Official Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)

[Sack-Religious]

I was worried this week with GB and CHI on BYE, but thanks to Burleson, Bradshaw and Chris Henry and Michael Bush, of all people doing something, I made it through. Now I've got my two biggest BYE weeks out of the way with my main guys at QB, RB, and WR ready to go.

I used the query tool and if I did it right, I think I'm the only team left with:

Aaron Roders, Ryan Grant, DeAngelo Williams, Greg Jennings, Anquan Boldin and Greg Olsen. Hopefully that bodes well for my future.

Week 7 may pose another problem, but with so many other teams having Mason and Burleson I hope that my lost points may be mitigates somewhat.

 

[nashua55]

decent chunk of Randy Moss owners eliminated. Team LHUCKS surprisingly coasts through to week 6...that was almost the perfect storm at WR...whew.

Everyweek I wonder when Moss will break out with multiple TD's. I hasnt happened yet. The good thing is the Brady and Moss owners keep getting eliminated. Hopefully the Brady/Moss combo will heat up soon.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

my biggest bargain has been austin collie $2scored for me 3/5 weeks. saints at $1 have been pretty good too. scoring for me every week except their bye over my steelersnext year going with 3 cheaper dsts

seattle has been good getting me 2 shutouts in 5 weeks

 

[The_Hoser]

Out of 6,101 people making it through this week ... I was 6,025. I have absolutely no idea how I skated through considering I managed to schedule BOTH of my Ds for this week's bye.

Not great planning, but hopefully it works out down the road.

 

[cjack]

Which page of this thread contains a link to the query tool?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Which page of this thread contains a link to the query tool?

This one

 

[Short Corner]

Does this settle the question as to the best roster size?

Not unless the goal was to make it to week 6

I'm trying to think of this in general terms... as in, what gives me the best chance to win vs. what is the winning entry.

This the correct way to make your decision. The 20 roster guys have all been quiet lately in hopes that they will be vindicated if a 20-roster wins. If the current trend continues, the survival rates of each size when we get to the end will look something like this.20 0.59%

21 0.89%

22 2.36%

23 2.54%

24 4.04%

So a random 24 is almost 8x more likely to advance to the final 250 than a random 20.

I think I saw that apalmer was eliminated, so I may be on my own defending the 20-teamers - but the argument was, and still is, that the 20-teamers were playing to have the best roster for the final three weeks of the season - understanding that they took the biggest risk of being eliminated early. These results are not surprising, nor do they validate either argument. Nobody has ever disputed that "random" teams with 24 players have a better chance at survival than "random" teams with 20 players. The trade off was a lower chance of survival v. a higher chance of success if you made it through.For the record, I have a 24-man roster - but that was primarily so that I would last longer into the contest. If I had the time, energy, foresight and balls I would have tried to go with a 20-man roster - improving at various positions - knowing that I had next to 0 margin for error (and therein lies the difference in the two philosophies - one gambling with no margin for error, and one building in a safety net).

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer in this debate.

I don't think there is a higher chance of success in the last 3 weeks with the shorter roster. You are much less likely to be unique if you have only 20 players, so most of the big numbers you put up will be matched by other teams that have more possibilities to fill out the rest of their scores.

 

[bonesman]

WoW!!!! THREE zeros (QB, TE and DST) and I still managed to score 116 and make it through to another week!

ETA: I actually had FOURTEEN total zeros counting bye'd and hurt players

I suppose I should thank Bradshaw and Choice... Bironas finally outscored Jason Hanson and Chris Henry makes his first appearance in red, so they were big too.

My one player that has scored and been used every week is Chad "Kiss the Baby" Ocho Cinco.

 

[zed2283]

I don't think there is a higher chance of success in the last 3 weeks with the shorter roster. You are much less likely to be unique if you have only 20 players, so most of the big numbers you put up will be matched by other teams that have more possibilities to fill out the rest of their scores.

I guess that's a good point. If a 20's aren't outscoring the 24's in weeks 1-13 why would they outscore them in the last 3?

 

[DeadhorseGM]

Rogers/Schaub combo has been carrying me so far. Bradshaw didn't hurt this week either. Still alive into week 6!

 

[Team Legacy]

VERY Surprised to still be alive today. Thought for sure I was out.

The Thomas Jones TD and the late David Clowney catch were both necesary to survive.

All we can hope for is to stay alive!

 

[sinatravolta]

I'm trying to think of this in general terms... as in, what gives me the best chance to win vs. what is the winning entry.

This the correct way to make your decision. The 20 roster guys have all been quiet lately in hopes that they will be vindicated if a 20-roster wins. If the current trend continues, the survival rates of each size when we get to the end will look something like this.20 0.59%

21 0.89%

22 2.36%

23 2.54%

24 4.04%

So a random 24 is almost 8x more likely to advance to the final 250 than a random 20.

I think I saw that apalmer was eliminated, so I may be on my own defending the 20-teamers - but the argument was, and still is, that the 20-teamers were playing to have the best roster for the final three weeks of the season - understanding that they took the biggest risk of being eliminated early. These results are not surprising, nor do they validate either argument. Nobody has ever disputed that "random" teams with 24 players have a better chance at survival than "random" teams with 20 players. The trade off was a lower chance of survival v. a higher chance of success if you made it through.For the record, I have a 24-man roster - but that was primarily so that I would last longer into the contest. If I had the time, energy, foresight and balls I would have tried to go with a 20-man roster - improving at various positions - knowing that I had next to 0 margin for error (and therein lies the difference in the two philosophies - one gambling with no margin for error, and one building in a safety net).

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer in this debate.

I don't think there is a higher chance of success in the last 3 weeks with the shorter roster. You are much less likely to be unique if you have only 20 players, so most of the big numbers you put up will be matched by other teams that have more possibilities to fill out the rest of their scores.

The bolded part makes no sense. We're on track for 24-man rosters to be 8x more likely to survive? And so far the only data we have about which type of team scores more over a 3-week period is that in weeks 1-3, 24 man rosters scored more on average and had 10 of the top 20 scoring rosters while 20 man rosters had 1 of them (even though at that point there were more 20-man rosters than 24-man rosters)? Given the rate at which 20-man rosters have continued to drop off the last 2 weeks I'm confident that trend has continued.Basically it's like Team A is beating Team B 45-0 midway through the 2nd quarter and people are still saying - well we can't assume anything about which team is better until we see what the score is when the game ends. Except throw in that basically we have thousands of versions of the game going on simultaneously and one team is winning the vast majority of them. And people are still saying - just wait - the losing team is really good in the 4th quarter! (even though simulations of 4th quarter conditions have so far shown they are still worse and at that point they'll be way behind)

The view that the 24-man roster is a "safety net" strategy while the 20-man roster is a "go big or go home" strategy is wrong. First off the 24-man roster is a huge safety net compared to the 20-man roster. I think most people who went with a 20-man would have changed their plan if they realized they were 8 times less likely to make the playoffs. And so far the 24-man rosters are doing a better job of "going big" too - and there's no reason to think that would change. Now if the playoffs were one week only - there might be some reason to believe that just having the right 20 guys could be better for that one week than the safer 24. But with it covering 3 weeks aggregated, having more guys who can chip in for any of those 3 weeks is going to work better.

 

[Das Boot]

As a matter of common sense I'd humbly suggest that everyone who participates in this contest and who believes that higher number teams are the better strategy STOP trying to convince the lower number teams that their strategy is wrong.

 

[ctriopelle]

As a matter of common sense I'd humbly suggest that everyone who participates in this contest and who believes that higher number teams are the better strategy STOP trying to convince the lower number teams that their strategy is wrong.

 

[jon_mx]

Out of 6,101 people making it through this week ... I was 6,025. I have absolutely no idea how I skated through considering I managed to schedule BOTH of my Ds for this week's bye.

Because about 1000 people took a zero or one at QB.

 

[Short Corner]

As a matter of common sense I'd humbly suggest that everyone who participates in this contest and who believes that higher number teams are the better strategy STOP trying to convince the lower number teams that their strategy is wrong.

Pretty sure they can't change strategy now.

 

[cjack]

As a matter of common sense I'd humbly suggest that everyone who participates in this contest and who believes that higher number teams are the better strategy STOP trying to convince the lower number teams that their strategy is wrong.

Pretty sure they can't change strategy now.

Ah, but there's always next year.

 

[Das Boot]

As a matter of common sense I'd humbly suggest that everyone who participates in this contest and who believes that higher number teams are the better strategy STOP trying to convince the lower number teams that their strategy is wrong.

Pretty sure they can't change strategy now.

There's another contest next year.

 

[jon_mx]

The best strategy is making sure you have the 3-4 guys that explode in weeks 14-16 on your roster. The person who best does that wins. But you still have to had made it to the final 250. My team is not looking too good from a depth perspective, but I do like my stud picks.

 

[Short Corner]

As a matter of common sense I'd humbly suggest that everyone who participates in this contest and who believes that higher number teams are the better strategy STOP trying to convince the lower number teams that their strategy is wrong.

Pretty sure they can't change strategy now.

There's another contest next year.

So just because 24 is the optimal strategy with this year's player pool/salaries, means it will be next year as well? How is this different than people discussing how many QBs/TEs/Ks/Ds are optimal?

 

[Short Corner]

The best strategy is making sure you have the 3-4 guys that explode in weeks 14-16 on your roster. The person who best does that wins. But you still have to had made it to the final 250. My team is not looking too good from a depth perspective, but I do like my stud picks.

Even then you have to have a unique portion of your roster that outperforms teams with the same players. Having Harvin, Burleson, Grant, and Jennings go off probably isn't going to be enough for owners of those players to win it.

 

[Lash]

thank you David Clowney, Percy Harvin, Hakeem Nicks (my only scoring WRs above 1.90 pts)

my top3 highest price pass catchers were on Bye

Jennings, VJax, Olsen

 

[joffer]

please come back Anthony Gonzalez

 

[DexterDew]

had to "start" one of my eleven zero's this week... and i guess i should feel fortunate that i have only lost one player to injury so far.

Thanks FBG for giving me another way to play FF

 

[Das Boot]

As a matter of common sense I'd humbly suggest that everyone who participates in this contest and who believes that higher number teams are the better strategy STOP trying to convince the lower number teams that their strategy is wrong.

Pretty sure they can't change strategy now.

There's another contest next year.

So just because 24 is the optimal strategy with this year's player pool/salaries, means it will be next year as well? How is this different than people discussing how many QBs/TEs/Ks/Ds are optimal?

Exactly... 20 players may well be a great strategy for next year.So fans of the 20 player strategy would be equally smart not to try and convince the 24 player guys that their strategy is superior.

 

[jon_mx]

The best strategy is making sure you have the 3-4 guys that explode in weeks 14-16 on your roster. The person who best does that wins. But you still have to had made it to the final 250. My team is not looking too good from a depth perspective, but I do like my stud picks.

Even then you have to have a unique portion of your roster that outperforms teams with the same players. Having Harvin, Burleson, Grant, and Jennings go off probably isn't going to be enough for owners of those players to win it.

That are four good picks....53 people had that combo and 45 are still alive for an 85% survival rate....only 46% of the teams are still alive. But yes, there needs to be something unique you have to hit on. There is only one other team that has my top players on it....Rivers, Moss, Coleston, Rice, and DeAngelo. Unfortunately I like his team better than mine.

 

[Short Corner]

The best strategy is making sure you have the 3-4 guys that explode in weeks 14-16 on your roster. The person who best does that wins. But you still have to had made it to the final 250. My team is not looking too good from a depth perspective, but I do like my stud picks.

Even then you have to have a unique portion of your roster that outperforms teams with the same players. Having Harvin, Burleson, Grant, and Jennings go off probably isn't going to be enough for owners of those players to win it.

That are four good picks....53 people had that combo and 45 are still alive for an 85% survival rate....only 46% of the teams are still alive. But yes, there needs to be something unique you have to hit on. There is only one other team that has my top players on it....Rivers, Moss, Coleston, Rice, and DeAngelo. Unfortunately I like his team better than mine.

My top player at each position(QB,WR,RB,TE) is <7% owned and each 3 player combination is unique except for Brees-Boldin-Cooley which has 2 other owners. I really need to get Gore back though.

 

[Barry Jive and The Uptown Five]

Does this settle the question as to the best roster size?

Not unless the goal was to make it to week 6

I'm trying to think of this in general terms... as in, what gives me the best chance to win vs. what is the winning entry.

This the correct way to make your decision. The 20 roster guys have all been quiet lately in hopes that they will be vindicated if a 20-roster wins. If the current trend continues, the survival rates of each size when we get to the end will look something like this.20 0.59%

21 0.89%

22 2.36%

23 2.54%

24 4.04%

So a random 24 is almost 8x more likely to advance to the final 250 than a random 20.

I think I saw that apalmer was eliminated, so I may be on my own defending the 20-teamers - but the argument was, and still is, that the 20-teamers were playing to have the best roster for the final three weeks of the season - understanding that they took the biggest risk of being eliminated early. These results are not surprising, nor do they validate either argument. Nobody has ever disputed that "random" teams with 24 players have a better chance at survival than "random" teams with 20 players. The trade off was a lower chance of survival v. a higher chance of success if you made it through.For the record, I have a 24-man roster - but that was primarily so that I would last longer into the contest. If I had the time, energy, foresight and balls I would have tried to go with a 20-man roster - improving at various positions - knowing that I had next to 0 margin for error (and therein lies the difference in the two philosophies - one gambling with no margin for error, and one building in a safety net).

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer in this debate.

And yet, here we are re-hahsing the same topic. For more details on this discussion, please see pages 12 - 31 of this thread.

 

[jon_mx]

As a matter of common sense I'd humbly suggest that everyone who participates in this contest and who believes that higher number teams are the better strategy STOP trying to convince the lower number teams that their strategy is wrong.

Pretty sure they can't change strategy now.

There's another contest next year.

So just because 24 is the optimal strategy with this year's player pool/salaries, means it will be next year as well? How is this different than people discussing how many QBs/TEs/Ks/Ds are optimal?

Exactly... 20 players may well be a great strategy for next year.So fans of the 20 player strategy would be equally smart not to try and convince the 24 player guys that their strategy is superior.

Yep...different years make a lot of difference...Last year there was Warner at $4 for QB. For $11 for 3 QB's I scored as well as anyone at QB. This year I think Schaub at $20 would be the cheapest real stud you could get away with, plus about $15 more for a couple of playable backups. So a minimum of $35 would be needed this year to equal last years $11 at QB. The optimal strategy is dependent upon the player pool, but there is something to be said for getting as many quality players as you can.

 

[belljr]

9 points - ouch RB injuries Plus Byes killed me

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Still alive.

My TE's really worry me.

Entry 102030 This entry is still alive.								 1	  2	  3	  4	  5  ----------------------------------------------------------------Matt Schaub		   $20	  7.90  42.25  32.50  16.10  30.05 David Garrard		 $18	  7.50  27.80  19.60  37.95   9.50 Matt Leinart		   $4	  0.00   0.80   0.35   0.00   0.00 Ronnie Brown		  $35	  6.80  25.60  13.00  23.50  23.35 Ray Rice			  $21	 13.00  10.70  15.50  17.70  23.80 Leon Washington	   $12	 10.40   8.60   5.70   6.10   6.20 Felix Jones		   $11	  2.20  15.60  11.90   0.00   0.00 Ladell Betts		   $2	  2.70   4.30   6.50   3.50   1.80 James Davis			$2	  2.40   0.00   1.60   0.00   0.00 Greg Jennings		 $32	 22.60   0.00  12.30   6.10   0.00 Vincent Jackson	   $21	 16.60  26.10  17.00   9.60   0.00 Josh Morgan		   $15	  6.80   0.00   8.70  11.90  11.80 Steve Smith		   $12	 14.00  29.40  19.30  36.40  10.00 Mike Sims-Walker	   $9	  0.00  22.60  14.10  28.10   0.00 Nate Washington		$6	  1.80  15.00  10.50  19.60   6.70 Chansi Stuckey		 $4	 16.40   7.70   3.10   1.80   0.00 Robert Meachem		 $3	 13.10   3.60   0.00   4.20   0.00 Zach Miller		   $12	 18.60   0.00   4.70   7.80  12.90 Jermichael Finley	  $3	  2.10  11.60   0.00  27.80   0.00 Delanie Walker		 $1	  3.20   0.00   0.00   4.10   5.40 Robbie Gould		   $2	  9.00   7.00   6.00  15.00   0.00 Olindo Mare			$1	  4.00   5.00  19.00   6.00  13.00 Miami Dolphins		 $3	  2.00   1.00   4.00  18.00   1.00 Cincinnati Bengals	 $1	  3.00   8.00   9.00  12.00   6.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------TOTAL						131.50 203.15 156.40 235.95 143.80 CUTOFF					   120.88 130.04 126.34 113.79 110.99

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

I'm out, but this is a fun contest. I did not plan ahead for bye weeks, and it came back to bite me. Had to roll without a defense this week. Also had the Rodgers/Quinn combo, with a whopping 0 points.

Good luck to everyone from here on out.

 

[sinatravolta]

As a matter of common sense I'd humbly suggest that everyone who participates in this contest and who believes that higher number teams are the better strategy STOP trying to convince the lower number teams that their strategy is wrong.

Ok - fair point. I figured that - a lot of people forget by next year anyway. Many people who participate in the contest are never looking in this thread. The pricing of players will change for next year and that will likely impact optimal strategy. The rules may even change, e.g. Doug's idea about unlimited roster spots. I am wise enough to not talk about it next year once it's out and before entries are finalized. And Doug - please continue to provide the number of entries surviving at each roster size. I would like to continue to track that and see how the predictions I made early in this thread come out at the end of the year. TIA.

 

[baconisgood]

Well I got past my most challenging week it looks like. My "draft the Saints" strategy was dependent on getting past this week with Thomas, Colston, Shockey, Meachem and Moore on byes- I managed to sneak through with my WRs being Javon Walker (haha) Pierre Garcon and Chris Henry. My QB this week? Daunte Culpepper!!! 23 pts baby.

 

[swampdog]

Here is the querier.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/c...uerier_form.php

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

Made it by my toughest bye-affected week by the skin of my teeth (above the cut-off by 2.41 points), and by good graces of Ray Rice, Percy Harvin, and Zach Miller, of all people.

 

[editor47]

Here is the querier.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/c...uerier_form.php

wow. i'm one of only 2 teams with brees, rice, boldin, colston and brent celek.

 

[rzrback77]

Usually, if you look at three of your least owned players, you will be one of only a few teams owning that trio.

I am the only team that has:

Chris Cooley

Kevin Smith

Andre Johnson

so many options, there is a lot of unique out there

 

[ryoly]

Here is the querier.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/c...uerier_form.php

Thanks for the link swampdog...I knew my team had all the "usual suspects" (Rodgers, Grant, Mason Burleson, L Washington, Harvin, C Henry, E James, et all) but I just found out I'm the only team in the contest that has Randy Moss, Boldin, Jacobs and the Ravens and Chargers' D. If my 3 most prized entries decide to finally show up, I gotta like my chances.....knock on wood.....

 

[jdoggydogg]

Roster size report:

+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+ | roster_size | number | alive | pct_alive | +-------------+--------+-------+-----------+ | 20		  |   5181 |  1841 |	0.3553 | | 21		  |   2032 |   810 |	0.3986 | | 22		  |   1445 |   756 |	0.5232 | | 23		  |   1291 |   689 |	0.5337 | | 24		  |   3328 |  2021 |	0.6073 | | TOTAL	   |  13277 |  6117 |	0.4607 | +-------------+--------+-------+-----------+

Does this settle the question as to the best roster size?

Not unless the goal was to make it to week 6

Yeah, that's a good point. But 65% of entrants with 20 players have already eliminated themselves. I'm trying to think of this in general terms... as in, what gives me the best chance to win vs. what is the winning entry. I guess you're right though and that won't be answered until later.

Furthermore, if several 20 man rosters finish in the top 25 at the end of this contest, I don't think that absolutely proves or disproves the viability of a 20 man roster. You still have to pick a team that finishes the year relatively healthy and full of powerhouse players. I'm in the camp that says 24 is the way to go, and I'd even consider 40 if they assess no limits on the roster sizes. But there are more factors here other than which rosters finish in the money this year.

 

[jdoggydogg]

So we should stop discussing the merits of 20 vs. 24? Why? I think it's fascinating.

I really hope that FBG assesses no maximum roster size limit next year.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Love my team, but hate my RBs. I have scored an average of 170 points per game - low score of 156. But I think my RBs will eventually kill me. The sad part is I might make it pretty far with these WRs. But come December when the weather is cold and teams run more, my weak RB corps may ruin my fun.

QB - Donovan McNabb - 24

QB - David Garrard - 18

QB - Byron Leftwich - 4

RB - Steve Slaton - 37

RB - Willie Parker - 16

RB - Leon Washington - 12

RB - Michael Bush - 6

RB - Sammy Morris - 4

RB - James Davis - 2

WR - Roddy White - 33

WR - Chad Ochocinco - 27

WR - Chris Henry - 12

WR - Derrick Mason - 9

WR - Nate Burleson - 5

WR - Percy Harvin - 5

WR - Patrick Crayton - 4

TE - John Carlson - 11

TE - Brent Celek - 7

TE - Jermichael Finley - 3

PK - Josh Scobee - 2

PK - Shayne Graham - 2

PK - Josh Brown - 1

TD - Green Bay Packers - 3

TD - Washington Redskins - 3

 

[PatsChowder]

I cruised through this week (ranked #231), but I thought I was careful to avoid major conflicts in week 5. I wanted to put Vincent Jackson on the roster, but opted for Greg Jennings instead thinking he was more dependable. Instead, my bigger conflict will be week 8 when I lose Brady, S. Morris, FWP, and Cooley. Although, as the weeks go on, this hasn't been as big a conflict as I expected. However, I am running the 2 QB combo... I'll be rooting for Sanchez that week.

Regardless... I'll be feeling good if I can even make it to week 8!

 

[HellToupee]

I'm shocked I survived this week

Ahmad Bradshaw & Nate Burleson saved me

Rodgers & Jennings out ,DeSean ,Cooley & DeAngelo combined for 8 total points

 

[Garrett]

Out of 6,101 people making it through this week ... I was 6,025. I have absolutely no idea how I skated through considering I managed to schedule BOTH of my Ds for this week's bye.Not great planning, but hopefully it works out down the road.

I made it through with no QB this week.Aaron RodgersByron Leftwich

 

[gianmarco]

Just found a team eerily similar to mine. It's a staff member--Larry Thomas.

Players in common:

Rodgers

Schaub

Rice

James Davis

Royal

Chris Henry

Camarillo

Bess

Schilens

L. Robinson

Carlson

Finley

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Week 1 the goal is to make it to week 2.

Week 2 the goal is to make it to week 3.

Week 3 the goal is to make it to week 4.

Week 4 the goal is to make it to week 5.

Week 5 the goal is to make it to week 6.

So for five weeks running 20 has hurt your chances of achieving the goal dramatically vs 24.

 

[Lock]

What a bummer, out by .5, Mason, Baker 0s, Parker, L Robinson and Letwich hurt or out, 5 on bye, and Sanchez pass to Edwards for TD over turned which looks like a screw up to me.

 

[gregjcross]

damn, I am out with 101.5. Took a gamble that i could choose a ton of week 5 byes and still get through with some stud performances, of which I got zero. Really sucks.

Very little help from those not on byes, Flacco, DeAngelo Williams, Lendale White, Michael Bush and big *zeros* from Willie Parker, Derek Mason and Issac Bruce.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Aaron Rodgers $27 15.90 23.35 35.25 31.80 0.00

Joe Flacco $14 34.15 20.80 23.60 24.40 14.20

DeAngelo Williams $37 15.90 18.60 8.40 0.00 6.90

Willie Parker $16 2.90 5.50 19.90 0.00 0.00

LenDale White $12 3.80 2.50 8.70 1.40 5.10

Leon Washington $12 10.40 8.60 5.70 6.10 6.20

Michael Bush $6 12.40 5.70 6.00 1.90 10.80

Marques Colston $28 12.00 29.80 10.70 5.30 0.00

Chad Ochocinco $27 14.70 19.10 10.40 17.40 16.40

Vincent Jackson $21 16.60 26.10 17.00 9.60 0.00

Derrick Mason $9 8.70 6.10 22.80 21.80 0.00

Isaac Bruce $5 10.60 7.50 5.80 5.00 0.00

Kenny Britt $2 12.50 4.20 9.90 17.50 3.80

Andre Davis $2 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mario Manningham $2 14.80 31.00 9.50 5.30 11.60

Greg Olsen $15 2.30 8.60 17.90 7.60 0.00

Todd Heap $5 20.90 8.40 10.10 10.60 14.60

Ryan Longwell $3 11.00 11.00 14.00 4.00 10.00

Joe Nedney $2 12.00 15.00 7.00 5.00 5.00

Jay Feely $1 6.00 12.00 7.00 5.00 13.00

Houston Texans $2 8.00 5.00 2.00 16.00 3.00

New Orleans Saints $1 7.00 16.00 8.00 24.00 0.00

St. Louis Rams $1 6.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 4.00

----------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL 161.95 196.15 164.65 145.70 101.50

CUTOFF 120.88 130.04 126.34 113.79 110.99

 

[Doug Drinen]

As of now, I count 426 teams with no QB who is projected to score points in week 6.