Subscriber Contest (2 Viewers)

[SuperJohn96]

The only thing I would like added is the listing of the bye weeks right on the submission form. It would make it much easier to see bye week conflicts.

This might help...

 

[Donsmith753]

The only thing I would like added is the listing of the bye weeks right on the submission form. It would make it much easier to see bye week conflicts.

This might help...

"Thanks"He says after pairing Romo with Big Ben and having no QB in Week 4.

 

[Modog814]

So far have 21 players: 2 QB, 4 RB, 7 WR, 2 TE, 3K, 3 Def.

Salary Breakdown is 14.8% QB, 32% RB, 34.8% WR, 11.2% TE, 3.2% K, 4% Def

With the new rules (flex roster spots, 6 pts per pass TD) and narrower pricing bands, how does everyone think this will affect scoring and cut lines?

Obviously 6 pts per TD increases scoring, but the ability to have 30 players at not so bargain prices may more than cancel that out.

 

[CalBear]

After going through it a couple of times, my prediction is that the results will still be biased towards teams with more players, possibly all the way up to 30. More players in best ball is a huge advantage, and I actually wound up having to upgrade players because I had too many cheapos.

 

[massraider]

After going through it a couple of times, my prediction is that the results will still be biased towards teams with more players, possibly all the way up to 30. More players in best ball is a huge advantage, and I actually wound up having to upgrade players because I had too many cheapos.

Did the same thing.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I am torn about my WR1. On one hand, I want a stud like Austin or Moss. On the other hand, that's a lot of money to spend on one roster spot. I am leaning towards spending that $26 on two lower tier guys.

I am having the same problem. Every time I think about the stud, I say something like "I'd like to have Wayne, but I could get good WR in that offense for over 1/2 the amount." As people have stated, there seems to be a lot less bargains this year than past years. Very hard to take a couple of studs and sift through the $2-$4 guys and get a couple decent sleepers. So far I only have 2 $5 players and 1 $4 player I like, and that it what is bogging me down. Also trying to avoid byes at all costs - currently have 5 RBs with 5 different byes and 6WRs with 5 different byes.

Definitely. In past years, there always seemed to be a good crop of bargain players. Not this year, so much. So I think it's those middle-tier solid players that will make or break a lot of teams in this contest.

 

[JB Breakfast Club]

I keep ending up with a bunch of Cowboys...I had Romo, Austin, Bryant, Barber, and Witten at one point...they are going to have like 8000 yards of offense, right?

 

[KarmaPolice]

After going through it a couple of times, my prediction is that the results will still be biased towards teams with more players, possibly all the way up to 30. More players in best ball is a huge advantage, and I actually wound up having to upgrade players because I had too many cheapos.

I think bulk helps you get through some bye weeks at the start, but in the end you need guys consistently putting up points. I think somebody asked in the thread earlier - what did last year's top teams look like??

 

[CalBear]

After going through it a couple of times, my prediction is that the results will still be biased towards teams with more players, possibly all the way up to 30. More players in best ball is a huge advantage, and I actually wound up having to upgrade players because I had too many cheapos.

I think bulk helps you get through some bye weeks at the start, but in the end you need guys consistently putting up points. I think somebody asked in the thread earlier - what did last year's top teams look like??

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2009/week-16.phpThe winner had no player over $27. Key players in weeks 13-16 were Tony Romo ($23), Ray Rice ($21), Jamaal Charles ($7), Desean Jackson ($24), Derrick Mason ($9), and Brent Celek ($7).

The second-place entry scored in those weeks on Jerome Harrison ($4), Miles Austin ($6), and Jermichael Finley ($3)

So it looks like finding good players for cheap was more important than getting studs.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Serious lack of backup quarterbacks available. One in particular I like that has a good chance to take over the starting job at some point without an injury happening.

 

[Balance]

Serious lack of backup quarterbacks available. One in particular I like that has a good chance to take over the starting job at some point without an injury happening.

If an injury happens.. I think all backups would take over the starting job?

 

[Longhorn daddy]

Serious lack of backup quarterbacks available. One in particular I like that has a good chance to take over the starting job at some point without an injury happening.

If an injury happens.. I think all backups would take over the starting job?

That's why I have 5 QBs on my roster.

 

[KarmaPolice]

After going through it a couple of times, my prediction is that the results will still be biased towards teams with more players, possibly all the way up to 30. More players in best ball is a huge advantage, and I actually wound up having to upgrade players because I had too many cheapos.

I think bulk helps you get through some bye weeks at the start, but in the end you need guys consistently putting up points. I think somebody asked in the thread earlier - what did last year's top teams look like??

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2009/week-16.phpThe winner had no player over $27. Key players in weeks 13-16 were Tony Romo ($23), Ray Rice ($21), Jamaal Charles ($7), Desean Jackson ($24), Derrick Mason ($9), and Brent Celek ($7).

The second-place entry scored in those weeks on Jerome Harrison ($4), Miles Austin ($6), and Jermichael Finley ($3)

So it looks like finding good players for cheap was more important than getting studs.

I just did another one and had 29 players. Actually like what I see, and no player over $20.

 

[JKL]

After going through it a couple of times, my prediction is that the results will still be biased towards teams with more players, possibly all the way up to 30. More players in best ball is a huge advantage, and I actually wound up having to upgrade players because I had too many cheapos.

I think bulk helps you get through some bye weeks at the start, but in the end you need guys consistently putting up points. I think somebody asked in the thread earlier - what did last year's top teams look like??

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2009/week-16.phpThe winner had no player over $27. Key players in weeks 13-16 were Tony Romo ($23), Ray Rice ($21), Jamaal Charles ($7), Desean Jackson ($24), Derrick Mason ($9), and Brent Celek ($7).

The second-place entry scored in those weeks on Jerome Harrison ($4), Miles Austin ($6), and Jermichael Finley ($3)

So it looks like finding good players for cheap was more important than getting studs.

I just did another one and had 29 players. Actually like what I see, and no player over $20.

I ran the numbers for the top 16 (everyone within 50 of winning it). The averages:

QB- 2.4 players, $45.4

RB- 6.3 players, $82.2

WR- 7.0 players, $86.0

TE - 2.7 players, $23.5

K - 2.7 players, $5.2

DEF - 2.6 players, $7.6

While the top team may have had nobody over $27, there were teams that came close that had multiple studs and went with a stars and scrubs approach. Getting Jerome Harrison in weeks 14-16 helped win it all, same with Finley, as he shows up on a lot of rosters. They did not get teams to the playoffs in the first place though. Most teams did have 24 total players. There are far fewer $1 players this year, so its harder to play that strategy. I'm not sure if spending less than $20 on everyone and having 30 players is going to get you there. TE points are increased, so I would also expect an increase at spend for the top teams at that position.

 

[Donsmith753]

Here's my latest attempt, spent less on WR1 but took more players overall, not sure about Schaub and will probably change him.

QB - Matt Schaub - HOU/7 - $23

QB - Ben Roethlisberger - PIT/5 - $14

RB - DeAngelo Williams - CAR/6 - $28

RB - Ahmad Bradshaw - NYG/8 - $18

RB - Michael Bush - OAK/10 - $16

RB - Willis McGahee - BAL/8 - $8

RB - Thomas Jones - KC/4 - $7

RB - Fred Taylor - NE/5 - $6

WR - Wes Welker - NE/5 - $21

WR - Jabar Gaffney - DEN/9 - $16

WR - Mike Williams - TB/4 - $8

WR - Dexter McCluster - KC/4 - $7

WR - Legedu Naanee - SD/10 - $7

WR - Harry Douglas - ATL/8 - $5

WR - Eric Decker - DEN/9 - $4

WR - Deion Branch - SEA/5 - $3

WR - Jordan Shipley - CIN/6 - $3

TE - Antonio Gates - SD/10 - $26

TE - Aaron Hernandez - NE/5 - $5

TE - Tony Moeaki - KC/4 - $4

PK - Nick Folk - NYJ/7 - $4

PK - Joe Nedney - SF/9 - $3

PK - Sebastian Janikowski - OAK/10 - $2

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

TD - Tennessee Titans - TEN/9 - $4

TD - Carolina Panthers - CAR/6 - $4

 

[KarmaPolice]

After going through it a couple of times, my prediction is that the results will still be biased towards teams with more players, possibly all the way up to 30. More players in best ball is a huge advantage, and I actually wound up having to upgrade players because I had too many cheapos.

I think bulk helps you get through some bye weeks at the start, but in the end you need guys consistently putting up points. I think somebody asked in the thread earlier - what did last year's top teams look like??

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2009/week-16.phpThe winner had no player over $27. Key players in weeks 13-16 were Tony Romo ($23), Ray Rice ($21), Jamaal Charles ($7), Desean Jackson ($24), Derrick Mason ($9), and Brent Celek ($7).

The second-place entry scored in those weeks on Jerome Harrison ($4), Miles Austin ($6), and Jermichael Finley ($3)

So it looks like finding good players for cheap was more important than getting studs.

I just did another one and had 29 players. Actually like what I see, and no player over $20.

I ran the numbers for the top 16 (everyone within 50 of winning it). The averages:

QB- 2.4 players, $45.4

RB- 6.3 players, $82.2

WR- 7.0 players, $86.0

TE - 2.7 players, $23.5

K - 2.7 players, $5.2

DEF - 2.6 players, $7.6

While the top team may have had nobody over $27, there were teams that came close that had multiple studs and went with a stars and scrubs approach. Getting Jerome Harrison in weeks 14-16 helped win it all, same with Finley, as he shows up on a lot of rosters. They did not get teams to the playoffs in the first place though. Most teams did have 24 total players. There are far fewer $1 players this year, so its harder to play that strategy. I'm not sure if spending less than $20 on everyone and having 30 players is going to get you there. TE points are increased, so I would also expect an increase at spend for the top teams at that position.

I'll tweak it a little I am sure, but I think the fact that there aren't the $1/$2 player there were last year point to having more guys. It's harder to pair AJ with a $2 guy and expect results, so is it better to get 2 $15 guys or even 3 $10 guys.

My lineup will probably change about 50 more times, although it seems like the core group of players is staying the same.

 

[drfeelgood]

Here's my latest attempt, spent less on WR1 but took more players overall, not sure about Schaub and will probably change him.

This is a contest. Why do you want to share your strategy with everyone before the teams are locked?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Here's my latest attempt, spent less on WR1 but took more players overall, not sure about Schaub and will probably change him.

This is a contest. Why do you want to share your strategy with everyone before the teams are locked?

I don't get it either.

 

[Donsmith753]

Here's my latest attempt, spent less on WR1 but took more players overall, not sure about Schaub and will probably change him.

This is a contest. Why do you want to share your strategy with everyone before the teams are locked?

Here's my latest attempt, spent less on WR1 but took more players overall, not sure about Schaub and will probably change him.

This is a contest. Why do you want to share your strategy with everyone before the teams are locked?

I don't get it either.

If people want to copy me then more fool them, it's not like a draft where these players can be stolen from me.

 

[The Kerminator]

I think I may have finally settled on my final lineup (yeah, right). I've experimented with anywhere between 18 to 28 players. I've got it to 20 players. High risk taking that few of players and surviving the bye weeks but could be high reward as well.

 

[FUBAR]

If people want to copy me then more fool them, it's not like a draft where these players can be stolen from me.

I won't post my selections until it closes, but I agree that if others share your strategy, it isn't necessarily a bad thing here. The more people with less depth, the less depth might matter while selecting the right studs will. The more people with less studs, the more the deeper teams could make it through the first 4 weeks. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm guessing someone here has statistical analysis to refute (or support) my hypothesis, but there it is. More people sharing your strategy could actually help you to survive, as long as you don't have all of the same players. Then again, if everyone had the exact same roster, would we all just share in the prize?

 

[Marauder]

Anybody else having a problem with too many byes in week 10? Every time I think I settle on a roster I like, I end up with way too many players on a bye that week.

 

[jdoggydogg]

If people want to copy me then more fool them, it's not like a draft where these players can be stolen from me.

I won't post my selections until it closes, but I agree that if others share your strategy, it isn't necessarily a bad thing here. The more people with less depth, the less depth might matter while selecting the right studs will. The more people with less studs, the more the deeper teams could make it through the first 4 weeks. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm guessing someone here has statistical analysis to refute (or support) my hypothesis, but there it is. More people sharing your strategy could actually help you to survive, as long as you don't have all of the same players. Then again, if everyone had the exact same roster, would we all just share in the prize?

Why? Do you think you've unearthed a sleeper we haven't?

 

[JB Breakfast Club]

Anybody else having a problem with too many byes in week 10? Every time I think I settle on a roster I like, I end up with way too many players on a bye that week.

to ARod or not to ARod...that is the question. I have more trouble with week 4 and week 8 from an overall perspective. I have Ryan paired with ARod right now, so I need to look up who Atlanta plays week 10.

 

[Txns8]

Anybody else having a problem with too many byes in week 10? Every time I think I settle on a roster I like, I end up with way too many players on a bye that week.

to ARod or not to ARod...that is the question. I have more trouble with week 4 and week 8 from an overall perspective. I have Ryan paired with ARod right now, so I need to look up who Atlanta plays week 10.

Baltimore

 

[WisWolvrns]

Or it could be a red herring.... here's one...

QB - Jay Cutler - CHI/8 - $20

QB - Sam Bradford - STL/9 - $9

RB - Adrian Peterson - MIN/4 - $38

etc...

on second thought, it was an interesting idea... it's on the pile so I'll delete it for now

 

[Modog814]

What's everybody using as a metric to determine if they like their current team or not?

Total points? Eye-ball test? Pts per $ spent?

I dont' think Points per $ spent is a good metric because I think it's too far skewed toward cheaper players.

I've been looking at a "added points" metric that measures how many additional points (that count) you get by having a player on your roster. And also looking at those added points on a per $ spent basis. The problem with this metric is that it fails to account for the fact that not having a player on that roster opens up a budget to spend elsewhere. The other flaw with this is that removing something like a 3rd Kicker will force the "added points" for the other 2 kickers up, making it look like you're better off with only 2 kickers.

Anyone have any other interesting ways to look at their teams?

 

[WisWolvrns]

I tally the points per position and then look at what different players I could buy for the same $.

As it seems, sometimes you get to adding guys at a spot and it all looks pretty good, till you tally it up and see you spent a decent amount overall on a position (still hitting the 250 roster total and all), so you can re-evaluate if having X players for Z amount is better than upgrading the players to better quality but having less of them.

At the end of the day though, whoever hits on the sleepers while still picking the correct blue chippers will probably have the best shot barring one bad week. With the $ amounts of all the players, this year's contest definitely forces you to pick right. Not much fluff to waste on flyers. Every player almost needs to have some playing time or it will make for some risky weeks... albeit, if others don't notice that, and especially many others... those early weeks might still be easy to get through.

As always, holding some of the high % selections across all teams helps while still keeping some diversity. But we won't know those players till after the lock down. (other than probably Berrian... he seems the most likely candidate for highest % ownership at this point, albeit Camarillo's signing probably mudded that)

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Rounding out the roster...value propositions.

QB3 - Bradford (9), Edwards (9), Delhomme (7), Vick (3)

RB4/5/6 - Mcgahee (8), L Johnson (7), TJones (7), F Taylor (6), Weaver (5), Bell (5), Snelling (5), Leonard (4), Choice (4), Morris (3), Moore (3), McClain (3)

WR4/5/6 - JJones, Nanee, Chambers, AGonzo (7 each), Bess, Henderson (4 each), Branch, Clayton, Crayton (3 each)

Personally, I would cross the Philly and NE backs off the list...thinking TJones, Moore, Vick, JJones, Henderson and Clayton might make my squad.

Do you have the stones to say who you're looking at in value land besides these players? Who do you like for <$10 at the skill positions?

 

[HellToupee]

Rounding out the roster...value propositions.QB3 - Bradford (9), Edwards (9), Delhomme (7), Vick (3)RB4/5/6 - Mcgahee (8), L Johnson (7), TJones (7), F Taylor (6), Weaver (5), Bell (5), Snelling (5), Leonard (4), Choice (4), Morris (3), Moore (3), McClain (3)WR4/5/6 - JJones, Nanee, Chambers, AGonzo (7 each), Bess, Henderson (4 each), Branch, Clayton, Crayton (3 each)Personally, I would cross the Philly and NE backs off the list...thinking TJones, Moore, Vick, JJones, Henderson and Clayton might make my squad.Do you have the stones to say who you're looking at in value land besides these players? Who do you like for <$10 at the skill positions?

QB-I'm not taking any of these. Would go with Vick if I was going with KolbRB-not interested in any here . Choice would be a must if I rostered Felix JonesWR-I'm passing on all of theseOne problem I'm having is trying not to have too many rookies on my team. As it stands now I'm carrying 6

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

The deadline to submit/edit your contest entry is 11:59pm (ET) Tuesday, September 7th.

Plenty of time left for 794 more iterations. :exhausted:

 

[Mister CIA]

The deadline to submit/edit your contest entry is 11:59pm (ET) Tuesday, September 7th.Plenty of time left for 794 more iterations. :exhausted:

Unbelievably, I've devoted less than five minutes to this year's contest team. Note to self ....

 

[Hoart Petterson]

3 obvious players this year that will be on the highest percentage of entries.

 

[redaddy25]

I pushed it to 27 players total... And even at that I almost feel like the team is too watered down. I might have to cut back to 24-25 spots.

 

[FUBAR]

I pushed it to 27 players total... And even at that I almost feel like the team is too watered down. I might have to cut back to 24-25 spots.

I'm feeling the same way.FWIW, I probably just made my fatal mistake and booted Ben off my team.

 

[FUBAR]

Rounding out the roster...value propositions.

QB3 - Bradford (9), Edwards (9), Delhomme (7), Vick (3)

RB4/5/6 - Mcgahee (8), L Johnson (7), TJones (7), F Taylor (6), Weaver (5), Bell (5), Snelling (5), Leonard (4), Choice (4), Morris (3), Moore (3), McClain (3)

WR4/5/6 - JJones, Nanee, Chambers, AGonzo (7 each), Bess, Henderson (4 each), Branch, Clayton, Crayton (3 each)

Personally, I would cross the Philly and NE backs off the list...thinking TJones, Moore, Vick, JJones, Henderson and Clayton might make my squad.

Do you have the stones to say who you're looking at in value land besides these players? Who do you like for <$10 at the skill positions?

QB-I'm not taking any of these. Would go with Vick if I was going with KolbRB-not interested in any here . Choice would be a must if I rostered Felix Jones

WR-I'm passing on all of these

One problem I'm having is trying not to have too many rookies on my team. As it stands now I'm carrying 6

It was tempting for me too, I think we'll find a few were great choices for the value while others completely useless. Of course, some will be other than we expect.

 

[JB Breakfast Club]

I pushed it to 27 players total... And even at that I almost feel like the team is too watered down. I might have to cut back to 24-25 spots.

I'm feeling the same way.FWIW, I probably just made my fatal mistake and booted Ben off my team.

I thought I would have 25-27 as well, but now I am finding a sweet spot around 23 or 24. All of that depth is nice, but do you really want to go with 10 average WR instead of an anchor? My debate is whether to add a third TE. If I do that, I chop up my highest WR investment (S Moss right now) into 3 players, and then I'm back to 25...my head hurts.3 QB ($48)5 RB ($81)7 WR ($61)2 TE ($40)4 K ($12)2 Def ($8)

 

[butcher boy]

QB: $45

RB: $72

WR: $38

TE: $62

PK: $16

D: $17

 

[texasheat]

I can't believe last year's winning team had Eddie Royal as their most expensive WR ($26).

 

[FUBAR]

I pushed it to 27 players total... And even at that I almost feel like the team is too watered down. I might have to cut back to 24-25 spots.

I'm feeling the same way.FWIW, I probably just made my fatal mistake and booted Ben off my team.

I thought I would have 25-27 as well, but now I am finding a sweet spot around 23 or 24. All of that depth is nice, but do you really want to go with 10 average WR instead of an anchor? My debate is whether to add a third TE. If I do that, I chop up my highest WR investment (S Moss right now) into 3 players, and then I'm back to 25...my head hurts.3 QB ($48)

5 RB ($81)

7 WR ($61)

2 TE ($40)

4 K ($12)

2 Def ($8)

It's a good question. 3 QB - $34 (probably my weakest spot, which I think is a mistake)

6 RB - $64

9 WR - $90 (perhaps too much, but there's no individual I want to cut)

3 TE - $33

3 PK - $8

3 TD - $11

I'm sure I'm not done yet though.

 

[Modog814]

Got it down to 2 variations of the team...one has 21 players, the other 27

21 Player Team

QB : 2 for $37

RB: 4 for $80

WR: 7 for $86

TE: 2 for $28

K: 3 for $8

Def 3 for $11

27 Player Team

QB: 2 for $42

RB: 7 for $78

WR: 8 for $73

TE: 4 for $40

K: 3 for $11

Def: 3 for $9

I think the first team gives me a better chance to win the whole thing, but leaves little room for error, injuries or multiple poor performaces, however, it's got a ton of studs on it who can basically carry the team to the next round if one goes off.

The 2nd team, I think is less likely to win the whole thing, but the week to week scoring will be much more stable. It will obviously rely on some players "breaking out" to make any noise if it advances far enough.

The more I look at it, the better I like the 27 player team, however, I'm still leaning towards the 21 player team.

 

[jdoggydogg]

3 obvious players this year that will be on the highest percentage of entries.
*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

 

[jdoggydogg]

Every team I've entered so far in this contest has at least 27 players.

 

[BaBastage]

This is a contest. Why do you want to share your strategy with everyone before the teams are locked?

I guess it depends if you're in the contest for the money, or the fun.The odds of winning are slim enough that for me, at least, it's about the fun. (And yes, last year I made it to the final 250).If you pull up the thread from last year, there is plenty of discussion that there were more 24 player teams in the final hunt than 20 player teams.But one of the cool things about the contest is that they tweak it every year, so running the statistical analysis for the prior year isn't exactly a given for this year.Personally, I'm still torn on how many players to have. I understand the "more players is better" line of thought, but you still have to have enough consistent producers to get you far enough along.For example, at the end of the season you're likely to see more low-cost players contributing, as they rose through the ranks because of injuries.However, if all you have are backups, you won't last long enough for them to produce for you.

 

[massraider]

I think going for the most players is a trap. You wind up with a lot of riff-raff, IMO.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I think going for the most players is a trap. You wind up with a lot of riff-raff, IMO.

Depends. For WRs, there is a lot of junk in the >$7 range. But there's a lot of value in the $7 to $11 range. Personally, I think it's crazy to spend more than $18 to $20 on any WR.

 

[massraider]

I think going for the most players is a trap. You wind up with a lot of riff-raff, IMO.

Depends. For WRs, there is a lot of junk in the >$7 range. But there's a lot of value in the $7 to $11 range. Personally, I think it's crazy to spend more than $18 to $20 on any WR.

I think making the right decision at WR in the range you mentioned is crucial. Also, normally I would agree with no high-priced WRs, but my most recent team had one guy above that price. Mainly because I don't have any guys in that 18-20 range. I like cheaper options at WR, especially in best ball. So I could kind of afford that luxury. At least, in my mind.

There are almost zero bargains at RB, aside from that guy in the teens that everyone is gonna have, making him irrelevant. I think I only have 5 backs.

 

[PatsFanCT]

Bare minimum, 18 players for me. I'll take my chances with the all-stud team.

 

[massraider]

Bare minimum, 18 players for me. I'll take my chances with the all-stud team.

In a best-ball format, that's a recipe for disaster.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I think going for the most players is a trap. You wind up with a lot of riff-raff, IMO.

Depends. For WRs, there is a lot of junk in the >$7 range. But there's a lot of value in the $7 to $11 range. Personally, I think it's crazy to spend more than $18 to $20 on any WR.

I think making the right decision at WR in the range you mentioned is crucial. Also, normally I would agree with no high-priced WRs, but my most recent team had one guy above that price. Mainly because I don't have any guys in that 18-20 range. I like cheaper options at WR, especially in best ball. So I could kind of afford that luxury. At least, in my mind.

There are almost zero bargains at RB, aside from that guy in the teens that everyone is gonna have, making him irrelevant. I think I only have 5 backs.

Agree with all of this. There are a couple high priced guys in the top tier of WRs I would love to have on my team. I just can't help but see it as a big risk, though. I understand you need to take risks to win this contest. But in previous years when I've spent a lot on one WR, he's always either gotten hurt or he's underperformed enough times to kill my team.The RB thrift store bargains are almost nil, for sure. So we're left to sift through some RBBC where you hope your guy performs well. Still, I see some RBs in the $7 to $10 range that will be very valuable if you pick the right guy.