Mungo Burrows
Footballguy
QB 39
rb 140
wr 45
te 17
pk 4
def 5
or something like that.
rb 140
wr 45
te 17
pk 4
def 5
or something like that.
Nope. Same players all year.Quick question....Come week 2, do we then go ahead a pick all new players?If yes, can we use players we used in week 1 as long as we're under budget?
Ouch, thanks. I guess that means I have to go put some thought into it.....Nope. Same players all year.Quick question....Come week 2, do we then go ahead a pick all new players?If yes, can we use players we used in week 1 as long as we're under budget?

I am not. You have to take your chances some place. A stud RB is irreplaceable and will not come out of any of the under $10 players. There will be a few stud recievers below the $10 mark but you must be lucky enough to pick them.I am surprised by the number of people who are spending peanuts on 7 WRs in a PPR contest and (IMO) paying through the nose for a stud RB
I am not. You have to take your chances some place. A stud RB is irreplaceable and will not come out of any of the under $10 players. There will be a few stud recievers below the $10 mark but you must be lucky enough to pick them.I am surprised by the number of people who are spending peanuts on 7 WRs in a PPR contest and (IMO) paying through the nose for a stud RB
IMO, you have a much better chance at some cheap WR stepping up and becoming at least a semi-stud than lucking out and winning the lottery with the one Mike Anderson or Willie Parker needle in a haystack that pops up each season.Besides that you can carry 2 more receivers than RBs. Gives you better odds of getting someone with a good week. Plus RBs are usually more consistent than most WRs. Even Steve Smith last year had 5 games with fewer than 5 catches and no TDs.I am not. You have to take your chances some place. A stud RB is irreplaceable and will not come out of any of the under $10 players. There will be a few stud recievers below the $10 mark but you must be lucky enough to pick them.I am surprised by the number of people who are spending peanuts on 7 WRs in a PPR contest and (IMO) paying through the nose for a stud RBIMO, you have a much better chance at some cheap WR stepping up and becoming at least a semi-stud than lucking out and winning the lottery with the one Mike Anderson or Willie Parker needle in a haystack that pops up each season.
Plus you have to start 3 WRs but only 2 RBs. I'd rather have 4 WRs in the top 30-ish and 3 cheap ones and know I'm getting production from all 3 WR slots every week. Spending the money on RBs means 2 consistent slots and 2 or 3 iffy ones. With 4 good WRs and 3 gambles, I can take a semi-stud RB and a couple-three longshot RBs and feel confident that most weeks one of those gamble RBs will produce enough to tread water in that slot.Besides that you can carry 2 more receivers than RBs. Gives you better odds of getting someone with a good week. Plus RBs are usually more consistent than most WRs. Even Steve Smith last year had 5 games with fewer than 5 catches and no TDs.I am not. You have to take your chances some place. A stud RB is irreplaceable and will not come out of any of the under $10 players. There will be a few stud recievers below the $10 mark but you must be lucky enough to pick them.I am surprised by the number of people who are spending peanuts on 7 WRs in a PPR contest and (IMO) paying through the nose for a stud RBIMO, you have a much better chance at some cheap WR stepping up and becoming at least a semi-stud than lucking out and winning the lottery with the one Mike Anderson or Willie Parker needle in a haystack that pops up each season.
Very, VERYI am not. You have to take your chances some place. A stud RB is irreplaceable and will not come out of any of the under $10 players. There will be a few stud recievers below the $10 mark but you must be lucky enough to pick them.I am surprised by the number of people who are spending peanuts on 7 WRs in a PPR contest and (IMO) paying through the nose for a stud RBIMO, you have a much better chance at some cheap WR stepping up and becoming at least a semi-stud than lucking out and winning the lottery with the one Mike Anderson or Willie Parker needle in a haystack that pops up each season.
Some people never learn....You were dropped on your head when you were little, weren't you?Plus you have to start 3 WRs but only 2 RBs. I'd rather have 4 WRs in the top 30-ish and 3 cheap ones and know I'm getting production from all 3 WR slots every week. Spending the money on RBs means 2 consistent slots and 2 or 3 iffy ones. With 4 good WRs and 3 gambles, I can take a semi-stud RB and a couple-three longshot RBs and feel confident that most weeks one of those gamble RBs will produce enough to tread water in that slot.Besides that you can carry 2 more receivers than RBs. Gives you better odds of getting someone with a good week. Plus RBs are usually more consistent than most WRs. Even Steve Smith last year had 5 games with fewer than 5 catches and no TDs.I am not. You have to take your chances some place. A stud RB is irreplaceable and will not come out of any of the under $10 players. There will be a few stud recievers below the $10 mark but you must be lucky enough to pick them.I am surprised by the number of people who are spending peanuts on 7 WRs in a PPR contest and (IMO) paying through the nose for a stud RBIMO, you have a much better chance at some cheap WR stepping up and becoming at least a semi-stud than lucking out and winning the lottery with the one Mike Anderson or Willie Parker needle in a haystack that pops up each season.
Just that one time.You were dropped on your head when you were little, weren't you?Plus you have to start 3 WRs but only 2 RBs. I'd rather have 4 WRs in the top 30-ish and 3 cheap ones and know I'm getting production from all 3 WR slots every week. Spending the money on RBs means 2 consistent slots and 2 or 3 iffy ones. With 4 good WRs and 3 gambles, I can take a semi-stud RB and a couple-three longshot RBs and feel confident that most weeks one of those gamble RBs will produce enough to tread water in that slot.Besides that you can carry 2 more receivers than RBs. Gives you better odds of getting someone with a good week. Plus RBs are usually more consistent than most WRs. Even Steve Smith last year had 5 games with fewer than 5 catches and no TDs.I am not. You have to take your chances some place. A stud RB is irreplaceable and will not come out of any of the under $10 players. There will be a few stud recievers below the $10 mark but you must be lucky enough to pick them.I am surprised by the number of people who are spending peanuts on 7 WRs in a PPR contest and (IMO) paying through the nose for a stud RBIMO, you have a much better chance at some cheap WR stepping up and becoming at least a semi-stud than lucking out and winning the lottery with the one Mike Anderson or Willie Parker needle in a haystack that pops up each season.
RB depth in PPR survivor contests doesn't always equal success. Personally, in a contest such as this, it is my inclination to pick as many high reception receivers as possible. Stud WRs can carry a team when you have steady, but non-flashy RBs.Very, VERYI am not. You have to take your chances some place. A stud RB is irreplaceable and will not come out of any of the under $10 players. There will be a few stud recievers below the $10 mark but you must be lucky enough to pick them.I am surprised by the number of people who are spending peanuts on 7 WRs in a PPR contest and (IMO) paying through the nose for a stud RBIMO, you have a much better chance at some cheap WR stepping up and becoming at least a semi-stud than lucking out and winning the lottery with the one Mike Anderson or Willie Parker needle in a haystack that pops up each season.
Some people never learn....
And besides the two cheap RBs that will might be studs (Lundy and M. Bell) did not make the list.dickey moe said:IMO, you have a much better chance at some cheap WR stepping up and becoming at least a semi-stud than lucking out and winning the lottery with the one Mike Anderson or Willie Parker needle in a haystack that pops up each season.
i think that adds up to 240?Here's the weener...QB 39RB 88WR 91TE 10PK 2DT 10249 and $1 left over for a double hamburger at Mc D's![]()
Oops..QB was 49i think that adds up to 240?Here's the weener...QB 39RB 88WR 91TE 10PK 2DT 10249 and $1 left over for a double hamburger at Mc D's![]()
I'm at 3950.3 overall....and a low week of 191.4.I've had higher overall but my low dipped to unacceptable levels.Deadline is fast approaching on this and I can't make my mind up on what final strategy to use! For all of you guys new to this the typical cutoff in year's past was in fact usually above 125 and often in the 130's. While the DD is good at giving you an idea of value, I don't care how well you pick your team, you won't find any combination resulting in 130+ per week from the program. I came close with one iteration, but it has a really bad bye week with a low of 102 in week 3. Also realize that in the past it was not uncommon at all to see teams blow up for 160-180 in a week. For those new to this format, there is a very discinct strategy that definitely improves your odds of making it to the endgame, but it directly conflicts with winning the endgame. This year the cutoff points are a little less brutal than in the past (at the end), so I'm hoping my squad can finally hurdle the lat two weeks to bring me some dough!Target value of points for anyone wanting to see what a well picked value roster can get you using DD's projections is:3804 (total team with good depth)1901 (starters only)3547 (total team with stud starters)1987 (starters only)Haven't seen anyone even close on this yet FWIW...-CTR
If this weren't a PPR league I wouldn't have either. But Warner knows how to check down to the RB in the flat and will do just that. Not to mention screens and designed short passes to Edge. I've seen guys like Tiki and DD dominate this thing for people. Gotta go with pass catching RB's.....jon_mx said:No way would I spend my biggest chunck on Edgerin James.
QB: 542 $41RB: 876 $120WR: 1,133 $68TE: 230 $10PK: 222 $5Def: 206 $63209...188 a week...but I doubt I hit this all the timeMapmaker said:Thats it ... I'm done with all this tweekin'QB - 56 - 843.5RB - 84 - 737.5WR - 82 - 840.7TE - 19 - 186.1K - 3 - 214D/st - 6 - 223.53045.3 / 179.13 Wk![]()
Total noob here. So far the best team I can get is about 2900.How are people getting over 500 QB strength in DD? I put in Peyton, Carson, and Brady in just for a test and it only goes to 500. I dont see how any other combo of 3 could be much better than that. Am I doing something wrong in DD?QB: 542 $41RB: 876 $120WR: 1,133 $68TE: 230 $10PK: 222 $5Def: 206 $63209...188 a week...but I doubt I hit this all the timeMapmaker said:Thats it ... I'm done with all this tweekin'QB - 56 - 843.5RB - 84 - 737.5WR - 82 - 840.7TE - 19 - 186.1K - 3 - 214D/st - 6 - 223.53045.3 / 179.13 Wk![]()