the Andre Johnson -34 yard run causing him to win.
Das Boot
Footballguy
Roster spots are pretty valuable, and all things considered I'd much rather go with only 2 QBs and use that spot elsewhere.The risk is injury, e.g. last year Romo missed a few weeks and if I hadn't had Warner as a 3rd QB, I would have been out during my 2nd QBs bye.The cheap and intriguing 3rd QB pick this year (besides Sanchez, who I actually took as my 2nd QB), was Leinart.Leinart could be a completely wasted pick depending on Warner's health status this year.But should Warner miss time, Leinart provides a shot at having a cheap QB step in and provide Top 10 QB numbers thanks to the Cards high firepower passing offense.Leinart also was a good bet to provide some roster differentiation, so teams with Leinart that make it to the final 250 will have a somewhat unique player on their roster with the potential to put up big points.
az_prof
Footballguy
I went with three TEs because of the per catch bonus: Shockey, Zach Miller, and Todd Heap. Week 1 I did have a TE as my flex. Last weak Miller was shut out and Heap fell to earth. But I think if you can get your TE2 and TE3 cheap that this may not be a bad strategy.I thought the same thing, except I couldn't find any receivers that I thought were worth the money. Decided to roll with Gonzo and Clark at TE.I went stud TE with Whitten and Olsen. But Olsen has been a huge dissappointment so far. I thought I would have a TE as my flex player many weeks.Might be a little early, but based on the scoring system it would be interesting to see a breakdown of point production/cost on a positional basis. Looking at similar player costs originally, it seemed to me, that RB were overly expensive, and TE was severely under priced. On a cost basis my feeling is that a lineup rolling out 2 TE's a week, all else being equal, would be the most effecient on a per dollar basis. Particularly a team that invested in 3 TE's in the 15$-8$ range. Hopefully for me, Greg Olsens chemistry manifests on the field.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
Manningham saved me last week.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
That's what I was thinking - I took 3 cheap TEs and figured I'd end up with good TE scoring and the poss that I'd have some flex scores come from there too. Went with Shockey, Celek and Heap ($21 total) - which was fairly lucky. But my TEs have counted as my flex in both weeks and have put up 75 points that counted in the two weeks combined.I went with three TEs because of the per catch bonus: Shockey, Zach Miller, and Todd Heap. Week 1 I did have a TE as my flex. Last weak Miller was shut out and Heap fell to earth. But I think if you can get your TE2 and TE3 cheap that this may not be a bad strategy.I thought the same thing, except I couldn't find any receivers that I thought were worth the money. Decided to roll with Gonzo and Clark at TE.I went stud TE with Whitten and Olsen. But Olsen has been a huge dissappointment so far. I thought I would have a TE as my flex player many weeks.Might be a little early, but based on the scoring system it would be interesting to see a breakdown of point production/cost on a positional basis. Looking at similar player costs originally, it seemed to me, that RB were overly expensive, and TE was severely under priced. On a cost basis my feeling is that a lineup rolling out 2 TE's a week, all else being equal, would be the most effecient on a per dollar basis. Particularly a team that invested in 3 TE's in the 15$-8$ range. Hopefully for me, Greg Olsens chemistry manifests on the field.
Last edited by a moderator:
Does this team have any chance to survive if McNabb doesn't come back until week 5? 
McNabb, Hill
Leon, Felix, Edge, Scott, J.Davis, M.Bush, C.Brown, Maroney
Calvin, Randy, Colston, Harvin, Mason, Schilens
Carlson, Keller, Olsen
Gould, Reed, Hauschka
Skins, Cowboys
Starting to think its my QB and D's that will be my downfall, and not the lack of big name Rbs.
McNabb, Hill
Leon, Felix, Edge, Scott, J.Davis, M.Bush, C.Brown, Maroney
Calvin, Randy, Colston, Harvin, Mason, Schilens
Carlson, Keller, Olsen
Gould, Reed, Hauschka
Skins, Cowboys
Starting to think its my QB and D's that will be my downfall, and not the lack of big name Rbs.
Last edited by a moderator:
nashua55
Footballguy
The QB strategy was one that I took very serious in this contest. Even though I thought about it, I decided to go against the top tier QB(brady,brees,manning,or rogers) paired with Leftwich and went with the strategy outlined above. I took Romo, Sanchez and Leinart. Selecting Leinart was a tough choice , because it could be a wasted roster spot. But I believe Warner is an injury waiting to happen since his mobility is a serious problem. By going with Leinart, I had to take a pass on Leftwich, even though he offered good value at $4.00. There was no way I wanted 4 spots taken up by the QB position. Romo is going to be boom or bust for me. I switched back and forth with guys like Rivers,Cutler and Ryan. I felt Romo, Ryan, Rivers and Cutler were on the same tier. The deciding factor was Romo's week 6 bye, which was more benificial to my team.
LHUCKS
Footballguy
What does that tell you?
firstseason1988
Footballguy
It starts over each week. You could have 500 pts and beat the cut by 400 pts, but miss the cut the following week. Not cumalative. Except maybe the end? I am just worried about each week as they come.
Das Boot
Footballguy
Yep, the overall standings are pretty binary.Either your team is stillIt starts over each week. You could have 500 pts and beat the cut by 400 pts, but miss the cut the following week. Not cumalative. Except maybe the end? I am just worried about each week as they come.
Or your team is permanently 
Last edited by a moderator:
sinatravolta
Footballguy
I had Leinart on my team for a while when I was going to go with 3 QBs. I do think he's a good play, and I didn't really want to do Leftwich either as I figured he wouldn't score very well and might be benched at some point. But amusingly he has outscored Peyton both weeks so far. I had Rodgers for a while - he costs $5 less than Manning - but then I was worried about how many of my best guys had week 5 byes, so I had to turn away from Rodgers and I'm glad I did. So many people have him - that actually having Peyton is a nice differentiator for me.
Das Boot
Footballguy
That's pretty interesting that you used similar logic on your QBs... only 5 entries out of 14k had those 3 QBs.Going with Romo for QB1 was an intentional choice to differentiate from the pack on my part... I originally had Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan, but realized those would be high % owned players (and sure enough they ended up being #1 and #3 in % ownership).Plus Romo was $4 cheaper than Rodgers and seemed a good bet to put up numbers pretty close to Rodgers.The drop down to Sanchez saved an extra $10 or so over most other reasonable QB2 choices, and that $10 was put to good use elsewhere. A key fact about Sanchez was the likelyhood he'll be the starter all year for the Jets barring injury. Besides the aforementioned possible high scoring upside to Leinart, the reason I didn't go with the bargain priced Leftwich for QB #3 was the distinct possibility if not near certainty Leftwich will be be replaced by Freeman at some point in the season.So these 3 make a risky but intriguing combo with lots of potential upside.
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
That Greg Jennings had 0 points and I still made the cut by 20?
nashua55
Footballguy
When I looked at the QB position I looked at the possible starters at the cheapest price. Leftwich, Leinart, and Culpepper fit the bill. Once Pepper wasnt going to be the starter and I didnt want to handcuff him with Stafford, he was gone. I chose Leinart based on the fact i decided with Fitz at wr, and because of Warners injury liability. The mid range guys at $8-$12 were B.Quinn , Sanchez,Hill,and Pennington. (unfortuneatly, I didnt give Flacco enough consideration) I scrapped Hill because of the week 6 bye with Romo. I didnt trust Pennington becuase of tougher schedule than last year, and he doesnt throw many TD's. I took Sanchez because he better in the preseason than Quinn. I also liked Ryan, but I also figured alot of teams would take him at such a value price. Plus I didnt like the week 5 bye.
tomarken
Footballguy
Because then you've spent two roster spots on one player (ARI QB). If you pair Leinart with Romo, Rodgers, etc. then you have the potential to have two high-scoring QB's down the stretch.
nashua55
Footballguy
With my team taking Fitz at wr, it would be logical to take Warner and Leinart. I gave it alot thought, and honestly I might regret not going that route. Arizona has a week 4 bye, which is perfect. I think I overthought the prospect of having potentially 2 very good scoring QB's with Romo(who is still a question mark) and Leinart(if Warner gets injuried) along with Sanchez. In hindsight, I think I would scrap Romo and have taken Warner along with Leinart and try to score big points with Fitz. I had tunnel vision in thinking that Warner has little chance to finish the year, because he is just a statue in the pocket waiting to get crushed. I went with the mindset of Warner not being able to play 2 injury free years in a row. The prospect of Leinart and Sanchez as my QB's worried me.
nashua55
Footballguy
I also wanted to add, The Romo selection over Warner might be more risky since, Sanchez would be my only starting QB if Romo gets hurt.
sinatravolta
Footballguy
I think Leinart without Warner is the better move. Why use 2 roster spots to fill a slot when Romo or Rodgers should provide similar numbers and only take one? Unless you really think ARZ passing game is going to be #1 - I think Leinart is the kind of risk/reward move that apalmer would like (and I do too) - that not that many people will have and could be gold down the stretch. If it doesn't happen - well he was only $4 and you still have 2 QBs without him.
nashua55
Footballguy
True I agree with that, but having Fitz along with Warner or Leinart would guarentee me double points for every TD Fitz caught. If Leinart plays this year for an extended time, I made the right choice by selecting him with Romo. If Warner plays like he did last year, I will regret the choice. If I make it to the money bowl, I think the QB/WR combo of Warner/Fitz would be a better option than Romo/Fitz. Because I would have only needed the Cardinals to get hot at the end of the year. If Warner stays healthy, I would need Arizona and Dallas passing games to stay hot for multiple weeks to have a shot at the top prize. Therefore I think I narrowed my chances of winning the top prize if I make it after the final cutdowns. By selecting Fitz, I now believe I should have locked up the Arizona passing game.
I took Rodgers, Sanchez, Leinart so looks like we were thinking fairly similarly.
ctriopelle
Footballguy
kinda glad I took 3 pk's now...
U are right that u dont' get points, but wrong that it is flawed. Can't count a TD twice, once for harvin and once for the Def. Only way to count td's for every play is to have IDP.
valhallan
Footballguy
Counts twice for quarterbacks and receivers.
Welcome to how this is scored in 90% of leagues.How is this even a surprise?
I've played about 15 league seasons, and this the very first time I've ever played in a league that didn't count return TD's for the player. So I'mma call BS on your "90%" stat. (<--not the OP)
Txns8
Footballguy
Uhhh, then you and your 7 friends are in the 10% and not the 90%.
It's possible (but unlikely) that my experience is that unusual. But fwiw, this is over five different leagues and three different sites. So it's not just me and my seven friends, as you so politely suggested. I'm not saying this isn't potentially the rule in the majority of leagues, just that it's highly unlikely it's 90% based on my experiences. I'm not entirely sure why the OP's question resulted in such aggressive responses.
The Kerminator
Footballguy
I believe the rules were posted before the season began. Shouldn't be a shock.
Nugget
Footballguy
The problem is that he is calling the system flawed because he did not understand the rules. They system is not flawed. If QB's TD's scored for a single point, it would still not be flawed. Everyone plays by the same set of rules. This is not the first league that does not use return yards or points for an individual player.
Impressive. I thought I'd seen the worst logic possible on these boards, and you manage to trump it with the "If we're all playing by the same rules, they cannot be flawed" gem. One of those words apparently means something different than you think it means. I understand the rule perfectly, seeing as how I summarized it exactly in my original post. I didn't pay any attention to it before now because it hasn't mattered before now. It's flawed seeing as how the player scored a TD and it's not captured in the scoring. The fact that we're all playing by the same rules doesn't change or impact in any other way the fact that it's flawed.
It is captured in the scoring, you just need to play the Def/ST. When you play individual defensive players, the points they score on offense doesn't count either unless you play them on offense. Just because you may not agree with it, does not make it flawed.
Short Corner
Footballguy
The only thing flawed is your reading comprehension skills.
Twilight
Footballguy
It didn't matter TO YOU. DeSean had a Punt TD in week 1, but noone said anything then. If it was so "flawed", then why wasn't it whined about then?
WisWolvrns
Footballguy
might have a bunch of Brees owners purged this week... depending on who they spent for a backup QB
Hopefully it was Hasselbeck.
tomarken
Footballguy
LOL at calling out "the worst possible logic". Your post is completely illogical. And why would you play without reading the rules first anyway?There's nothing flawed about it. And the 90% estimate posted above is probably pretty accurate. Very few leagues would score that TD for Harvin. Including the FBG contest, which you should have known.(And I'm a Harvin owner.)
