What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)

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.
Actually, it was put to rest last year. No need to revisit. Smaller roster = wrong in this contest.
 
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.
Actually, it was put to rest last year. No need to revisit. Smaller roster = wrong in this contest.
Smaller roster = wrong, but is largest possible roster = spread too thin? Or is there a middle ground/sweet spot roster size like 24-26? I'll be interested to see the answer play out over the year.
 
I really don't think there is any one formula that has to be used in order to succeed. I've been using a similar strategy for years. I think it was 3 years ago that I made it to the finals and finished 7th. The next year I made it pretty deep. Last year I got eliminated fairly early. You just have to hit 2 or 3 players that perform better than expected and avoid injuries.

 
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.
Actually, it was put to rest last year. No need to revisit. Smaller roster = wrong in this contest.
Last year was a different contest.
 
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.
Actually, it was put to rest last year. No need to revisit. Smaller roster = wrong in this contest.
Smaller roster = wrong, but is largest possible roster = spread too thin? Or is there a middle ground/sweet spot roster size like 24-26? I'll be interested to see the answer play out over the year.
Me too. Will be really interesting. I do think there's a sweet spot somewhere between like 25 and 28, but that's just a guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
577 people have Spiller, Bradshaw and Foster. Anyway to tell if there's a more rostered combo?
I am one of the 577 that have all 3 of those guys as my top RB's. I feel good about it too I loaded up on WR's and TE's and took some swing for the fences type of RB's.
 
It seems to me that there should be minimal correlation to the amount of players on any roster but rather high and low priced vs all mid priced.

If you have $10-15 left, you decide to buy Mike Williams at $15 (not his price I know) instead of 3 $5 players, Mike better be worth it and you better not need the depth.

I would think that sacrificing a Gaffney for 3 cheaper bench players would be a no brainer.

It is narrowed down to 1 player vs more possible depth (2-5 players). 2 teams can each have the same first 25 players and one guy blows his budget on 1 last player while the other uses all 5 slots.

 
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.
Actually, it was put to rest last year. No need to revisit. Smaller roster = wrong in this contest.
Smaller roster = wrong, but is largest possible roster = spread too thin? Or is there a middle ground/sweet spot roster size like 24-26? I'll be interested to see the answer play out over the year.
Me too. Will be really interesting. I do think there's a sweet spot somewhere between like 25 and 28, but that's just a guess.
there is no sweet spot, perfect roster size or ideal number. it is all luck.having said that, a smaller roster typically won't win this thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tell me where I went wrong. TIA

QB - Matthew Stafford - DET/7 - $16

QB - Ben Roethlisberger - PIT/5 - $14

QB - Kyle Orton - DEN/9 - $12

QB - Derek Anderson - ARI/6 - $6

RB - Matt Forte - CHI/8 - $20

RB - Ahmad Bradshaw - NYG/8 - $18

RB - C.J. Spiller - BUF/6 - $17

RB - Arian Foster - HOU/7 - $13

RB - Leon Washington - SEA/5 - $8

WR - Michael Crabtree - SF/9 - $22

WR - Malcom Floyd - SD/10 - $17

WR - Pierre Garcon - IND/7 - $12

WR - Mohamed Massaquoi - CLE/8 - $11

WR - Mike Williams - TB/4 - $8

WR - Louis Murphy - OAK/10 - $4

WR - Greg Camarillo - MIN/4 - $3

TE - Kellen Winslow - TB/4 - $14

TE - Chris Cooley - WAS/9 - $13

TE - Tony Scheffler - DET/7 - $7

PK - Sebastian Janikowski - OAK/10 - $2

PK - Matt Bryant - ATL/8 - $2

PK - Jason Hanson - DET/7 - $2

TD - New Orleans Saints - NO/10 - $4

TD - Seattle Seahawks - SEA/5 - $3

TD - Detroit Lions - DET/7 - $2
yw
 
Tell me where I went wrong. TIA

QB - Matthew Stafford - DET/7 - $16

QB - Ben Roethlisberger - PIT/5 - $14

QB - Kyle Orton - DEN/9 - $12

QB - Derek Anderson - ARI/6 - $6

RB - Matt Forte - CHI/8 - $20

RB - Ahmad Bradshaw - NYG/8 - $18

RB - C.J. Spiller - BUF/6 - $17

RB - Arian Foster - HOU/7 - $13

RB - Leon Washington - SEA/5 - $8

WR - Michael Crabtree - SF/9 - $22

WR - Malcom Floyd - SD/10 - $17

WR - Pierre Garcon - IND/7 - $12

WR - Mohamed Massaquoi - CLE/8 - $11

WR - Mike Williams - TB/4 - $8

WR - Louis Murphy - OAK/10 - $4

WR - Greg Camarillo - MIN/4 - $3

TE - Kellen Winslow - TB/4 - $14

TE - Chris Cooley - WAS/9 - $13

TE - Tony Scheffler - DET/7 - $7

PK - Sebastian Janikowski - OAK/10 - $2

PK - Matt Bryant - ATL/8 - $2

PK - Jason Hanson - DET/7 - $2

TD - New Orleans Saints - NO/10 - $4

TD - Seattle Seahawks - SEA/5 - $3

TD - Detroit Lions - DET/7 - $2
yw
orton, leon washington, camarillo and murphy are fantastic picks.
 
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.
Actually, it was put to rest last year. No need to revisit. Smaller roster = wrong in this contest.
Smaller roster = wrong, but is largest possible roster = spread too thin? Or is there a middle ground/sweet spot roster size like 24-26? I'll be interested to see the answer play out over the year.
Me too. Will be really interesting. I do think there's a sweet spot somewhere between like 25 and 28, but that's just a guess.
there is no sweet spot, perfect roster size or ideal number. it is all luck.having said that, a smaller roster typically won't win this thing.
Bingo
 
there is no sweet spot, perfect roster size or ideal number. it is all luck.having said that, a smaller roster typically won't win this thing.
It's clearly not all luck. I'm willing to bet that 7-Defense-and-12-Kicker Guy will not win, no matter how lucky he gets. I'm also willing to bet that teams with 22-24 players will survive at a greater rate, and have better proportional representation in the top 10, than teams with 18 players. Winning it all will require some luck, but it also will require finding lineup parameters which are reasonably close to optimal.
 
The first couple of years I played in this contest, I spent a lot of money for a top three guy at many positions. This burned me. These guys got injured or underperformed. I wanted several big money guys in this year's contest (Gates, Austin, Brees, etc.). But I cannot justify spending that kind of money in a best ball format.

Philip Rivers $19

Vince Young $14

Derek Anderson $6

Love Rivers this year. Yes, there's no Vincent Jackson. But Rivers is still a top tier QB playing on a potent offense with a rookie RB. Rivers for $19 is insane value to me. I toyed with pairing Rivers with someone like Schaub or Romo, but couldn't afford it. EBF mentioned that Anderson isn't worth a $6 gamble. But part of winning this contest is taking some risks. I think Anderson will certainly outscore some of the heavyweights this year. It won't happen every week, but Anderson leads an explosive offense and he's certainly good for three or four 300 yard, three TD games this year.

Shonn Greene $27

C.J. Spiller $17

Clinton Portis $16

Arian Foster $13

Leon Washington $8

Kevin Faulk $7

Since I'm not willing to sink $32+ into any position, I thought Greene represented great value. He's $1 less than Wells, and he's the unquestioned starter on a team that ran the ball more than 600 times last year. Spiller was one guy I added late. I was going to spend that money on Michael Bush. But I figure I needed to take a few risks. Spiller is an electric player. I know Foster is on more than 60% of teams, but passing up on that value would have been insane. I think Washington is one of the better bargains in this contest. There weren't many low end bargains at RB, but Faulk's always a good player at a low price.

Santana Moss $18

Pierre Garcon $12

Nate Burleson $11

Jacoby Jones $10

Legedu Naanee $7

Louis Murphy $4

Deion Branch $3

Greg Camarillo $3

Once I decided I wanted to spread out my WR money, it was easy to drop all the way down to Moss at $18. I don't think Moss will perform like a stud every week, but this group will score me a lot of points this year. Garcon is a steal at $12. Burleson will receive a ton of targets opposite Johnson. Not a spectacular group, but I am pleased with my selections.

Zach Miller $15

Visanthe Shiancoe $12

Ben Watson $5

Would have loved Finley or Gates. But I think the combo of Miller and Shiancoe will outperform most top TEs most weeks. Watson is a steal at $5. Delhomme needs to throw the ball to someone in Cleveland, and I think Watson is this year's Celeck.

Jeff Reed $3

Rob Bironas $3

Sebastian Janikowski $2

Matt Bryant $2

Not much to say except that K are so inconsistent, I like having four of them to average out the best score.

San Francisco 49ers $5

New York Giants $5

Seattle Seahawks $3

Didn't want to spend $13 at defense, but there are a lot of crappy defenses in the $2 to $3 range.

 
Never done this contest before; any chance?

Tom Brady $24 0.00

Philip Rivers $19 0.00

Frank Gore $34 0.00

Matt Forte $20 0.00

Ronnie Brown $19 0.00

Arian Foster $13 0.00

Thomas Jones $7 0.00

Javon Ringer $5 0.00

Rashad Jennings $3 0.00

Malcom Floyd $17 0.00

Mohamed Massaquoi $11 0.00

Mike Williams $8 0.00

James Jones $7 0.00

Legedu Naanee $7 0.00

Davone Bess $4 0.00

Louis Murphy $4 0.00

Devery Henderson $4 0.00

Jordan Shipley $3 0.00

Chris Cooley $13 0.00

Anthony Fasano $7 0.00

Aaron Hernandez $5 0.00

Rob Gronkowski $3 0.00

Ryan Succop $2 0.00

Sebastian Janikowski $2 0.00

San Francisco 49ers $5 0.00

New England Patriots $4 0.00

 
Tom Brady $24

Brett Favre $18

Surprised there aren't more rosters with Favre. I like both Brady and Favre's early bye weeks and one ofthese can blow up any week. Only 20 teams have both Favre and Brady.

DeAngelo Williams $28

Marion Barber $18

Ahmad Bradshaw $18

Arian Foster $13

I expected Foster and Bradshaw to be on most teams. I felt Williams was good value. Barber has an early bye and hopefully can set me apart from the rest. I am the only team with Favre/Brady/Barber.

Dez Bryant $13

Pierre Garcon $12

Mike Thomas $11

Jacoby Jones $10

Mike Williams $8

James Jones $7

Dexter McCluster $7

Julian Edelman $5

Louis Murphy $4

Greg Camarillo $3

Took the shotgun approach here. I see my flex position coming from either the RB or TE position most weeks so hopefully I can get 3 good scores from these 10 WRs. I think all of them have the potential to blow up any given week.

Jason Witten $19

Owen Daniels $13

Aaron Hernandez $5

Felt Witten was good value here (I also liked V. Davis but Witten has an earlier bye). Hoping Daniels comes back healthy and picks up where he left off.

Ryan Succop $2

Phil Dawson $2

Graham Gano $2

Matt Bryant $2

Cleveland Browns $3

Kansas City Chiefs $3

Wanted to spend the minimum on Ks and DEFs as they are the least predictable. My two defenses both have good returners so hoping on some TDs from them. Went with 4 Ks as the scoring for Ks seems to be rewarded moreso than a 3rd DEF.

25 players total

 
You need at least 3 kickers. If you roll with two you got to worry about injuries and bye weeks. Kickers are so inconsistent. (I picked 4)

It is less important to pick multiple defenses. You just need to pick the right ones. Injuries are not really a factor. (I went with 2 mid ranged Def instead of multiple lower dollar amount defenses)

 
If you do roll with 2 defenses, check to see who they are playing the week of the other team's bye. If both are good match ups, then I think it will work.

 
If you do roll with 2 defenses, check to see who they are playing the week of the other team's bye. If both are good match ups, then I think it will work.
it's certainly possible, but with the score not mattering, I think it matters a little less who your D is playing. Unless you're playing Arizona, I get the feeling Anderson will help a lot of defenses score. But then, I made the error of dumping the 49ers and Seahawks that I had at one point.
 
You need at least 3 kickers. If you roll with two you got to worry about injuries and bye weeks. Kickers are so inconsistent. (I picked 4)It is less important to pick multiple defenses. You just need to pick the right ones. Injuries are not really a factor. (I went with 2 mid ranged Def instead of multiple lower dollar amount defenses)
Injuries aren't as much of an issue but luck is. A stud corner, rush OLB or DE getting injured could still damage your team big time. The chances of your D doing well in any week increases significantly if you have 3 or 4 vs. 2.
 
You need at least 3 kickers. If you roll with two you got to worry about injuries and bye weeks. Kickers are so inconsistent. (I picked 4)

It is less important to pick multiple defenses. You just need to pick the right ones. Injuries are not really a factor. (I went with 2 mid ranged Def instead of multiple lower dollar amount defenses)
I made it to the finals with 2 kickers, so no, you don't need 3 kickers.
 
QUESTION: Someone mentioned a couple teams being in the top 150...is there a results summary of simulations doug ran? stupid me cant find the link if so...

 
Question: After the season is complete, is it mathematically possible to pick a roster that beats all other combinations, or is this more like advanced rock/scissors/paper? I assume it's the latter.

 
eaglezzz said:
bonesman said:
577 people have Spiller, Bradshaw and Foster. Anyway to tell if there's a more rostered combo?
I am one of the 577 that have all 3 of those guys as my top RB's. I feel good about it too I loaded up on WR's and TE's and took some swing for the fences type of RB's.
I have those three and threw in McFadden for good measure. They aren't all going to do well every week but all I need is two of them to do well each week.
 
You need at least 3 kickers. If you roll with two you got to worry about injuries and bye weeks. Kickers are so inconsistent. (I picked 4)

It is less important to pick multiple defenses. You just need to pick the right ones. Injuries are not really a factor. (I went with 2 mid ranged Def instead of multiple lower dollar amount defenses)
Interesting. If you are right, then 8223 entries are doomed with a maximum of only 2 kickers.
 
I just fueled Derek Anderson on his way to comeback of the century award. Thought I picked him for $6 just to notice today I clicked Leftwich with my stupid ness. Anderson will now remove his head from his ### and play great to torment me all year.

Freaking doubt many other squads are packing 250lbs of leftwich.

 
Four kicker guy in the house.

Matthew Stafford $16 0.00 Vince Young $14 0.00 Derek Anderson $6 0.00 Ray Rice $37 0.00 Clinton Portis $16 0.00 Arian Foster $13 0.00 Willis McGahee $8 0.00 Mike Tolbert $1 0.00 Michael Crabtree $22 0.00 Johnny Knox $18 0.00 Pierre Garcon $12 0.00 Mike Williams $8 0.00 Roy Williams $7 0.00 James Jones $7 0.00 Bernard Berrian $7 0.00 Louis Murphy $4 0.00 Zach Miller $15 0.00 Dustin Keller $9 0.00 Todd Heap $7 0.00 Matt Prater $4 0.00 Dan Carpenter $3 0.00 Sebastian Janikowski $2 0.00 Rian Lindell $2 0.00 San Diego Chargers $5 0.00 Tennessee Titans $4 0.00 Seattle Seahawks $3 0.00 ------------------------------------
Pretty much the same strategy as past years, except that I went out of my way to budget for extra kickers and defenses. Tried to be "studly enough" at RB so that I could lean on WRs. I really like the WRs on my team. QB strategy definitely risky, but it's my poison of choice for 2010 contest.

 
Question: After the season is complete, is it mathematically possible to pick a roster that beats all other combinations, or is this more like advanced rock/scissors/paper? I assume it's the latter.
Sure, it's possible. You just need to find a combination that maximizes scoring in weeks 14-16 and would have survived weeks 1-13. I've never checked but I'm guessing the winner each year doesn't actually have the optimal rooster.
 
Question: After the season is complete, is it mathematically possible to pick a roster that beats all other combinations, or is this more like advanced rock/scissors/paper? I assume it's the latter.
Sure, it's possible. You just need to find a combination that maximizes scoring in weeks 14-16 and would have survived weeks 1-13. I've never checked but I'm guessing the winner each year doesn't actually have the optimal rooster.
This year any roster with Jermichael Finley on it is the optimal roster.
 
Here it is folks. Check it now...remember it later.

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

Tom Brady $24

Joe Flacco $17

Ronnie Brown $19

Ahmad Bradshaw $18

Arian Foster $13

LaDainian Tomlinson $12

Thomas Jones $7

Mike Tolbert $1

Miles Austin $27

Wes Welker $21

Dez Bryant $13

Mike Williams $8

Bernard Berrian $7

Louis Murphy $4

Deion Branch $3

Dwayne Jarrett $3

Mark Clayton $3

Johnnie Lee Higgins $1

Zach Miller $15

Chris Cooley $13

Aaron Hernandez $5

David Buehler $4

Dan Carpenter $3

San Francisco 49ers $5

Tennessee Titans $4

 
I just fueled Derek Anderson on his way to comeback of the century award. Thought I picked him for $6 just to notice today I clicked Leftwich with my stupid ness. Anderson will now remove his head from his ### and play great to torment me all year.

Freaking doubt many other squads are packing 250lbs of leftwich.
Misery loves company. There are 22 of you moving with the Lefty.Edited to add that 3571 thought your idea to include Derek Anderson was a good idea.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its all about diversification for me. No true studs but littered with players who could/should have stud-like performances throughout the year.

No Finley but his season has officially been jinxed by the insane hype machine...enter: Donald Lee

Brett Favre $18 0.00

Vince Young $14 0.00

Derek Anderson $6 0.00

Ryan Mathews $29 0.00

Cedric Benson $24 0.00

Arian Foster $13 0.00

Willis McGahee $8 0.00

Thomas Jones $7 0.00

Kevin Faulk $7 0.00

Javon Ringer $5 0.00

Tashard Choice $4 0.00

Johnny Knox $18 0.00

Eddie Royal $15 0.00

Pierre Garcon $12 0.00

Mike Williams $8 0.00

James Jones $7 0.00

Bernard Berrian $7 0.00

Brian Hartline $6 0.00

Owen Daniels $13 0.00

Aaron Hernandez $5 0.00

Donald Lee $2 0.00

Ryan Succop $2 0.00

Sebastian Janikowski $2 0.00

Matt Bryant $2 0.00

Jason Hanson $2 0.00

Minnesota Vikings $7 0.00

New Orleans Saints $4 0.00

Tampa Bay Buccaneers $3 0.00

 
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.
:wall: 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.
Man, good luck in week 10 with both Rodgers and Finley out - and the competition getting fierce at that point.Two WRs frequently mentioned are Calvin Johnson and Wes Welker. According to the latest projections (with ppr), they are projected at 275.1 points and 202.6 points for a total of 477.7 points. They cost a total of $48.

For a total of $48, you could get a total of 1,302 points from the following:

Mike Williams, TB - $8 [194.8 pts]

Nate Washington, TEN - $8 [147.3 pts]

Bernard Berrian, MIN - $7 [162.9 pts]

Laurent Robinson, STL - $7 [165.4 pts]

Brian Hartline - $6 [137.5 pts]

Louis Murphy, OAK - $4 [163.3 pts]

Deion Branch, SEA - $3 [121.4 pts]

Jordan Shipley, CIN - $3 [101.3 pts]

Justin Gage, TEN - $2 [ 108.4 pts]

Plus you get (1) a substantial amount of diversification, (2) insurance against injuries, (3) better coverage of the flex position, and (4) reduction of bye week problems. Unless the projections are flawed, it's a no-brainer. It's harder the find outright value-priced players at QB (except for Anderson) and at RB (except for Foster and maybe Leon Washington or Thomas Jones or Fred Taylor), but there are a lot of value-priced TEs. My conclusion is that the most effective strategy is to use all 30 roster slots and pack your lineup with value-priced players along with some selected studs.

 
One more random thought.

I've got a first-class ticket on the Jahvid Best bandwagon, but could not pick him because he had same week 7 bye as Foster (and Garcon too). 1013 rosters have both Best and Foster. Danger ahead.

 
Two WRs frequently mentioned are Calvin Johnson and Wes Welker. According to the latest projections (with ppr), they are projected at 275.1 points and 202.6 points for a total of 477.7 points. They cost a total of $48.For a total of $48, you could get a total of 1,302 points from the following:Mike Williams, TB - $8 [194.8 pts]Nate Washington, TEN - $8 [147.3 pts]Bernard Berrian, MIN - $7 [162.9 pts]Laurent Robinson, STL - $7 [165.4 pts]Brian Hartline - $6 [137.5 pts]Louis Murphy, OAK - $4 [163.3 pts]Deion Branch, SEA - $3 [121.4 pts]Jordan Shipley, CIN - $3 [101.3 pts]Justin Gage, TEN - $2 [ 108.4 pts]Plus you get (1) a substantial amount of diversification, (2) insurance against injuries, (3) better coverage of the flex position, and (4) reduction of bye week problems. Unless the projections are flawed, it's a no-brainer.
Except that you only earn points from your top 3, maybe 4 receivers each week. So having more WR doesn't necessarily get you more points.
 
ratbast said:
It seems to me that there should be minimal correlation to the amount of players on any roster but rather high and low priced vs all mid priced.If you have $10-15 left, you decide to buy Mike Williams at $15 (not his price I know) instead of 3 $5 players, Mike better be worth it and you better not need the depth.I would think that sacrificing a Gaffney for 3 cheaper bench players would be a no brainer.It is narrowed down to 1 player vs more possible depth (2-5 players). 2 teams can each have the same first 25 players and one guy blows his budget on 1 last player while the other uses all 5 slots.
any thoughts on this idea? I spent some time trying to get the thought process out of my head...lol
 
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.
:thumbup: 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.
Man, good luck in week 10 with both Rodgers and Finley out - and the competition getting fierce at that point.Two WRs frequently mentioned are Calvin Johnson and Wes Welker. According to the latest projections (with ppr), they are projected at 275.1 points and 202.6 points for a total of 477.7 points. They cost a total of $48.

For a total of $48, you could get a total of 1,302 points from the following:

Mike Williams, TB - $8 [194.8 pts]

Nate Washington, TEN - $8 [147.3 pts]

Bernard Berrian, MIN - $7 [162.9 pts]

Laurent Robinson, STL - $7 [165.4 pts]

Brian Hartline - $6 [137.5 pts]

Louis Murphy, OAK - $4 [163.3 pts]

Deion Branch, SEA - $3 [121.4 pts]

Jordan Shipley, CIN - $3 [101.3 pts]

Justin Gage, TEN - $2 [ 108.4 pts]

Plus you get (1) a substantial amount of diversification, (2) insurance against injuries, (3) better coverage of the flex position, and (4) reduction of bye week problems. Unless the projections are flawed, it's a no-brainer. It's harder the find outright value-priced players at QB (except for Anderson) and at RB (except for Foster and maybe Leon Washington or Thomas Jones or Fred Taylor), but there are a lot of value-priced TEs. My conclusion is that the most effective strategy is to use all 30 roster slots and pack your lineup with value-priced players along with some selected studs.
Reminds what I did a couple years ago when I threw together an Access Database query that calculated a cost per point range based on projections. I ended up trying to stack my entry with as many players in that range as possible. I forget what the range was, but I made it to week 11. I did not play last year. Glad to be back this year. Gotta admit, I get a HUGE amount of enjoyment out of this contest. It is one of the key reasons I subscribe. :thumbup:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top