Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)

[QuizGuy66]

Jarret Dillard is owned by 11 - this is the lowest I could find

Jerheme Urban is owned by 7. He's on IR though.

6 have Tavaris Jackson.-QG

Kinda comically, none of the 6 entries has Favre -QG

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

73 teams have Glen Coffee.

 

[QuizGuy66]

73 teams have Glen Coffee.

This would be the 'set it and forget it' crowd.Wonder who has the most IR guys?-QG

 

[LittlePhatty]

4 teams have both Ben Tate AND Montario Hardesty.

One of those four entries also took Vincent Jackson.

 

[Worm]

They changed the player pricing model a bit this year, correct? That could affect what the optimum player count is, considering there is no more $1 bargain bin. There is value in the $3-$10 range, but that adds up over multiple players.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Jarret Dillard is owned by 11 - this is the lowest I could find

Jerheme Urban is owned by 7. He's on IR though.

6 have Tavaris Jackson.-QG

5 have Joey Haynos TE

 

[Sam Quentin]

Very surprised at the number of smaller rosters. Problem with the smaller roster is that you assume all of your studs will pan out. Problem is that history shows that 50% of them will not live up to their value. So now you have to deal with "busts" and bye weeks. This is why these teams got crushed last year.Larger rosters are ALWAYS better in best ball format. Perhaps this year we can finally put this argument to rest.

In a contest like this where it's 1 in 13000, the philosphy may be to go for it and take the chance that they will all pan out.

 

[butcher boy]

Very surprised at the number of smaller rosters. Problem with the smaller roster is that you assume all of your studs will pan out. Problem is that history shows that 50% of them will not live up to their value. So now you have to deal with "busts" and bye weeks. This is why these teams got crushed last year.Larger rosters are ALWAYS better in best ball format. Perhaps this year we can finally put this argument to rest.

That's why you pick consistent studs over unpredictable ones. Peyton over Romo. ADP over Turner, Andre Johnson over Fitz, etc. There arent any $1 guys this year, so by going with 30 guys on your roster you're overpaying for a ton of guys who should be $1 and won't produce.

 

[fightingillini]

I have 23 players. To me, 23-25 players is the sweet spot. Need studs at the end but enough depth to cover bye weeks. Decided to have a stud anchor each major position and then supplement with depth.

QB - Rivers (19), Orton (12)

IMO Rivers is a good deal at $19 and has a week 10 bye. Orton is a nice backup and DEN should be behind a lot this year. I feel I will get decent QB production and spent only 12% of my cap. With the flex at RB/WR/TE, I would rather load up on those positions.

RB - Gore (34), Bradshaw (18), Foster (13), McGahee (8), T Jones (7)

Like Gore's schedule this year....very easy. Foster will be a popular choice, one that won't win any $$$$$, but one that can keep me afloat.

WR - Fitzgerald (30), Welker (21), Garcon (12), Aromashodu (11), Jac Jones (10), J Nelson (4), Murphy (4), Camarillo (3)

Gambling that Welker will be healthy...if so, he's a steal at $21. Like Garcon in best ball.

TE - Witten (19), B Watson (5), Pettigrew (4)

Witten is $$$ in this format.

K - Tynes (4), Janikowski (2), Gano (2)

Need 3 kickers in this format....as you need to try and secure 2+ FG every week.

D - CAR (4), CHI (4)

Should be OK.

 

[Psychopav]

Very surprised at the number of smaller rosters. Problem with the smaller roster is that you assume all of your studs will pan out. Problem is that history shows that 50% of them will not live up to their value. So now you have to deal with "busts" and bye weeks. This is why these teams got crushed last year.Larger rosters are ALWAYS better in best ball format. Perhaps this year we can finally put this argument to rest.

I hope you're wrong. Here's mine:Joe Flacco $17 0.00 Donovan McNabb $17 0.00 Jamaal Charles $29 0.00 Jahvid Best $27 0.00 Matt Forte $20 0.00 C.J. Spiller $17 0.00 Thomas Jones $7 0.00 Miles Austin $27 0.00 Santana Moss $18 0.00 Robert Meachem $14 0.00 Santonio Holmes $14 0.00 Nate Washington $8 0.00 Vernon Davis $19 0.00 Aaron Hernandez $5 0.00 Josh Brown $3 0.00 Jason Hanson $2 0.00 Washington Redskins $4 0.00 Detroit Lions $2 0.00Only 23 teams have Flacco and McNabb as the dynamic QB duo.I am the ONLY team with Austin, S. Moss, Meachem, and Holmes. 105 teams have Vernon Davis and Aaron Hernandez.So uniqueness is decent on my team. Guess that's a plus.Of course, Drinen's week 1 simulator has me at 12000+ place, which does not bode well

 

[apalmer]

Where are the ownership stats?

Drinen's Querier

 

[BassNBrew]

Surprised Steve Smith CAR and S. Holmes didn't make it onto more rosters.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Surprised Steve Smith CAR and S. Holmes didn't make it onto more rosters.

automatic 0 for 5 weeks (couting bye) turned me off on Holmes

 

[EBF]

Where are the ownership stats?

Drinen's Querier

Ty sir.

 

[CrossEyed]

Ended up with 21 players:

QBs

Matt Ryan $16

Ben Roethlisberger $14

Tim Tebow $3

I thought Ryan and Roethlisberger were the best values this year. Hoping Ryan has a good start through week 5 and then I'll be in good shape when Ben returns. Took a flyer on Tebow just to add a third QB.

RBs

DeAngelo Williams $28

LeSean McCoy $26

C.J. Spiller $17

Arian Foster $13

LaDainian Tomlinson $12

Wanted to focus on the receiving RBs. Hoping that LT has a little resurgence in NY.

WRs

Calvin Johnson $27

Malcom Floyd $17

Jabar Gaffney $16

Mike Williams $8

Laurent Robinson $7

Louis Murphy $4

Took one stud and a bunch of guys who are WR1 on their team but weren't too expensive.

TEs

Jermichael Finley $21

Jermaine Gresham $6

Donald Lee $2

Put most of my eggs in the Finley basket here. But figured Donald Lee at $2 might represent some value if Superman gets dinged. Gresham looked like good value from what I saw of him in preseason.

PK

Matt Bryant $2

Jason Hanson $2

Took a couple of cheap kickers who kick in domes for teams who look pretty good on offense (to me, anyway)

DEF

San Diego Chargers $5

Kansas City Chiefs $3

Went with the committee recommendation by FBGs.

 

[EBF]

Felix Jones is far and away the rarest player on my roster. Only 224 out of 13000+ got him in this thing. Bess, Henne, and Keller are about the only other guys on my roster that aren't on 1000+ teams.

 

[dancingbones]

Love the format this year. Hoping the big roster hits on a few guys that can carry my team.

Like these QBs for good value. Had Anderson here, but I just couldn't keep him there.

Carson Palmer $16 0.00

Matthew Stafford $16 0.00

Sam Bradford $9 0.00

No "studs" here may kill me, but hoping for Best & one of the others to produce enough to get by.

Jahvid Best $27 0.00

Jerome Harrison $18 0.00

Chester Taylor $13 0.00

Arian Foster $13 0.00

Donald Brown $11 0.00

Leon Washington $8 0.00

Threw a lot of roster spots at the cheaper guys & hoping someone breaks out.

Michael Crabtree $22 0.00

Dez Bryant $13 0.00

Mike Williams $8 0.00

Lance Moore $8 0.00

Bernard Berrian $7 0.00

Brian Robiskie $5 0.00

Eric Decker $4 0.00

Devery Henderson $4 0.00

Chansi Stuckey $3 0.00

Patrick Crayton $3 0.00

Mark Clayton $3 0.00

Justin Gage $2 0.00

Didn't read the scoring rules, or I may have invested more in the TE position. Oh well, it's free - right?

Chris Cooley $13 0.00

Ben Watson $5 0.00

I think 3 kickers is good bang for your buck in this contest.

David Buehler $4 0.00

Phil Dawson $2 0.00

Jason Hanson $2 0.00

Same w/ 3 Defenses.

San Diego Chargers $5 0.00

Cleveland Browns $3 0.00

Kansas City Chiefs $3 0.00

29 players total. Big roster seemed like an obvious advantage in best ball. I guess we'll see.

 

[ctriopelle]

Very surprised at the number of smaller rosters. Problem with the smaller roster is that you assume all of your studs will pan out. Problem is that history shows that 50% of them will not live up to their value. So now you have to deal with "busts" and bye weeks. This is why these teams got crushed last year.Larger rosters are ALWAYS better in best ball format. Perhaps this year we can finally put this argument to rest.

That's why you pick consistent studs over unpredictable ones. Peyton over Romo. ADP over Turner, Andre Johnson over Fitz, etc. There arent any $1 guys this year, so by going with 30 guys on your roster you're overpaying for a ton of guys who should be $1 and won't produce.

Consistent or not, one injury to a guy could ruin you with a short roster in best ball. Many of the 2nd/3rd tier players end up with 4-5 really good games (beating most of the studs for the week), but you never know when they will hit. In best ball, you don't get penalized for not knowing when this will happen, and often times a group of 3 $5 inconsistent "scrubs" can outperform a consistent $25 stud with less risk of individual injury. Even top tier WR's drop nasty goose-eggs once in a while, I'd much rather have 3-4 known inconsistent ones working together to make my score. You do need some consistent big number threats to win it all, which is why I think a lot of guys never made it to a 30 man roster, myself included, but a deeper roster tends to have more long run potential.

 

[ratbast]

WR Mike Thomas and RB Chester Taylor could prove valuable as they aren't strongly owned.

 

[gregjcross]

Very surprised at the number of smaller rosters. Problem with the smaller roster is that you assume all of your studs will pan out. Problem is that history shows that 50% of them will not live up to their value. So now you have to deal with "busts" and bye weeks. This is why these teams got crushed last year.Larger rosters are ALWAYS better in best ball format. Perhaps this year we can finally put this argument to rest.

In a contest like this where it's 1 in 13000, the philosphy may be to go for it and take the chance that they will all pan out.

Exactly> Trust me, nine tenths will need to pan out whatever you do. This year, I took 3QBs and 3 Team D for depth but only 4 RBs, im sure some people say that is insane. Maybe it is, but taking one more RB from the basement was not going to make a difference.Ive studied my really low dollar players from my teams in the previous years - they barely contributed whether i went old or young, they are $3 for a reason.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Surprised Steve Smith CAR and S. Holmes didn't make it onto more rosters.

Gave serious thought to Holmes (and similarly to Roethlisberger) but that's a lot of weeks to miss a guy. The topper for Holmes was that he had the same bye week as Calvin Johnson who I see as a mandatory play.By the way, 636 entries spent less than $250

153 spent less than $249

58 spent less than $248

4 spent less than $241

THIS was the lowest amount spent: $203

THIS one's kinda intriguing as he has 27 guys but somehow left himself with $9 left over. Maybe ran out of time?

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

Very surprised at the number of smaller rosters. Problem with the smaller roster is that you assume all of your studs will pan out. Problem is that history shows that 50% of them will not live up to their value. So now you have to deal with "busts" and bye weeks. This is why these teams got crushed last year.Larger rosters are ALWAYS better in best ball format. Perhaps this year we can finally put this argument to rest.

In a contest like this where it's 1 in 13000, the philosphy may be to go for it and take the chance that they will all pan out.

Exactly> Trust me, nine tenths will need to pan out whatever you do. This year, I took 3QBs and 3 Team D for depth but only 4 RBs, im sure some people say that is insane. Maybe it is, but taking one more RB from the basement was not going to make a difference.Ive studied my really low dollar players from my teams in the previous years - they barely contributed whether i went old or young, they are $3 for a reason.

I remember 2 years ago when Sinorice Moss did nothing for me...except save me with a 2.0 point effort when I made the cut by less than 1 -QG

 

[ConstruxBoy]

WR Mike Thomas and RB Chester Taylor could prove valuable as they aren't strongly owned.

Yeah, I think Thomas was priced too high but I wanted him on my team anyway.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Of course, Drinen's week 1 simulator has me at 12000+ place, which does not bode well

Where's the link for that, and how do you find your team out of 13K?

 

[texasheat]

4 teams have both Ben Tate AND Montario Hardesty.One of those four entries also took Vincent Jackson.

So you're sayin there's a chance........

 

[BassNBrew]

Surprised Steve Smith CAR and S. Holmes didn't make it onto more rosters.

automatic 0 for 5 weeks (couting bye) turned me off on Holmes

I discounted that (maybe too much), but when you see that 636 entries didn't spend the max and all the 18 man rosters, I figured 4 weeks at the beginning of the contest before the byes hit wasn't a killer. Hoping that I'm getting value pricing for the weeks he does play.

 

[paulbertini]

Matt Ryan $16

Matthew Stafford $16

Ronnie Brown $19

Ahmad Bradshaw $18

C.J. Spiller $17

Arian Foster $13

Larry Johnson $7

Brandon Jackson $4

Santana Moss $18

Malcom Floyd $17

Jabar Gaffney $16

Mike Williams $8

Laurent Robinson $7

Brian Hartline $6

Louis Murphy $4

Greg Camarillo $3

Patrick Crayton $3

Mark Clayton $3

Jermichael Finley $21

Anthony Fasano $7

Todd Heap $7

Aaron Hernandez $5

Rob Bironas $3

Matt Bryant $2

Jason Hanson $2

New Orleans Saints $4

Tennessee Titans $4

 

[BassNBrew]

Of course, Drinen's week 1 simulator has me at 12000+ place, which does not bode well

Where's the link for that, and how do you find your team out of 13K?

DD posted it early this morning. Use Control F and search for your team number......using you have a team like mine and then you just scan the first page up top.

 

[Driver]

For those that are interested, these were the survival percentages going into the final 250 last year:

+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| roster_size | number | alive | pct_alive |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| 20 | 5181 | 55 | 0.0106 || 21 | 2032 | 15 | 0.0074 || 22 | 1445 | 19 | 0.0131 || 23 | 1291 | 30 | 0.0232 || 24 | 3328 | 131 | 0.0394 || TOTAL | 13277 | 250 | 0.0188 |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+And IIRC something like 9 of the top 10 prize winners were 24-man rosters. There was little doubt by the end of the year that the strategy of choosing a smaller roster of "studs" was a losing one.

You have to swing for the fences in this which means paying $$$ for good players.

We obviously have very different views about what "swing for the fences" means.It usually means disregard for the "safe bet" and taking on more risk that could pay a higher reward.

Andre Johnson is a safe bet.

Emmanuel Sanders is an eyes-closed, pull-a-muscle-in-your-shoulder swing for the fences.

Going with 18 players is not a safe bet at all. The risk is in having very little depth. Getting Andre Johnson is not a safe bet if the only depth you have behind him are 4 other guys. Emmanual Sanders is nothing more than a SWAG.I actually went with an 24 player team, but I disagree with people who say that the 18 player teams have zero chance. All it takes is to hit on the right bargain guys to carry you through the byes.

I doubt many people are saying that the 18-player teams have zero chance of winning the contest. The above statistics from last year show that the largest teams (24 players) had more than 4 times the odds of making it to the final 250 than the smallest (20 and 21 player) teams - and 3 times the odds compared to the 22-player teams.Some features of the contest are significantly different this year: (1) rosters from 18 up to 30 players are allowed, and (2) the dollar scale for players is compressed with lower values for the best players and substantial reduction of the number of $1 and $2 players.

Does this mean that the larger rosters still have a better chance of winning this year's contest than the smaller rosters? Time will tell I guess. My gut says yes. If you can find "value-players" who are likely to significantly outperform their $ costs, then it's a good strategy to load up with a bunch of value-players and a few studs.

Look at the low-priced WRs with upside:

Mike Williams, TB - $8

Nate Washington, TEN - $8

Bernard Berrian, MIN - $7

Chris Chambers, KC - $7

Laurent Robinson, STL - $7

Josh Morgan, SF - $6

Naanee, SD - $6

Brian Hartline - $6

Louis Murphy, OAK - $4

Deion Branch, SEA - $3

Shipley, CIN - $3

Justin Gage, TEN - $2

For the contest, would you be better off spending $25-30 on a single stud receiver -- or spreading that money out over 5-7 value-priced players? Although some will disagree, I think the answer is obvious.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Use Control F and search for your team number.

Link to Week 1 Projections

 

[kajaet]

I'm surprised more people don't see the logic in wasting 10% of the available budget on Sydney Rice, like I did.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Very surprised at the number of smaller rosters. Problem with the smaller roster is that you assume all of your studs will pan out. Problem is that history shows that 50% of them will not live up to their value. So now you have to deal with "busts" and bye weeks. This is why these teams got crushed last year.Larger rosters are ALWAYS better in best ball format. Perhaps this year we can finally put this argument to rest.

That's why you pick consistent studs over unpredictable ones. Peyton over Romo. ADP over Turner, Andre Johnson over Fitz, etc. There arent any $1 guys this year, so by going with 30 guys on your roster you're overpaying for a ton of guys who should be $1 and won't produce.

Link to the studs that don't have down weeks?

 

[QuizGuy66]

For those that are interested, these were the survival percentages going into the final 250 last year:

+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| roster_size | number | alive | pct_alive |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| 20 | 5181 | 55 | 0.0106 || 21 | 2032 | 15 | 0.0074 || 22 | 1445 | 19 | 0.0131 || 23 | 1291 | 30 | 0.0232 || 24 | 3328 | 131 | 0.0394 || TOTAL | 13277 | 250 | 0.0188 |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+And IIRC something like 9 of the top 10 prize winners were 24-man rosters. There was little doubt by the end of the year that the strategy of choosing a smaller roster of "studs" was a losing one.

You have to swing for the fences in this which means paying $$$ for good players.

We obviously have very different views about what "swing for the fences" means.It usually means disregard for the "safe bet" and taking on more risk that could pay a higher reward.

Andre Johnson is a safe bet.

Emmanuel Sanders is an eyes-closed, pull-a-muscle-in-your-shoulder swing for the fences.

Going with 18 players is not a safe bet at all. The risk is in having very little depth. Getting Andre Johnson is not a safe bet if the only depth you have behind him are 4 other guys. Emmanual Sanders is nothing more than a SWAG.I actually went with an 24 player team, but I disagree with people who say that the 18 player teams have zero chance. All it takes is to hit on the right bargain guys to carry you through the byes.

I doubt many people are saying that the 18-player teams have zero chance of winning the contest. The above statistics from last year show that the largest teams (24 players) had more than 4 times the odds of making it to the final 250 than the smallest (20 and 21 player) teams - and 3 times the odds compared to the 22-player teams.Some features of the contest are significantly different this year: (1) rosters from 18 up to 30 players are allowed, and (2) the dollar scale for players is compressed with lower values for the best players and substantial reduction of the number of $1 and $2 players.

Does this mean that the larger rosters still have a better chance of winning this year's contest than the smaller rosters? Time will tell I guess. My gut says yes. If you can find "value-players" who are likely to significantly outperform their $ costs, then it's a good strategy to load up with a bunch of value-players and a few studs.

Look at the low-priced WRs with upside:

Mike Williams, TB - $8

Nate Washington, TEN - $8

Bernard Berrian, MIN - $7

Chris Chambers, KC - $7

Laurent Robinson, STL - $7

Josh Morgan, SF - $6

Naanee, SD - $6

Brian Hartline - $6

Louis Murphy, OAK - $4

Deion Branch, SEA - $3

Shipley, CIN - $3

Justin Gage, TEN - $2

For the contest, would you be better off spending $25-30 on a single stud receiver -- or spreading that money out over 5-7 value-priced players? Although some will disagree, I think the answer is obvious.

Actually did both. Have five of the above guys for $29 and spent $27 on Cal Johnson. The question is where's the balance.-QG

 

[inca911]

Use Control F and search for your team number.

Link to Week 1 Projections

Excellent link! (Projected at #2649 here)

 

[Balance]

Use Control F and search for your team number.

Link to Week 1 Projections

Excellent link! (Projected at #2649 here)

Projected #52 ..

 

[Balance]

For those that are interested, these were the survival percentages going into the final 250 last year:

+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| roster_size | number | alive | pct_alive |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| 20 | 5181 | 55 | 0.0106 || 21 | 2032 | 15 | 0.0074 || 22 | 1445 | 19 | 0.0131 || 23 | 1291 | 30 | 0.0232 || 24 | 3328 | 131 | 0.0394 || TOTAL | 13277 | 250 | 0.0188 |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+And IIRC something like 9 of the top 10 prize winners were 24-man rosters. There was little doubt by the end of the year that the strategy of choosing a smaller roster of "studs" was a losing one.

You have to swing for the fences in this which means paying $$$ for good players.

We obviously have very different views about what "swing for the fences" means.It usually means disregard for the "safe bet" and taking on more risk that could pay a higher reward.

Andre Johnson is a safe bet.

Emmanuel Sanders is an eyes-closed, pull-a-muscle-in-your-shoulder swing for the fences.

Going with 18 players is not a safe bet at all. The risk is in having very little depth. Getting Andre Johnson is not a safe bet if the only depth you have behind him are 4 other guys. Emmanual Sanders is nothing more than a SWAG.I actually went with an 24 player team, but I disagree with people who say that the 18 player teams have zero chance. All it takes is to hit on the right bargain guys to carry you through the byes.

I doubt many people are saying that the 18-player teams have zero chance of winning the contest. The above statistics from last year show that the largest teams (24 players) had more than 4 times the odds of making it to the final 250 than the smallest (20 and 21 player) teams - and 3 times the odds compared to the 22-player teams.Some features of the contest are significantly different this year: (1) rosters from 18 up to 30 players are allowed, and (2) the dollar scale for players is compressed with lower values for the best players and substantial reduction of the number of $1 and $2 players.

Does this mean that the larger rosters still have a better chance of winning this year's contest than the smaller rosters? Time will tell I guess. My gut says yes. If you can find "value-players" who are likely to significantly outperform their $ costs, then it's a good strategy to load up with a bunch of value-players and a few studs.

Look at the low-priced WRs with upside:

Mike Williams, TB - $8

Nate Washington, TEN - $8

Bernard Berrian, MIN - $7

Chris Chambers, KC - $7

Laurent Robinson, STL - $7

Josh Morgan, SF - $6

Naanee, SD - $6

Brian Hartline - $6

Louis Murphy, OAK - $4

Deion Branch, SEA - $3

Shipley, CIN - $3

Justin Gage, TEN - $2

For the contest, would you be better off spending $25-30 on a single stud receiver -- or spreading that money out over 5-7 value-priced players? Although some will disagree, I think the answer is obvious.

For the contest overall you need both. In a given week - who knows?

 

[Psychopav]

THIS one's kinda intriguing as he has 27 guys but somehow left himself with $9 left over. Maybe ran out of time?

-QG

Wow - his cheapest guy is $4 too...

 

[Psychopav]

Of course, Drinen's week 1 simulator has me at 12000+ place, which does not bode well

Where's the link for that, and how do you find your team out of 13K?

It was a couple pages back. Here: http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contes...eweekonly-1.phpThen just search for your team #.

And for your querying fun: http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/c...uerier_form.php

 

[QuizGuy66]

13 entries have both Zach Millers, but only 7 entries have both Steve Smiths

Btw, 8 people have both Anthony Gonzalez and Tony Gonzalez

Nobody has more than one of these pairs.

-QG

 

[BassNBrew]

Of course, Drinen's week 1 simulator has me at 12000+ place, which does not bode well

Where's the link for that, and how do you find your team out of 13K?

It was a couple pages back. Here: http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contes...eweekonly-1.phpThen just search for your team #.

And for your querying fun: http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/c...uerier_form.php

It would be great if this info could get added to the first page that way when the question comes up a couple of times everyday we could just say see the first post.

 

[Bankerguy]

Aaron Rodgers $29

Ben Roethlisberger $14

Adrian Peterson $38

Ahmad Bradshaw $18

C.J. Spiller $17

Arian Foster $13

Terrell Owens $19

Pierre Garcon $12

Roy Williams $7

Bernard Berrian $7

Jason Avant $4

Davone Bess $4

Louis Murphy $4

Devery Henderson $4

Ted Ginn $3

Jermichael Finley $21

Vernon Davis $19

Aaron Hernandez $5

Matt Bryant $2

Rian Lindell $2

Jason Hanson $2

Seattle Seahawks $3

Jacksonville Jaguars $3

 

[eaglezzz]

My team is ranked #100 going into week 1 with a 99.6% chance of advancing. Those are my kind of odds.

 

[comfortably numb]

Use Control F and search for your team number.

Link to Week 1 Projections

Excellent link! (Projected at #2649 here)

Projected #52 ..

The 4 guys with 100% chance have.....Finley

 

[QuizGuy66]

Use Control F and search for your team number.

Link to Week 1 Projections

Excellent link! (Projected at #2649 here)

Projected #52 ..

The 4 guys with 100% chance have.....Finley

Again, be careful guys - the Turk is watching all this is taking down names to zap!-QG

 

[BassNBrew]

Again, be careful guys - the Turk is watching all this is taking down names to zap!-QG

Not sure if you're aware of this, but the Turk now does Finley's bidding.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Those odds don't mean much.

Scroll all the way down to the bottom.

Team # 13,046 has a 50% chance of making it Week 1.

That's just a flip of a coin.

And that entry is only 16 spots away from being at the very bottom.

 

[TheGrimReaper]

Im done changing.

Brady .............24...........1302/13061 = 9.96%

Schaub............23...........1870/13061 = 14.32% ..........combined ownership % = 58/13061 = .44%

Wanted consistent power production and paid for it. No late bye weeks is a plus.

R. Bush............22.............689/13061 = 5.28%

Bradshaw.........18...........2937/13061 = 22.49% >> was expecting this to be higher

Spiller..............17...........3197/13061 = 24.48%

Foster..............13...........8276/13061 = 63.36% >>cant believe this is'nt north of 90%

B. Scott.............6...........1031/13061 = 7.89%

Reggie was my big splurge. Did it for couple of reasons. 1. I didnt expect as much redundancy w/this pick 2. I think he has solid upside, even at this price.

I expected a larger percentage would have Bradshaw (prob 60%). Spiller's bye week (6) worked well, and his price was lower than F Jackson, and I expect he will get a bit more touches. Foster is a must have at this price. I expected 95+ % ownership. Call it "Keeping up w/the Joneses." Scott is my one flyer. Uber talent. Hope he gets a couple of starts. No handcuffs here. It's too cost prohibitive IMO.

J. Knox...............18.......1783/13061 = 13.65%

J. Gaffney...........16.......1597/13061 = 12.23%

J. Jones(HOU)......10.......1682/13061 = 12.88%

M. Williams(TAM)...8.......3619/13061 = 27.71% >>again, cant believe that he wasnt 80% + owned

J. Jones(GNB).......7..........793/13061 = 6.07%

D. McCluster.........7........1343/13061 = 10.28%

L. Naanee.............7........1015/13061 = 7.77%

Playing low ball potpourri here. Really would have liked an 8th receiver. I like this motley bunch, but am not sold on them either. I could never find a way to spend for one of the big guns. Every iteration I tried w/ a big gun (24+ cost) left me w/ too much exposure in other area's. If any area is going to be my downfall in the contest, this will be it.

J. Finley...............21........3419/13061 = 26.18%

C. Cooley............13........1077/13061 = 8.25%

At 1.5 ppr, it's a given IMO, that u need to spend to acquire quality here. God I wish Z. Miller and Finley didnt share the same bye week I went thru iterations using Cooley, Z. Miller, and Daniels. Ultimately, was just spending too much here and had to pare down. Also toyed w/ a TE handcuff of Gronkowski and Hernandez to go along with Finley, but was too worried they would cancel each other out more often than not. In the end, have drank way too much Finley koolaid I had to have him on the roster.

N. Folk................4

R. Bironas...........3

S. Janikowski.......2

M. Bryant............2

4 PK's give u solid chance of quality score every week. No duplicate bye's. And it spreads out the exposure to late season inclement weather risk.

San Francisco......5

Oakland..............4

Even though Im a Niner fan and bay area local. I truly do believe they will have a top 3 D output this year. The soft sched is a huge assist. And even though I hate the Raiders (I take that back, I hate Al Davis), I do believe they are gonna suprise some folks this year.

So, there is my 22, for better or worse.

Still wish I had found way to add 8th n 9th receiver. Could have paired down to Z. Miller n Cooley and still had the NE TE's(both), If I just sacrificed a bit more.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

For those that are interested, these were the survival percentages going into the final 250 last year:

+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| roster_size | number | alive | pct_alive |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+| 20 | 5181 | 55 | 0.0106 || 21 | 2032 | 15 | 0.0074 || 22 | 1445 | 19 | 0.0131 || 23 | 1291 | 30 | 0.0232 || 24 | 3328 | 131 | 0.0394 || TOTAL | 13277 | 250 | 0.0188 |+-------------+--------+-------+-----------+And IIRC something like 9 of the top 10 prize winners were 24-man rosters. There was little doubt by the end of the year that the strategy of choosing a smaller roster of "studs" was a losing one.

You have to swing for the fences in this which means paying $$$ for good players.

We obviously have very different views about what "swing for the fences" means.It usually means disregard for the "safe bet" and taking on more risk that could pay a higher reward.

Andre Johnson is a safe bet.

Emmanuel Sanders is an eyes-closed, pull-a-muscle-in-your-shoulder swing for the fences.

Going with 18 players is not a safe bet at all. The risk is in having very little depth. Getting Andre Johnson is not a safe bet if the only depth you have behind him are 4 other guys. Emmanual Sanders is nothing more than a SWAG.I actually went with an 24 player team, but I disagree with people who say that the 18 player teams have zero chance. All it takes is to hit on the right bargain guys to carry you through the byes.

I doubt many people are saying that the 18-player teams have zero chance of winning the contest. The above statistics from last year show that the largest teams (24 players) had more than 4 times the odds of making it to the final 250 than the smallest (20 and 21 player) teams - and 3 times the odds compared to the 22-player teams.Some features of the contest are significantly different this year: (1) rosters from 18 up to 30 players are allowed, and (2) the dollar scale for players is compressed with lower values for the best players and substantial reduction of the number of $1 and $2 players.

Does this mean that the larger rosters still have a better chance of winning this year's contest than the smaller rosters? Time will tell I guess. My gut says yes. If you can find "value-players" who are likely to significantly outperform their $ costs, then it's a good strategy to load up with a bunch of value-players and a few studs.

Look at the low-priced WRs with upside:

Mike Williams, TB - $8

Nate Washington, TEN - $8

Bernard Berrian, MIN - $7

Chris Chambers, KC - $7

Laurent Robinson, STL - $7

Josh Morgan, SF - $6

Naanee, SD - $6

Brian Hartline - $6

Louis Murphy, OAK - $4

Deion Branch, SEA - $3

Shipley, CIN - $3

Justin Gage, TEN - $2

For the contest, would you be better off spending $25-30 on a single stud receiver -- or spreading that money out over 5-7 value-priced players? Although some will disagree, I think the answer is obvious.

I had 22 or 23 players last year and lasted pretty late, but this year is very different, with much cheaper studs and much more expensive lower-end players for the value. The shorter rosters last year probably didn't have many of the great $1-4 players that were common. This year, there are very few such bargains, so it's apples and oranges.This year, I have only 18 players, but I have 4 of the above value WR's to go along with Andre Johnson and Welker. I also have Rodgers, Chris Johnson, Ray Rice, and Finley, so went with the stud theory combined with value. With less depth, I may be more susceptible during byes than a 26-player team, but if I can survive the bye weeks and the top guys stay healthy, I think I'll have a better chance of winning than most 26-player teams (projected #29 in week 1). Hopefully the rest of the studs and value players will make up for the studs on bye.

To win, you need to get lucky either by having your guys stay healthy, hitting on some lower-priced guys who turn out to perform like studs, or probably both. Just because last year higher-player teams had a higher chance of lasting to the final 250 doesn't mean this year's the same and those with 18-player rosters are clueless. I think the numbers will look different this year because of the changes, but many 18-player teams will still get knocked out during the bye weeks and because of injury. I think there's a good chance the winner, or many of the top 100, will have shorter rosters this year.

 

[jdoggydogg]

The most overpriced RB: Beanie Wells at $28. Only 87 people paid for him.

Crazy when you consider Shonn Green was only $27.

 

[s&m]

My team seems to come up very unique, as only one team has my higest cost players on it.

Romo

D Anderson

A Peterson

M Barber

Forsett

A Foster

T Jones

B Marshall

S Smith car

S Moss

M Williams

L Murphy

Carmillo

Z Miller oak

Scheffler

Moeki

Bironas

Jankowski

SF 49ers

TB bucs

Det lions

Not sure how it will all pan out. I have made the last 250 twice over the last 4 years, but last year I went out early with injuries. This team could be a winner if injuries don't hit. The teams that made the final 250 in the past had plenty of depth but no unique players or true studs. We will see if this approach of uniqueness and studs can overcome the thinner rosters. Good luck to all, and thanks to FBG for providing this nice diversion for our pleasure.