Official Subscriber Contest (2 Viewers)

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I challenge any of you to present your team if it's better than mine.

You:Carson Palmer $21 10.55 31.35

Matt Hasselbeck $17 30.25 6.05

DeAngelo Williams $37 15.90 18.60

Felix Jones $11 2.20 15.60

Chester Taylor $11 5.50 4.30

Ahmad Bradshaw $8 8.60 5.50

LeSean McCoy $7 5.20 7.50

Glen Coffee $2 -0.30 3.90

James Davis $2 2.40 0.00

Randy Moss $42 26.10 6.40

DeSean Jackson $24 6.20 21.60

Vincent Jackson $21 16.60 26.10

Chris Henry $12 2.80 7.50

Derrick Mason $9 8.70 6.10

Robert Meachem $3 13.10 3.60

Laurent Robinson $2 13.70 17.40

John Carlson $11 30.50 13.60

Jermichael Finley $3 2.10 11.60

Chris Baker $1 2.20 1.60

Josh Brown $1 0.00 1.00

Dan Carpenter $1 1.00 17.00

San Francisco 49ers $2 7.00 3.00

Cincinnati Bengals $1 3.00 8.00

New Orleans Saints $1 7.00 16.00

Me:

QB - Aaron Rodgers - 27

QB - Matt Hasselbeck - 17

RB - Ryan Grant - 24

RB - Chris Wells - 15

RB - Darren Sproles - 13

RB - Leon Washington - 12

RB - Fred Taylor - 11

RB - Bernard Scott - 2

RB - James Davis - 2

WR - DeSean Jackson - 24

WR - Vincent Jackson - 21

WR - Kevin Walter - 14

WR - Derrick Mason - 9

WR - Nate Burleson - 5

WR - Percy Harvin - 5

WR - Patrick Crayton - 4

WR - Greg Camarillo - 4

WR - Chaz Schilens - 3

TE - Greg Olsen - 15

TE - John Carlson - 11

PK - Kris Brown - 3

PK - Shayne Graham - 2

TD - New York Jets - 4

TD - Green Bay Packers - 3

Quite a bit better.

"own3d:

 

[davper]

It's funny how much luck goes into this. Looking at the #1 team this week, I wouldn't trade my team for his team straight up.

Being #1 this week is pretty much meaningless. I think this contest is anything but luck by week 10. seriously.

I am happy to be 1+cutoff each week until the playoffs.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Can I ask a silly question? Seriously. Numbers are not my forte. Don't rip me too much here in case I am missing something:

The difference between a 20 man roster and a 24 man roster is a couple of bucks, right? Is it $4? How could that strategy possibly be superior? Your saving a handful of pennies to buy an incrementally pricier player or two. So for example, that'd be the difference between getting Matt Schaub for $20 and Donovan McNabb for $24.

Please be nice

 

[jdoggydogg]

It's funny how much luck goes into this. Looking at the #1 team this week, I wouldn't trade my team for his team straight up.

Being #1 this week is pretty much meaningless. I think this contest is anything but luck by week 10. seriously.

Certainly, there's skill in this contest. But injury and player performance are often impossible to predict. So that's luck.

 

[LHUCKS]

I challenge any of you to present your team if it's better than mine.

You:Carson Palmer $21 10.55 31.35

Matt Hasselbeck $17 30.25 6.05

DeAngelo Williams $37 15.90 18.60

Felix Jones $11 2.20 15.60

Chester Taylor $11 5.50 4.30

Ahmad Bradshaw $8 8.60 5.50

LeSean McCoy $7 5.20 7.50

Glen Coffee $2 -0.30 3.90

James Davis $2 2.40 0.00

Randy Moss $42 26.10 6.40

DeSean Jackson $24 6.20 21.60

Vincent Jackson $21 16.60 26.10

Chris Henry $12 2.80 7.50

Derrick Mason $9 8.70 6.10

Robert Meachem $3 13.10 3.60

Laurent Robinson $2 13.70 17.40

John Carlson $11 30.50 13.60

Jermichael Finley $3 2.10 11.60

Chris Baker $1 2.20 1.60

Josh Brown $1 0.00 1.00

Dan Carpenter $1 1.00 17.00

San Francisco 49ers $2 7.00 3.00

Cincinnati Bengals $1 3.00 8.00

New Orleans Saints $1 7.00 16.00

Me:

QB - Aaron Rodgers - 27

QB - Matt Hasselbeck - 17

RB - Ryan Grant - 24

RB - Chris Wells - 15

RB - Darren Sproles - 13

RB - Leon Washington - 12

RB - Fred Taylor - 11

RB - Bernard Scott - 2

RB - James Davis - 2

WR - DeSean Jackson - 24

WR - Vincent Jackson - 21

WR - Kevin Walter - 14

WR - Derrick Mason - 9

WR - Nate Burleson - 5

WR - Percy Harvin - 5

WR - Patrick Crayton - 4

WR - Greg Camarillo - 4

WR - Chaz Schilens - 3

TE - Greg Olsen - 15

TE - John Carlson - 11

PK - Kris Brown - 3

PK - Shayne Graham - 2

TD - New York Jets - 4

TD - Green Bay Packers - 3

Quite a bit better.

"own3d:

He's better at QB/TE...I like my squad at WR/RB....pretty even if you ask me.

 

[massraider]

He's better at QB/TE...I like my squad at WR/RB....pretty even if you ask me.

We both have DeSean, VJax, and Mason. You have Moss and nothing else. I have Walter, Harvin, Burleson, Crayton. In best ball, you like your WR better? Come now.

 

[firstseason1988]

Can I ask a silly question? Seriously. Numbers are not my forte. Don't rip me too much here in case I am missing something: The difference between a 20 man roster and a 24 man roster is a couple of bucks, right? Is it $4? How could that strategy possibly be superior? Your saving a handful of pennies to buy an incrementally pricier player or two. So for example, that'd be the difference between getting Matt Schaub for $20 and Donovan McNabb for $24.Please be nice

I really don't think it matters. What matters is picking the right people. On any team, your studs are going to have to produce and your mid to low dollar guys are going to have to pick up some slack at some point. I barely made the cut this week, and I am fine with that. I would be really surprised if too many teams in the top 250 didn't have a scare at some point in the season, even the winner.The argument of 20 vs 24 is going in circles. It is interesting, but it's about the skill-luck of picking the right players and the timing of the combonations. You have a good point here jdogg.

 

[Frank Costanza's Lawyer]

Really? The person I responded to had just said that people who did the 20-man roster all knew that they would be eliminated at a higher rate and were taking the "risk-reward" approach that supposedly the 20-man roster would score higher in the final 3 weeks so they were playing to win. I pointed out that many people who chose the 20-man roster were probably not thinking that. I don't see any fallacy in that. Doug Drinen's recent post was basically pointing out the same thing - that a lot of people who took the 20-man approach were likely casual players. That doesn't mean someone couldn't have a well-thought out 20-man strategy, but just that I'm pretty sure many did not. As for extrapolating out survival rates - I think I would need more data/time to figure this out exactly - and I'd love to see someone's efforts to do so - but I actually think that's a fair estimate of the pace we're already on. This is a really crude method - but if you look at it like in Weeks 1-3 75% of 24 man rosters survived and 56% of 20 man rosters survived.

As you suggest at the end of your post, these two ideas arent really compatible. If you believe many 20-man rosters were filled out by people who didnt know what they were doing, then it doesnt make sense to extrapolate the early elimination rates out into the later weeks.

 

[BassNBrew]

Really? The person I responded to had just said that people who did the 20-man roster all knew that they would be eliminated at a higher rate and were taking the "risk-reward" approach that supposedly the 20-man roster would score higher in the final 3 weeks so they were playing to win. I pointed out that many people who chose the 20-man roster were probably not thinking that. I don't see any fallacy in that. Doug Drinen's recent post was basically pointing out the same thing - that a lot of people who took the 20-man approach were likely casual players. That doesn't mean someone couldn't have a well-thought out 20-man strategy, but just that I'm pretty sure many did not.

As for extrapolating out survival rates - I think I would need more data/time to figure this out exactly - and I'd love to see someone's efforts to do so - but I actually think that's a fair estimate of the pace we're already on. This is a really crude method - but if you look at it like in Weeks 1-3 75% of 24 man rosters survived and 56% of 20 man rosters survived.

As you suggest at the end of your post, these two ideas arent really compatible. If you believe many 20-man rosters were filled out by people who didnt know what they were doing, then it doesnt make sense to extrapolate the early elimination rates out into the later weeks.

Unless you believe the reason they didn't know what they were doing was that they took 20 rather than 24.

 

[LHUCKS]

He's better at QB/TE...I like my squad at WR/RB....pretty even if you ask me.

We both have DeSean, VJax, and Mason. You have Moss and nothing else. I have Walter, Harvin, Burleson, Crayton. In best ball, you like your WR better? Come now.

here's why...to actually win this thing you need guys to have the HUGE days...3TDs/200 yard type days...Walter maybe, but Harvin and Crayton unlikely. Burleson has an outside chance but that guy hasn't stayed healthy forever...I have enough depth to get me deep I think...at that point I'd rather have Moss...make sense? Heads up I'd rather have your team...in this contest I like Moss because of his potential for the huge games.ETA: Meachem and Henry could turn it on late too...I wouldn't count them out.

 

[John Mamula]

As someone with a 20 man roster and who filled out his team in less than a 1/2 hour of total prep, I agree that first and foremost it comes down to player selection. Picking the right players trumps all strategy. With that said since we do not know who the right players will be until after the fact one must rely on the optimum strategy to get you through to the end.

Given the best ball nature, I am looking back at my team thinking that while I do have a solid squad and one that I think will go deep, it could have been made better by having a few more low priced players (i.e. one more $1 kicker and another cheap TE). So switching out a WR who hasn't done anything for me with a K and a TE would give me a better team with 21 players just off the top of my head. I am sure I could continue the process and get to an even more optimal team with 22, 23, and ultimately 24 players.

With that said, if my player selection was good enough that will overcome a slight strategy flaw.

20 players just gives you less room for error in a contest that has an extremely low tolerance for any mistake made given weekly cuts and the sheer volume of contestants.

But I like to live dangerous.

 

[sinatravolta]

Really? The person I responded to had just said that people who did the 20-man roster all knew that they would be eliminated at a higher rate and were taking the "risk-reward" approach that supposedly the 20-man roster would score higher in the final 3 weeks so they were playing to win. I pointed out that many people who chose the 20-man roster were probably not thinking that. I don't see any fallacy in that. Doug Drinen's recent post was basically pointing out the same thing - that a lot of people who took the 20-man approach were likely casual players. That doesn't mean someone couldn't have a well-thought out 20-man strategy, but just that I'm pretty sure many did not.

As for extrapolating out survival rates - I think I would need more data/time to figure this out exactly - and I'd love to see someone's efforts to do so - but I actually think that's a fair estimate of the pace we're already on. This is a really crude method - but if you look at it like in Weeks 1-3 75% of 24 man rosters survived and 56% of 20 man rosters survived.

As you suggest at the end of your post, these two ideas arent really compatible. If you believe many 20-man rosters were filled out by people who didnt know what they were doing, then it doesnt make sense to extrapolate the early elimination rates out into the later weeks.

Unless you believe the reason they didn't know what they were doing was that they took 20 rather than 24.

FC's Lawyer - in your original post you said:- people who took 20 knew what they were doing, I was overly belittling them

- my extrapolation was way off on survival rates

Now you are basically arguing that many people who took 20 did not know what they were doing. My extrapolation was correct but not valid because thank goodness we've got rid of the people who took 20 casually. So you have completely reversed your original take. I'll take that as a compliment - thank you.

I think yes many of the most casual entries have been weeded out - but as the extrapolation shows - we are talking about a very big difference in survival rates so I doubt that's the only or biggest factor involved - and some of the biggest issues for 20-man teams haven't occured yet - such as byes and injuries starting to mount. So I think the trend continues. I guess we'll have to continue to rely on Doug to provide more data as the weeks go by and the 20-man teams continue to dwindle.

 

[Frank Costanza's Lawyer]

Really? The person I responded to had just said that people who did the 20-man roster all knew that they would be eliminated at a higher rate and were taking the "risk-reward" approach that supposedly the 20-man roster would score higher in the final 3 weeks so they were playing to win. I pointed out that many people who chose the 20-man roster were probably not thinking that. I don't see any fallacy in that. Doug Drinen's recent post was basically pointing out the same thing - that a lot of people who took the 20-man approach were likely casual players. That doesn't mean someone couldn't have a well-thought out 20-man strategy, but just that I'm pretty sure many did not.

As for extrapolating out survival rates - I think I would need more data/time to figure this out exactly - and I'd love to see someone's efforts to do so - but I actually think that's a fair estimate of the pace we're already on. This is a really crude method - but if you look at it like in Weeks 1-3 75% of 24 man rosters survived and 56% of 20 man rosters survived.

As you suggest at the end of your post, these two ideas arent really compatible. If you believe many 20-man rosters were filled out by people who didnt know what they were doing, then it doesnt make sense to extrapolate the early elimination rates out into the later weeks.

Unless you believe the reason they didn't know what they were doing was that they took 20 rather than 24.

Are you suggesting that was their only "mistake"? I think sinatravolta reference to them as casual players implies other mistakes as well.I dont think anyone will argue that in a best-ball contest, having more bullets in the gun is the desired position. I just think that when a salary cap is also present, maximizing your roster doesnt automatically stay the preferred strategy.

 

[Frank Costanza's Lawyer]

FC's Lawyer - in your original post you said: - people who took 20 knew what they were doing, I was overly belittling them - my extrapolation was way off on survival ratesNow you are basically arguing that many people who took 20 did not know what they were doing. My extrapolation was correct but not valid because thank goodness we've got rid of the people who took 20 casually. So you have completely reversed your original take. I'll take that as a compliment - thank you. I think yes many of the most casual entries have been weeded out - but as the extrapolation shows - we are talking about a very big difference in survival rates so I doubt that's the only or biggest factor involved - and some of the biggest issues for 20-man teams haven't occured yet - such as byes and injuries starting to mount. So I think the trend continues. I guess we'll have to continue to rely on Doug to provide more data as the weeks go by and the 20-man teams continue to dwindle.

I really dont want to turn this into a petty back and forth argument as I think both of us read things into each others posts. My original take was not that 20-man rosters all knew what they were doing and, looking back, you didnt paint them with as broad a brush as I originally thought.I appreciate you posting your reasoning behind the predicted differences in elimination rates.

 

[sinatravolta]

I really dont want to turn this into a petty back and forth argument as I think both of us read things into each others posts. My original take was not that 20-man rosters all knew what they were doing and, looking back, you didnt paint them with as broad a brush as I originally thought.I appreciate you posting your reasoning behind the predicted differences in elimination rates.

Alright cool. Apologies if I'm coming across as arrogant or anything - I've just found it surprising that a number of people seem to be dismissing the early data as not proving much of anything. There is obviously a ways to go to be sure of anything - but I feel like if I had taken 20 guys and the numbers were coming in like they are - I would be taking mental notes that I probably should take 24 next year if the rules/relative pricing remain similar.

 

[Chronomonopolus]

Tired of waiting until Tuesday for Contest Results?

My friend and I have developed an app for personal use that provides:

-Real time FBG contest scores and rankings delivered during gameday via webpage or email

-Projected cutoff scores available on Sun evening

-Current contest team analysis (player % ownership, # players at each position, % teams with combinations of players), to really find out who your differentiators are!

Drop me a line or reply to this post if you would be interested in subscribing to this type of data for a very minimal fee for the rest of the season.

 

[davper]

Tired of waiting until Tuesday for Contest Results?

My friend and I have developed an app for personal use that provides:

-Real time FBG contest scores and rankings delivered during gameday via webpage or email

-Projected cutoff scores available on Sun evening

-Current contest team analysis (player % ownership, # players at each position, % teams with combinations of players), to really find out who your differentiators are!

Drop me a line or reply to this post if you would be interested in subscribing to this type of data for a very minimal fee for the rest of the season.

AKA http://thefantasystar.com/fbg35k/

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

Tired of waiting until Tuesday for Contest Results?

My friend and I have developed an app for personal use that provides:

-Real time FBG contest scores and rankings delivered during gameday via webpage or email

-Projected cutoff scores available on Sun evening

-Current contest team analysis (player % ownership, # players at each position, % teams with combinations of players), to really find out who your differentiators are!

Drop me a line or reply to this post if you would be interested in subscribing to this type of data for a very minimal fee for the rest of the season.

Im interested. I would pay weekly as im borderline this week.

 

[sinatravolta]

I obviously love the contest - but it's pretty funny that at this point we actually have competitive properties on the live scoring angle. I think FantasyStar does a nice job already.

 

[Chronomonopolus]

Tired of waiting until Tuesday for Contest Results?

My friend and I have developed an app for personal use that provides:

-Real time FBG contest scores and rankings delivered during gameday via webpage or email

-Projected cutoff scores available on Sun evening

-Current contest team analysis (player % ownership, # players at each position, % teams with combinations of players), to really find out who your differentiators are!

Drop me a line or reply to this post if you would be interested in subscribing to this type of data for a very minimal fee for the rest of the season.

Interesting. Wish I knew about that last year. Can you set TFS up to email updates to you? Can't get a decent data connection in Reliant Stadium, so web-based updates aren't very handy half the time for season ticket holders like me.

 

[Balco]

With Brady Quinn benched, Hasselback slow to heal, and Drew brees on a week 5 bye (not to mention all my tight ends), if I make it to week 5, I won't likely be advancing. Why did I think Quinn had better job security than Mark Sanchez? They both were 9 bucks, and I convinced myself Quinn would be better.

 

[Organized Chaos]

With Brady Quinn benched, Hasselback slow to heal, and Drew brees on a week 5 bye (not to mention all my tight ends), if I make it to week 5, I won't likely be advancing. Why did I think Quinn had better job security than Mark Sanchez? They both were 9 bucks, and I convinced myself Quinn would be better.

I thought that Quinn would be better coming into the season also Going into the season, you have to be pretty pumped about that QB group.

 

[Balco]

With Brady Quinn benched, Hasselback slow to heal, and Drew brees on a week 5 bye (not to mention all my tight ends), if I make it to week 5, I won't likely be advancing. Why did I think Quinn had better job security than Mark Sanchez? They both were 9 bucks, and I convinced myself Quinn would be better.

I thought that Quinn would be better coming into the season also Going into the season, you have to be pretty pumped about that QB group.

I considered the group my strength, but now I might not even have a qb for week 5!!!! Stinks.

 

[massraider]

I obviously love the contest - but it's pretty funny that at this point we actually have competitive properties on the live scoring angle. I think FantasyStar does a nice job already.

Sweet Christmas, if you need to pay for live scoring for this, you need to switch to decaf.

 

[davper]

Tired of waiting until Tuesday for Contest Results?

My friend and I have developed an app for personal use that provides:

-Real time FBG contest scores and rankings delivered during gameday via webpage or email

-Projected cutoff scores available on Sun evening

-Current contest team analysis (player % ownership, # players at each position, % teams with combinations of players), to really find out who your differentiators are!

Drop me a line or reply to this post if you would be interested in subscribing to this type of data for a very minimal fee for the rest of the season.

Interesting. Wish I knew about that last year. Can you set TFS up to email updates to you? Can't get a decent data connection in Reliant Stadium, so web-based updates aren't very handy half the time for season ticket holders like me.

Don't know about email updates but if I am going to the game, drinking beer, laughing at the drunks, and making plays for the women, the last thing on my mind is how my team is doing. It will be there when I get home and no amount of updated scoring is going to change the results.I am not knocking your attempt at providing a service that may be wanted and making a little scratch. Good luck to you on that endeavor. But I like the way TFS went about promoting its service. It was FREE last year and free for the first 4 weeks this year. So users get a chance to taste before committing to purchasing. It was also a chance for him to work out the bugs.

The other issue you and TFS may want to consider, unless you already made a deal with FBG, is in the use of the intellectual property of FBG.

 

[sinatravolta]

With Brady Quinn benched, Hasselback slow to heal, and Drew brees on a week 5 bye (not to mention all my tight ends), if I make it to week 5, I won't likely be advancing. Why did I think Quinn had better job security than Mark Sanchez? They both were 9 bucks, and I convinced myself Quinn would be better.

I thought that Quinn would be better coming into the season also Going into the season, you have to be pretty pumped about that QB group.

I considered the group my strength, but now I might not even have a qb for week 5!!!! Stinks.

I think Week 5 is going to be an interesting one because a lot of good offenses and frequently owned players are on a bye that week. Rodgers is commonly owned and there will be folks who had him + Hass and/or Leftwich who are without a QB that week. And even among those that have a QB - they may be missing any combo of Grant/Sproles/Jennings/Colston/Vincent Jackson/Meachem/Olsen/Finley/Packers D who I think are all commonly owned. Some people will not have thought about byes at all - so while they may have had good teams otherwise - that fatal flaw could be exposed in Week 5. I think Week 5 has potential to be the lowest cut-line all year. Note - now that Leftwich is 3rd string - I'm down to just Peyton Manning at QB so in Week 6 I will need help at other positions to survive, and I think that will be a bigger problem that week because Indy/Dallas/Miami/SF I don't think have nearly as many commonly owned key players.

 

[Organized Chaos]

But I like the way TFS went about promoting its service. It was FREE last year and free for the first 4 weeks this year. So users get a chance to taste before committing to purchasing. It was also a chance for him to work out the bugs.

Thanks davper. TFS will continue stay free for the bulk scoring updates also, our whole idea with this was to offer it really cheap and the only people that will pay will be the ones who want their team updates readily available.

 

[jon_mx]

I dont think anyone will argue that in a best-ball contest, having more bullets in the gun is the desired position. I just think that when a salary cap is also present, maximizing your roster doesnt automatically stay the preferred strategy.

Exactly. At some point the pendulum swings the other way. But that point is apparently above 24 players at least for the pool of players this year.

 

[Marvin88]

10th overall this week, but I just lost 1 of 2 QB's (Leftwich).

 

[Doug Drinen]

Preliminary week 4 sim. Up to 1000 runs now.

 

[Wadsworth]

Preliminary week 4 sim. Up to 1000 runs now.

Woohoo! 93.9 with Matt Jones, Nicks, DeSaun Jackson, Leftwich, and Hass all on bye or having issues. I'll take it.

 

[jon_mx]

Preliminary week 4 sim. Up to 1000 runs now.

92.3% chance of survival....how many cut this week, 1000?

 

[The Jerk]

Top 7250 and ties advance.

 

[shahekee]

98.9 %, sounds good to me

 

[The Jerk]

Preliminary week 4 sim. Up to 1000 runs now.

92.3% chance of survival....how many cut this week, 1000?

approx. 1250 will be cut

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

96.5 chance of survival.

I hope so....No Roddy and Felix and Bradshaw banged up this week.

 

[pizzatyme]

98.3% chance here. Fingers crossed.

 

[Organized Chaos]

90.9% chance here, lowest ranking so far

 

[firstseason1988]

6 teams with a 100% chance of survival.

I guarantee if I was one of thosel, I wouldn't survive.

I guess every sim they survived?

Kinda interesting. No one gets hurt in the sim?

 

[sinatravolta]

Only 86.8% chance to survive (rank 5,244). Have my 2 most expensive players on a bye (purposely aimed for an early week) - DeAngelo Williams and Roddy White - plus Cards D. Hopefully my other guys come through.

 

[jon_mx]

6 teams with a 100% chance of survival.

The simulator seems to like Brady and Rogers this week as all those 6 teams have one or the other.

 

[ctriopelle]

Preliminary week 4 sim. Up to 1000 runs now.

oof...sim hates me this week...87% survival ain't too awful, but out of the top 1/2 of results. I guess this will be one of those "gut check" weeks, and next week isn't much better with the GB/NO/SD byes hitting my core with no QB for backup anymore.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

Preliminary week 4 sim. Up to 1000 runs now.

oof...sim hates me this week...87% survival ain't too awful, but out of the top 1/2 of results. I guess this will be one of those "gut check" weeks, and next week isn't much better with the GB/NO/SD byes hitting my core with no QB for backup anymore.

I'm with you next week. I front-loaded my byes and week 5 will be rough with VJackson/Driver,Grant/Sproles, and Olsen out.

 

[a_troll00]

91.9% survival rate, but I'll be missing my RB1 and WR1.

Last week really shook my confidence in my squad.

 

[Short Corner]

91.9% survival rate, but I'll be missing my RB1 and WR1. Last week really shook my confidence in my squad.

98.2 down Gore and Anquan

 

[dickey moe]

Holy crap, did Tashard Choice save my butt last week after Gore went down.

Things don't bode well for me, however. My WRs are absolute doodoo:

Roddy White WR $33 ATL 9.20 17.30 6.40

Eddie Royal WR $26 DEN 3.80 5.00 1.40

Chris Henry WR $12 CIN 2.80 7.50 2.90

Greg Camarillo WR $4 MIA 4.00 4.10 3.30

Chaz Schilens WR $3 OAK 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sam Hurd WR $1 DAL 0.00 1.70 0.00 0.00

 

[PatsChowder]

6 teams with a 100% chance of survival.

The simulator seems to like Brady and Rogers this week as all those 6 teams have one or the other.

Or Joe Flacco.

 

[davper]

With Brady Quinn benched, Hasselback slow to heal, and Drew brees on a week 5 bye (not to mention all my tight ends), if I make it to week 5, I won't likely be advancing. Why did I think Quinn had better job security than Mark Sanchez? They both were 9 bucks, and I convinced myself Quinn would be better.

I thought that Quinn would be better coming into the season also Going into the season, you have to be pretty pumped about that QB group.

I considered the group my strength, but now I might not even have a qb for week 5!!!! Stinks.

I think Week 5 is going to be an interesting one because a lot of good offenses and frequently owned players are on a bye that week. Rodgers is commonly owned and there will be folks who had him + Hass and/or Leftwich who are without a QB that week. And even among those that have a QB - they may be missing any combo of Grant/Sproles/Jennings/Colston/Vincent Jackson/Meachem/Olsen/Finley/Packers D who I think are all commonly owned. Some people will not have thought about byes at all - so while they may have had good teams otherwise - that fatal flaw could be exposed in Week 5. I think Week 5 has potential to be the lowest cut-line all year. Note - now that Leftwich is 3rd string - I'm down to just Peyton Manning at QB so in Week 6 I will need help at other positions to survive, and I think that will be a bigger problem that week because Indy/Dallas/Miami/SF I don't think have nearly as many commonly owned key players.

Taking players with an early bye was part of my strategy this year. In the past I used to make sure I was evenly spaced for byes. But it is easier to survive in the earlier weeks than in later weeks. Having all your players while others are struggling with byes seemed like a good strategy to survive.

 

[perry147]

Only a 70%survival rate

Laurnet Robinson(injured) , DWill (bye Week), Celek (bye week), LeftWich (benched), Felix Jones (?)

This is going to be a tough week.

 

[LHUCKS]

92%...looks like a great week to be without Hasselbeck/D-Will/Desean Jackson/Felix Jones...

Team LHUCKS on the warpath