Official Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)

[ctriopelle]

All I can say is that I REALLY hope FBG opens up the rosters to no limitations next year, since I'm pretty convinced I have a decent strategy for that case already devised. It will be interesting to see how the bulk of the other 13k or so folks decide to tackle that one based on opinions floating around in here.

ctriopelle = 240-kicker guy? -QG

I pick 240 $1 kickers in a 32 team league...I am...the most interesting man in the world...

 

[drm1125]

38% chance of survival!! Oh boy, guess this may be my last week. Praying for a miracle!!

 

[bryan11joseph]

There are 19 entries out of 76 that are still alive with 11+ WRs.

9 teams with 11 WRs

6 teams with 12 WRs

3 teams with 13 WRs

1 team with 14 WRs

That's a 25% survival rate.

I have 11 WRs on my team.

 

[Fennis]

Preliminary week 7 sim

considering my 10 spots on bye, I'll take a 39% survival rate.

In years past that might have been excusable, but this year they gave you the bye weeks right there. Poor planning.

Not really. It is exactly how I planned it, it can't be poor planning. Maybe you don't like my strategy, but this is essentially a game where luck plays a HUGE part.

 

[karmarooster]

So I slapped together a team the day before the deadline and I'm still alive, and this is my first year in the contest, but I've become more and more fascinated with this whole thing every week. When I put together my roster I just assumed a 20 player roster with higher priced players would be better, what I ended up with was 22, but it's clear now that 24 players is the way to go. Here's what I've got:

QB - Matt Schaub - 20

QB - David Garrard - 18

RB - Kevin Smith - 30

RB - Darren McFadden - 29

RB - Ray Rice - 21

RB - Ahmad Bradshaw - 8

RB - Edgerrin James - 1

WR - Greg Jennings - 32

WR - Marques Colston - 28

WR - Vincent Jackson - 21

WR - Percy Harvin - 5

WR - Hakeem Nicks - 4

WR - Robert Meachem - 3

WR - Deon Butler - 2

WR - Josh Cribbs - 1

TE - Greg Olsen - 15

TE - Martellus Bennett - 4

PK - Josh Brown - 1

PK - Olindo Mare - 1

PK - Jason Hanson - 1

TD - Green Bay Packers - 3

TD - Seattle Seahawks - 2

It seems like I hit on a few good things and a few bad things inadvertently. 3 $1 kickers is the way to go with the current roster limit of 24. I have used each of my kickers at least once, and my weekly scores from the position are: 11, 10, 19, 7, 13, 11. Only one week with less than 10 points. Getting a third $2 defense (49ers) would've been good because I've had two weeks with less than 10 points there. also, 2 QBs is simply too risky. if one gets injured and the other has his bye, that would likely knock me out. Also I could've done better at the TE position, a 3rd option would cover me because Martellus hasn't done jack.

So with a 24 limit this would be the ideal set up IMO:

3 QBs, TEs, Kickers, and Defenses. That leaves 12 spots for RBs and WRs. You could go frugal with the Kickers and Defense, spending $9 or $10 on all 6, plus another $19 or $20 on 3 TEs (Shockey, Celek, VD, Heap, Finley, etc). For QBs, is $50 too much to spend on 3 decent options? Schaub, Eli, and Flacco looks like a solid group. That leaves $171 to spend on 12 RBs and WRs.

So here's my question: If they opened the roster size up to anything, where would the sweet spot be?

Starting from the bottom up, there are only 11 $1 kickers. What would be the ideal number? My guess is 5 with all different bye weeks. That way you have at least 4 every week, and you would be likely to get 12+ points every week from the position.
There are 13 defenses worth $1 or $2. This involves some more skill because you have to identify who will be decent, but you could've landed Saints, Broncos, and Bengals for $1 each, plus 49ers, Falcons and Seahawks for $2 each. Again, what's the ideal number? I think it's 5 here with different bye weeks also. So 5 kickers plus 5 defense = $5 + $7 = $12.
At TE, there are lots of options that cost less than $10. But here i'm not sure it's better to carry more than 3. would you really need more than Shockey, Celek, and Finley? Chris Baker had that blow up in week 1 but hasn't done anything since, so if you could divine that I guess he's a good $1 option. The next best option is Todd Heap for $5. So 3 for $19, or 4 for $24? I'll say 4.
For QBs, no one below Flacco looks worth much to me. Flacco+Eli+Schaub is $50.Thus, $12 + $24 + $50 leaves you with $164 to spend on WRs and RBs. Here is where you can have a field day picking all those low priced guys who put up some stud games.

What do you think of this set up so far given an unlimited roster size? And where can you go from here with RBs and WRs?

 

[karmarooster]

Here's a penny-saver list of WRs and RBs to go along with my previous post. It appears you are better off getting lots of cheap WRs, and spending a little more on the RBs.

Manningham 2
Britt 2
Meachem 3
Garcon 3
Crayton 4
Rice 4
Nicks 4
Maclin 4
Burleson 5
Austin 6
MSW 9
Smith NYG 12
Choice 2
Buckhalter 2
Harrison 4
McCoy 7
McGahee 7
Bradshaw 8
Mendenhall 10
Hightower 13
Julius 14
Benson 19
Rice 21Together, that's $165 and I had $164 to spend. So drop Harrison and add some more Kickers/Defense for $3, brings you to $250.

Summary:

3 QBs

11 RBs

12 WRs

3 TEs

6 Kickers

6 Defenses

41 total

Does anyone have a spread sheet they could put this team into and see how it would rank? Obviously it's not accurate because I was cherry picking the cheap players who have blown up, but i'm curious to see if this team would be 1st overall.

 

[Modog814]

See, everything you say makes sense. But just the term "downgrade" isn't an appropriate term. Downgrade assumes there's a quantifiable technique that can accurately asses player value. There simply isn't. We're talking about $4. That's one or two incremental upgrades. Not a giant leap in salary. This game all comes down to a given subscriber's ability to find value in this player cap structure. Yes, Peyton is worth the money his owners spent. But there are so many bust players or just mediocre players in the high salary range, your ability to finish in the money here is inextricably tied to your ability to extract value in both the top dollar players and the bargain bin.

Ok, so that's where we disagree. I think we both believe their is a certain amount of luck in this contest and FF in general. I think we may disagree on how much of it is actually luck. I don't know about you, but in my leagues, the same people tend to be in the playoffs every year and the same people tend to miss the playoffs every year. I don't believe it's just because they are lucky, I believe it's because they are good at identifying who is going to have a good year and draft them and avoiding those players they think won't. Is there a quantifiable technique...no i don't think so. But that shouldn't dismiss one's ability to assess a players value.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I think the unlimited rosters is wishful thinking that will not, and should not, be part of the contest.

It moves the contest to a game of skill - pick the precise players who will play well this year - to a game of chance, where you are no longer using skill to identify the correct combination of players - you simply choose all the low-priced versions and hope they hit at various points during the season.

Aside from legal gaming issues (games of skill v. games of chance) I don't think it would be very fun.

 

[jon_mx]

I think the unlimited rosters is wishful thinking that will not, and should not, be part of the contest.It moves the contest to a game of skill - pick the precise players who will play well this year - to a game of chance, where you are no longer using skill to identify the correct combination of players - you simply choose all the low-priced versions and hope they hit at various points during the season.Aside from legal gaming issues (games of skill v. games of chance) I don't think it would be very fun.

I think the people who would just picked up a bunch of low priced bargains would be out in a hurry. Besides with some minor adjustments in pricing, like not having so many $1 options unless there was no way they were going to produce. But there is something to be said for having limits on roster sizes. You have to hit on a high percentage of you picks to go far. It makes you think more, instead of just picking up every flyer out there hoping a few stick.

 

[The Frog]

How about we just call this week off and go with the the simulator results. Has me at a 98.2% chance of survival. I'm liking that!!!!!

 

[tomarken]

Preliminary week 7 sim

considering my 10 spots on bye, I'll take a 39% survival rate.

In years past that might have been excusable, but this year they gave you the bye weeks right there. Poor planning.

Not really. It is exactly how I planned it, it can't be poor planning. Maybe you don't like my strategy, but this is essentially a game where luck plays a HUGE part.

It's ok, they didn't display the bye weeks anyway (for good reason).

 

[Short Corner]

I think the unlimited rosters is wishful thinking that will not, and should not, be part of the contest.It moves the contest to a game of skill - pick the precise players who will play well this year - to a game of chance, where you are no longer using skill to identify the correct combination of players - you simply choose all the low-priced versions and hope they hit at various points during the season.

How are you all of the sudden not using skill to identify the correct combination of players? I dont see any difference between picking 6 good WRs and hoping they are hitting at a 50-60% clip and picking 10 average-below average WRs hoping they hit at 30-40% clip.

Aside from legal gaming issues (games of skill v. games of chance) I don't think it would be very fun.

 

[yabahos]

Early on I put together a team consisting of all the $1 kickers, $1 defenses, $3 and below TE, $4 and below RBs, $2 and below WRs, and $11 and below QBs. The team has around 100 players and would have been eliminated this past week. I don't have access to the file right now. These numbers were strictly arbitrary on my part and this team definitely wasn't optimized. With minimal work you could easily upgrade the team (for instance the QBs were $94) and make it viable. There really is a lot of obvious deadwood on this team (Plaxico for instance).

The only thing that would have kept this team from advancing this past week was the lack of a stud QBs.

The strategy that karmarooster and others are proposing would be very effective IMO. If I think of it when I get home I'll post the information and scoring.

If they moved to unlimited rosters, I think the contest becomes easier.

I think Dodds posted something back a page or two saying that they may impose some type of player minimum value (like $3) if they moved to an unlimited roster format. This is would be a bad idea IMO. What effect would that have on the rest of the player pool pricing? Right now most teams are spending somewhere between $4 and $12 on kickers and defenses (figuring guys are drafting somewhere around two to three of each). With a minimum value threshold of $3, you would now be forced to spend $12 just to get two of each.

 

[Short Corner]

Early on I put together a team consisting of all the $1 kickers, $1 defenses, $3 and below TE, $4 and below RBs, $2 and below WRs, and $11 and below QBs. The team has around 100 players and would have been eliminated this past week. I don't have access to the file right now. These numbers were strictly arbitrary on my part and this team definitely wasn't optimized. With minimal work you could easily upgrade the team (for instance the QBs were $94) and make it viable. There really is a lot of obvious deadwood on this team (Plaxico for instance). The only thing that would have kept this team from advancing this past week was the lack of a stud QBs. The strategy that karmarooster and others are proposing would be very effective IMO. If I think of it when I get home I'll post the information and scoring. If they moved to unlimited rosters, I think the contest becomes easier. I think Dodds posted something back a page or two saying that they may impose some type of player minimum value (like $3) if they moved to an unlimited roster format. This is would be a bad idea IMO. What effect would that have on the rest of the player pool pricing? Right now most teams are spending somewhere between $4 and $12 on kickers and defenses (figuring guys are drafting somewhere around two to three of each). With a minimum value threshold of $3, you would now be forced to spend $12 just to get two of each.

I don#t think it's a bad idea to keep the rosters from getting too out of hand. Probably increase the cap to $300 and scale up all of the salaries by $2.

 

[PatsChowder]

You are arguing that just a couple of bucks more will net you better players. But I cannot emphasize this enough: this presumes you can predict player performances and therefore guarantee a better team. The field is littered with high priced players that stink and low priced players that rock. Conversely, the contest is populated by high priced players that are living up to their price and low priced players that are proving they should have been low priced players.

The difference? You are arguing that spending a few bucks more is worth it because you're getting a better player, and this is simply impossible to predict.

Here are all of the WR's who scored more than 15 points last week. 23 players total. One $2, One $3, and Two $4 WR's. There were 60 WR's $4 or less in this competition, and Four of them were valuable this week. 14 of those players who scored more than 15 points were $20 or more. There were 34 WR's total who cost more than $20. So for the top dollar players, 41% of them were very valuable this week. For cheap players, 7% were valuable this week. Trying to load up on cheap players can work, but you have to hit them. There are too many misses. My only cheap WR's were Nicks and Meachem, both of whom I am happy with. But I also have Moss and Colston, who can put up the kind of numbers than can win this competition. I just don't think there are enough good cheap players to offset what a couple studs can do. Quantity is not everything.

I'm glad someone else did the leg work on this because I was about to rush out and do the same thing. I am all on board with larger rosters and cheap players, but let's not act like it's money in the bank by picking more lower priced guys. 93% of the <$4 wide receivers were busts last week. While we may be able to look back and say, "how could anyone not have picked X" there are 9 other players that we are all saying "I'm glad I didn't waste my money on Y."

 

[jdoggydogg]

See, everything you say makes sense. But just the term "downgrade" isn't an appropriate term. Downgrade assumes there's a quantifiable technique that can accurately asses player value. There simply isn't. We're talking about $4. That's one or two incremental upgrades. Not a giant leap in salary. This game all comes down to a given subscriber's ability to find value in this player cap structure. Yes, Peyton is worth the money his owners spent. But there are so many bust players or just mediocre players in the high salary range, your ability to finish in the money here is inextricably tied to your ability to extract value in both the top dollar players and the bargain bin.

Ok, so that's where we disagree. I think we both believe their is a certain amount of luck in this contest and FF in general. I think we may disagree on how much of it is actually luck. I don't know about you, but in my leagues, the same people tend to be in the playoffs every year and the same people tend to miss the playoffs every year. I don't believe it's just because they are lucky, I believe it's because they are good at identifying who is going to have a good year and draft them and avoiding those players they think won't. Is there a quantifiable technique...no i don't think so. But that shouldn't dismiss one's ability to assess a players value.

I agree. My point is that we all make mistakes in judgment. I'd call the staff at FBG "experts," but they'd admit that they are wrong about players sometimes. By using a 24 man roster, you make your team more unique (which is essential to winning the contest), and you protect yourself from injuries.

 

[karmarooster]

Early on I put together a team consisting of all the $1 kickers, $1 defenses, $3 and below TE, $4 and below RBs, $2 and below WRs, and $11 and below QBs. The team has around 100 players and would have been eliminated this past week. I don't have access to the file right now. These numbers were strictly arbitrary on my part and this team definitely wasn't optimized. With minimal work you could easily upgrade the team (for instance the QBs were $94) and make it viable. There really is a lot of obvious deadwood on this team (Plaxico for instance). The only thing that would have kept this team from advancing this past week was the lack of a stud QBs.

I think you just took the idea too far. It seems to me that the cheap strategy (and therefore quantity) works for Kickers, Defense, possibly TEs, and definitely WRs. It is an average strategy for RBs, and clearly a bad strategy for QBs. For example, instead of selecting $3 and below TEs, increase that to say $5 or $7. Increase WRs to $10 or $12, RBs to $20 or $21 (gotta get Ray Rice!) and QBs to around $20. The cutoff for QBs IMO is around Schaub and Big Ben. 100 players is about 2x too many in my opinion. 40 - 50 seems to be like a happy medium for quantity and quality

If they moved to unlimited rosters, I think the contest becomes easier.

because of what i outlined above, i don't think this is true. if your idea of an ultra-cheap 100 player lineup, ie WRs less than $2 and RBs less than $4 proved to be effective, than this statement would be true. but since you have to select the BEST of the cheaper players to get it in the 40-50 ballpark, there is certainly skill involved. i don't think it becomes any easier because you could simply fall into the trap of trying to over-do-it and grab too many bargain-bin guys and thus leave yourself weak at another position (most likely, RB and QB).

 

[Modog814]

I agree. My point is that we all make mistakes in judgment. I'd call the staff at FBG "experts," but they'd admit that they are wrong about players sometimes. By using a 24 man roster, you make your team more unique (which is essential to winning the contest), and you protect yourself from injuries.

I think that's a totally reasonable strategy. My point was that you shouldn't go from a guy you're "high" on to a guy you're not as "high" on for the sole purpose of freeing up some extra money to reach a 24 man roster.

 

[Jilez001]

Early on I put together a team consisting of all the $1 kickers, $1 defenses, $3 and below TE, $4 and below RBs, $2 and below WRs, and $11 and below QBs. The team has around 100 players and would have been eliminated this past week. I don't have access to the file right now. These numbers were strictly arbitrary on my part and this team definitely wasn't optimized. With minimal work you could easily upgrade the team (for instance the QBs were $94) and make it viable. There really is a lot of obvious deadwood on this team (Plaxico for instance). The only thing that would have kept this team from advancing this past week was the lack of a stud QBs.

I think you just took the idea too far. It seems to me that the cheap strategy (and therefore quantity) works for Kickers, Defense, possibly TEs, and definitely WRs. It is an average strategy for RBs, and clearly a bad strategy for QBs. For example, instead of selecting $3 and below TEs, increase that to say $5 or $7. Increase WRs to $10 or $12, RBs to $20 or $21 (gotta get Ray Rice!) and QBs to around $20. The cutoff for QBs IMO is around Schaub and Big Ben. 100 players is about 2x too many in my opinion. 40 - 50 seems to be like a happy medium for quantity and quality

If they moved to unlimited rosters, I think the contest becomes easier.

because of what i outlined above, i don't think this is true. if your idea of an ultra-cheap 100 player lineup, ie WRs less than $2 and RBs less than $4 proved to be effective, than this statement would be true. but since you have to select the BEST of the cheaper players to get it in the 40-50 ballpark, there is certainly skill involved. i don't think it becomes any easier because you could simply fall into the trap of trying to over-do-it and grab too many bargain-bin guys and thus leave yourself weak at another position (most likely, RB and QB).

Everyone keeps basing these optimal number of player lineups on the costs provided for this contest. This is a fruitless assumption and skews the value towards less expensive players by removing the positional costs of players. Their is a spatial cost to keeping the one dollar players that far exceeds their dollar cost in the contest. Does anyone really think any of these top tier players are worth ~40 1 dollar players? Even if only 10-20 of those guys even play, they're still more valuable as a group. If the contest had a roster limit removed the costs of the players would have to change to account for this. Also, why so much hindsight based analysis?

 

[jdoggydogg]

I agree. My point is that we all make mistakes in judgment. I'd call the staff at FBG "experts," but they'd admit that they are wrong about players sometimes. By using a 24 man roster, you make your team more unique (which is essential to winning the contest), and you protect yourself from injuries.

I think that's a totally reasonable strategy. My point was that you shouldn't go from a guy you're "high" on to a guy you're not as "high" on for the sole purpose of freeing up some extra money to reach a 24 man roster.

Absolutely. I guess if you've found the "perfect" team and it's 23 men, then that's a sound strategy.

 

[jon_mx]

bumping

 

[Balco]

This could be it for me, tons of byes, tons of injuries. Might not even have 3 active receivers. Need a miracle.

 

[jon_mx]

I agree. My point is that we all make mistakes in judgment. I'd call the staff at FBG "experts," but they'd admit that they are wrong about players sometimes. By using a 24 man roster, you make your team more unique (which is essential to winning the contest), and you protect yourself from injuries.

I think that's a totally reasonable strategy. My point was that you shouldn't go from a guy you're "high" on to a guy you're not as "high" on for the sole purpose of freeing up some extra money to reach a 24 man roster.

Absolutely. I guess if you've found the "perfect" team and it's 23 men, then that's a sound strategy.

Lots of the 24 man teams are now 23 man teams anyways since a good chunk of teams have James Davis on their team. It is more important to have productive players on your team than just bodies.

 

[CalBear]

Lots of the 24 man teams are now 23 man teams anyways since a good chunk of teams have James Davis on their team. It is more important to have productive players on your team than just bodies.

Lots of the 23 man teams are now 22 man teams anyways since a good chunk of teams have James Davis.The more bodies you have, the more likely it is you will have productive players.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. – John Kenneth Galbraith

 

[jon_mx]

Preliminary week 7 sim

Surprisingly a team that scored over 190 points last week is given only a 5.5% chance of survival.

 

[Balco]

Getting some nice contributions - 5.10 so far

 

[Doug Drinen]

For the record

 

[tomarken]

Preliminary week 7 sim

Surprisingly a team that scored over 190 points last week is given only a 5.5% chance of survival.

He has no QB and is missing his best WR and RB this week. 5.5% seems a little low but it's not that surprising.

 

[jon_mx]

Getting some nice contributions - 5.10 so far

83 points so far...but some of my big guns have played....Rivers, Grant, and R. Moss. With all the blowouts, i doubt if there is much more scoring, just running out the clock.

 

[Das Boot]

Getting some nice contributions - 5.10 so far

Virtually none of my big guns have played yet... probably low scoring for most teams so far.

 

[Balco]

Getting some nice contributions - 5.10 so far

Virtually none of my big guns have played yet... probably low scoring for most teams so far.

Problem for me is, due to injuries and byes, I don't really have a lot of players, let a lone big guns this week. I have 1 active defense - Cleveland - 0 points. 4 receivers, 1 being Mark Bradley = 0. Jermichael Finley went down. Maroney gave me about 10, my two remaining backs are Michael Bush and Leon Washington.I need huge performances from Brees, Ochocinco, and Boldin. And I really need Greg Olsen and Jeremy Shockey to give me 15 + points each. I can't see any shot I advance. Would be a miracle.Update: 13.3 points!!!!

 

[Das Boot]

For the 19 teams still alive that have Alex Smith...

Your ship has come in!

 

[jon_mx]

For the 19 teams still alive that have Alex Smith...Your ship has come in!

He may tie it up or win it...wow, down 21-0

 

[Das Boot]

1403 still alive teams just took a hit with Leon Washington's ankle injury.

 

[jon_mx]

For the 19 teams still alive that have Alex Smith...Your ship has come in!

He may tie it up or win it...wow, down 21-0

I am really glad Rivers had his bye week before this happened. Otherwise I would have been toast as Hill is my only backup playing right now.

 

[drm1125]

Well, I've got alot more points than I expected so far but I really need D. Williams to have a huge day!! I guess the 39% of moving on was pretty accurate.

 

[Fennis]

For the 19 teams still alive that have Alex Smith...Your ship has come in!

1403 still alive teams just took a hit with Leon Washington's ankle injury. :(

Both teams that have Smith and Washington are confused what to think.

 

[gianmarco]

I wonder what the cutoff this week is going to look like. I think it should be awfully low.

 

[Titans_fan]

sitting around 125 right now....My RB corps is quickly becoming the walking wounded (McFadden, Leon, James Davis, Norwood)

Healthy RBs = Ahmad Bradshaw, Kevin Faulk, LeSean McCoy....YIKES!

McFadden should be back after BYE and maybe Norwood will make it back soon....just need to survive this week and next....

 

[ctriopelle]

Sorry for not having TFS updates going yet today, been a rough go of it today after having to take my dog to the vet ER. He's in for an overnight stay to make sure he's stable overnight before we transfer him to his regular vet tomorrow morning where they need to do some more tests tomorrow. I debated whether or not to say anything in here because it isn't really the place to talk about these matters, but depending on how things go tomorrow, I may not be updating in-game during MNF. TFS live scoring will still be OK, and I'll try to make the score adjustments tonight so everyone's scoring is pretty close for tomorrow.

 

[drm1125]

Sorry for not having TFS updates going yet today, been a rough go of it today after having to take my dog to the vet ER. He's in for an overnight stay to make sure he's stable overnight before we transfer him to his regular vet tomorrow morning where they need to do some more tests tomorrow. I debated whether or not to say anything in here because it isn't really the place to talk about these matters, but depending on how things go tomorrow, I may not be updating in-game during MNF. TFS live scoring will still be OK, and I'll try to make the score adjustments tonight so everyone's scoring is pretty close for tomorrow.

I hope your dog will be ok! My dog had a very serius scare a few months ago so I know what you are going through

 

[Garrett]

1403 still alive teams just took a hit with Leon Washington's ankle injury.

My number 1 RB!QB - Aaron Rodgers - 27QB - Byron Leftwich - 4RB - Darren Sproles - 13RB - Leon Washington - 12RB - Felix Jones - 11RB - LeSean McCoy - 7RB - Michael Bush - 6RB - Jerome Harrison - 4WR - Larry Fitzgerald - 44WR - Randy Moss - 42WR - Reggie Wayne - 36WR - Javon Walker - 2TE - Dallas Clark - 18TE - Zach Miller - 12PK - Sebastian Janikowski - 1PK - Olindo Mare - 1PK - Jay Feely - 1PK - Dan Carpenter - 1PK - Steve Hauschka - 1PK - Shaun Suisham - 1TD - Green Bay Packers - 3TD - Cincinnati Bengals - 1TD - Oakland Raiders - 1TD - Cleveland Browns - 1

 

[ctriopelle]

Sorry for not having TFS updates going yet today, been a rough go of it today after having to take my dog to the vet ER. He's in for an overnight stay to make sure he's stable overnight before we transfer him to his regular vet tomorrow morning where they need to do some more tests tomorrow. I debated whether or not to say anything in here because it isn't really the place to talk about these matters, but depending on how things go tomorrow, I may not be updating in-game during MNF. TFS live scoring will still be OK, and I'll try to make the score adjustments tonight so everyone's scoring is pretty close for tomorrow.

I hope your dog will be ok! My dog had a very serius scare a few months ago so I know what you are going through

thanks for the kind words, but anyone wanting to comment on this, please do so via PM, which I'll be happy to correspond thru. I don't want to litter the thread with my personal issues, and potentially get some folks riled up.

 

[jon_mx]

124.30....with several players still playing.....Need a few more points from DeAngelo, Coleston, or Henry.....or a big game from Nicks and will be golden for next week.

 

[Das Boot]

1403 still alive teams just took a hit with Leon Washington's ankle injury. :(

My number 1 RB!QB - Aaron Rodgers - 27QB - Byron Leftwich - 4RB - Darren Sproles - 13RB - Leon Washington - 12RB - Felix Jones - 11RB - LeSean McCoy - 7RB - Michael Bush - 6RB - Jerome Harrison - 4WR - Larry Fitzgerald - 44WR - Randy Moss - 42WR - Reggie Wayne - 36WR - Javon Walker - 2TE - Dallas Clark - 18TE - Zach Miller - 12PK - Sebastian Janikowski - 1PK - Olindo Mare - 1PK - Jay Feely - 1PK - Dan Carpenter - 1PK - Steve Hauschka - 1PK - Shaun Suisham - 1TD - Green Bay Packers - 3TD - Cincinnati Bengals - 1TD - Oakland Raiders - 1TD - Cleveland Browns - 1

I'd guess he's the #1 or #2 RB for a lot of the teams.He was a good value bet pre-season to greatly exceed his $12 cost, but to date I've only used his score once.I was still hoping for a big 2nd half out of him though. :(

 

[drm1125]

I think I may just make it through this week! Some amazing players scoring for me! Clowney just scored a td and S. Greene already has 12 points!

 

[jon_mx]

QB - Aaron Rodgers - 27QB - Byron Leftwich - 4RB - Darren Sproles - 13RB - Leon Washington - 12RB - Felix Jones - 11RB - LeSean McCoy - 7RB - Michael Bush - 6RB - Jerome Harrison - 4WR - Larry Fitzgerald - 44WR - Randy Moss - 42WR - Reggie Wayne - 36WR - Javon Walker - 2TE - Dallas Clark - 18TE - Zach Miller - 12PK - Sebastian Janikowski - 1PK - Olindo Mare - 1PK - Jay Feely - 1PK - Dan Carpenter - 1PK - Steve Hauschka - 1PK - Shaun Suisham - 1TD - Green Bay Packers - 3TD - Cincinnati Bengals - 1TD - Oakland Raiders - 1TD - Cleveland Browns - 1

Not sure about the strategy of using 10 of 24 spots on the lowest scoring positions. Really need 6-8 WR's to have a chance, IMHO.

 

[Organized Chaos]

This was always going to be my roughest week... Hovering around 125 right now, if I make it, Thank you V. Davis!

 

[drm1125]

Amazing, I'm up to 124.70! The week 7 sim had me at 38% of moving on this week. I may just sqeek by this week. and S. Greene just scored again, I think putting me over the 130 mark!