Subscriber Contest (2 Viewers)

[Modog814]

Some food for thought. Last year, the top three receivers in the contest were Johnson, Moss and Wayne (all high dollar guys). Combined they averaged 52 pts a game week 1-13, with a minimum score of 32 pts (week 12).The best scores each week from the 10 receivers ranked 31-40 (listed below) averaged 51 pts a game, with a minimum score of 38 pts (week 2).The studs outscored the duds 7 times, the duds outscored the studs 6 times.So if you are lucky enough to pick the top 3 receivers, you'll likely produce the same points as 10 guys finishing in the back of the pack. I think this shows the way to go is to find get 10 guys for cheap prices who are likely to finish in the top40, rather than luck into a couple guys who will score in the top 5.Last years 31-40... Bess, Davone Cotchery, Jerricho Nicks, Hakeem Burleson, Nate Wallace, Mike Maclin, Jeremy Hester, Devin Breaston, Steve Garcon, Pierre Chambers, Chris

Interesting, but what happens if you miss on half your top 40 guys? Or even 2 or 3 misses?And what about the people who go the 1 top 5 guy and 6 top 40 guys? Or 2 top 10 guys and 6 top 40? I think that's what makes this contest so great, is that there is so many iterations of possibilities that imo it's impossible to nail down a perfect strategy. Another thing is that you're looking at this in hindsight, where you know who the 31-40 scorers are and who are the top 3. If we make the assumption that the contest prices are perfect, meaning they are priced according to how they actually finish, the top 3 (AJ, Fitz and Moss) would cost you $91. The 31 to 40th rank cost you $158. So I could argue you're getting similar production for $67 less by going the stud route. To get a consecutive 10 finishers at a cost of $91 you'd have to take the 49th through 58th WR's. How do they compare to the top 3? Of course all of this is questionable anyway because do we really believe the correct strategy is to grab the top 3 WR's and no other WR?BTW, this is meant as a serious discussion not an attack on your analysis.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Possibly buggy querier

Possibly buggy week 1 sim

This team is given a 1.8% chance of moving on to week 2. Agree?

Can we get these pinned in the 1st mssg?

I vow to create a central page where I will update all contest/sim/powerranking links throughout the season. Probably won't be done before week 1, but I think week 2 or week 3 is likely.

Hey Turk, do you like my crazy metrics with the amount invested per player?-QG

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

Some food for thought. Last year, the top three receivers in the contest were Johnson, Moss and Wayne (all high dollar guys). Combined they averaged 52 pts a game week 1-13, with a minimum score of 32 pts (week 12).The best scores each week from the 10 receivers ranked 31-40 (listed below) averaged 51 pts a game, with a minimum score of 38 pts (week 2).The studs outscored the duds 7 times, the duds outscored the studs 6 times.So if you are lucky enough to pick the top 3 receivers, you'll likely produce the same points as 10 guys finishing in the back of the pack. I think this shows the way to go is to find get 10 guys for cheap prices who are likely to finish in the top40, rather than luck into a couple guys who will score in the top 5.Last years 31-40... Bess, Davone Cotchery, Jerricho Nicks, Hakeem Burleson, Nate Wallace, Mike Maclin, Jeremy Hester, Devin Breaston, Steve Garcon, Pierre Chambers, Chris

Interesting, but what happens if you miss on half your top 40 guys? Or even 2 or 3 misses?And what about the people who go the 1 top 5 guy and 6 top 40 guys? Or 2 top 10 guys and 6 top 40? I think that's what makes this contest so great, is that there is so many iterations of possibilities that imo it's impossible to nail down a perfect strategy. Another thing is that you're looking at this in hindsight, where you know who the 31-40 scorers are and who are the top 3. If we make the assumption that the contest prices are perfect, meaning they are priced according to how they actually finish, the top 3 (AJ, Fitz and Moss) would cost you $91. The 31 to 40th rank cost you $158. So I could argue you're getting similar production for $67 less by going the stud route. To get a consecutive 10 finishers at a cost of $91 you'd have to take the 49th through 58th WR's. How do they compare to the top 3? Of course all of this is questionable anyway because do we really believe the correct strategy is to grab the top 3 WR's and no other WR?BTW, this is meant as a serious discussion not an attack on your analysis.

Saved me the time/effort.That's pretty compelling evidence that it's not clear cut that it's better to pick a higher number of cheap players in this contest than mix in some studs and have fewer players. The best, IMO, would be to pick some studs and some cheap players that end up performing as studs. If you're lucky and the studs stay healthy and the cheapies outperform, you'll have a pretty good chance to go far.Last year, it was much more worthwhile to get more cheap players because similar low-priced players were much cheaper last year (e.g., Warner at $4, more guys, including PK's and D's, at $1) and studs are now cheaper than last year.

 

[rzrback77]

Anxious for the week to week analysis to see the variation of roster sizes that are eliminated.

 

[BassNBrew]

Anxious for the week to week analysis to see the variation of roster sizes that are eliminated.

I can save you the wait and give you the answer now.

 

[BassNBrew]

Here's a couple of the short roster teams that have to be sweating a bit right now.

Entry 111865

This entry is still alive.

1

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

Drew Brees $28 0.00

Brett Favre $18 0.00

Adrian Peterson $38 0.00

Ray Rice $37 0.00

Brian Westbrook $6 0.00

Mewelde Moore $3 0.00

Calvin Johnson $27 0.00

Chad Ochocinco $24 0.00

Michael Crabtree $22 0.00

Mario Manningham $9 0.00

Troy Williamson $1 0.00

Johnnie Lee Higgins $1 0.00

Brian Finneran $1 0.00

Jason Witten $19 0.00

Fendi Onobun $2 0.00

David Buehler $4 0.00

Olindo Mare $2 0.00

New Orleans Saints $4 0.00

Chicago Bears $4 0.00

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

TOTAL 0.00

CUTOFF 0.00

Entry 111950

This entry is still alive.

1

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

Drew Brees $28 0.00

Brett Favre $18 0.00

Chris Johnson $40 0.00

Adrian Peterson $38 0.00

Steve Slaton $14 0.00

Andre Johnson $32 0.00

Wes Welker $21 0.00

Steve Breaston $17 0.00

Greg Camarillo $3 0.00

Visanthe Shiancoe $12 0.00

David Thomas $3 0.00

Donald Lee $2 0.00

Ryan Longwell $5 0.00

Sebastian Janikowski $2 0.00

Olindo Mare $2 0.00

New York Jets $9 0.00

St. Louis Rams $2 0.00

Detroit Lions $2 0.00

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

TOTAL 0.00

CUTOFF 0.00

 

[LittlePhatty]

Winning out of 13,000 entries is obviously pure luck.

All of the strategy being discussed will help you get further and increase your chances, but to be the #1 when Week 16 comes around is all luck.

For instance, people have said that guys like Jamaal Charles and Jermichael Finley were gold last year. They were gold enough to get you into the finals, yes. But those picks were very common among the entries that made the final cut. In the end, they weren't the reason that the #1 entry won because most other teams had those players too. It was the players he had that were different from the other entries. He wouldn't have won without Earl Bennett's 12 points in Week 16, or the Lions TD getting 14 points in Week 15.

 

[gregjcross]

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

Request: Where can one get one clean list of all players w/ their prices (like what used to be available at entry form) ?

 

[Bad_Mo]

Possibly buggy querier

Possibly buggy week 1 sim

This team is given a 1.8% chance of moving on to week 2. Agree?

Can we get these pinned in the 1st mssg?

I vow to create a central page where I will update all contest/sim/powerranking links throughout the season. Probably won't be done before week 1, but I think week 2 or week 3 is likely.

Slow golf clap for Doug. Dude brings it each week and sticks with it even after being eliminated (last year, at least). I hope you make it to the finals...you deserve it with all of your efforts. Thanks, Man.

 

[Bad_Mo]

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

Request: Where can one get one clean list of all players w/ their prices (like what used to be available at entry form) ?

Worst backdating cheater, ever.

 

[apalmer]

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

Request: Where can one get one clean list of all players w/ their prices (like what used to be available at entry form) ?

I have a Pdf version available for an appropriate fee

 

[Doug Drinen]

Slow golf clap for Doug. Dude brings it each week and sticks with it even after being eliminated (last year, at least). I hope you make it to the finals...you deserve it with all of your efforts.

Believe me, I enjoy this as much as you do. I run lots of pools with buddies, and sometimes I don't even enter them. I just love the strategy and the math. Seriously.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Slow golf clap for Doug. Dude brings it each week and sticks with it even after being eliminated (last year, at least). I hope you make it to the finals...you deserve it with all of your efforts.

Believe me, I enjoy this as much as you do. I run lots of pools with buddies, and sometimes I don't even enter them. I just love the strategy and the math. Seriously.

Have you thought about trying to calculate an "actual" value of the players during the year?Btw you should have your own spot on the front page anyway -QG

 

[gregjcross]

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

Request: Where can one get one clean list of all players w/ their prices (like what used to be available at entry form) ?

I have a Pdf version available for an appropriate fee

We actually just sucked the data out of a web browser page editor and tossed into Excel, but thanks for the offer!

 

[PatsChowder]

If you're lucky and the studs stay healthy and the cheapies outperform, you'll have a pretty good chance to go far.

This is about as true as it gets. The only other piece that can be added to this is the need to have a diverse roster to win it all. I think that may be the facet that gets over looked in the roster size debate. While the argument has always been that larger rosters win more because there are more options on an individual team, it can also be said that the 18-man stud packed rosters are also likely to be packed with the same stud players. The larger rosters than hold an advantage in options and diversity.

 

[gpalmer]

I'm one of the 272 entries who went with a roster 30 players. In a best ball format having more players is a bigger competitive advantage than having Studs.

I just don't see how the entries with 18 teams even make it to the top 250. Hopefully we can put this argument to rest this year.

Ok so here's my entry, with some writeups.

QB - Matthew Stafford - DET/7 - $16

QB - Chad Henne - MIA/5 - $14

QB - Derek Anderson - ARI/6 - $6

Someone in this bunch should put up decent points every week. I'm gambling on Stafford being a QB1. Had to take Anderson at that price after they cut Leinert.

I originally had Josh Freeman ($12) rostered as well.

But I decided I needed more bullets at RB/WR so I traded in him, Welker($21) and B Scott ($6) for Bradshaw($18), Gaffney($15), Hartline($6).

RB - Marion Barber - DAL/4 - $18

RB - Ahmad Bradshaw - NYG/8 - $18

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

RB - Arian Foster - HOU/7 - $13

RB - LaDainian Tomlinson - NYJ/7 - $12

RB - Leon Washington - SEA/5 - $8

RB - Javon Ringer - TEN/9 - $5

I went with a lof of value picks at RB, who are on quite a few entries. Tried to pick players who were going to get touches week in week out and had the potential for a huge game. I took a chance on Ringer as a lottery ticket for the playoffs, who says studs have to cost $$$?

I origionally had Forte($20), but I really didn't like his playoff matchup, so he was traded in for MBIII($18) and $2.

I thought about Donald Brown($11), but I really didn't want 3 players with a week 7 bye...

WR - Jabar Gaffney - DEN/9 - $16

WR - Jacoby Jones - HOU/7 - $10

WR - Mike Williams - TB/4 - $8

WR - Lance Moore - NO/10 - $8

WR - Dexter McCluster - KC/4 - $7

WR - Laurent Robinson - STL/9 - $7

WR - Legedu Naanee - SD/10 - $7

WR - Brian Hartline - MIA/5 - $6

WR - Harry Douglas - ATL/8 - $5

WR - Louis Murphy - OAK/10 - $4

WR - Greg Camarillo - MIN/4 - $3

Same strategy as RB, but went with 11 players since I need 3 starters every week. A lot of my WRs are on a lot of rosters, nothing to really separate me except that I have a lot of them.

TE - Zach Miller - OAK/10 - $15

TE - Jermaine Gresham - CIN/6 - $6

TE - Aaron Hernandez - NE/5 - $5

I'm expecting Miller to be my TE week in week out. Gresham and Hernandez are lottery tickets.

PK - Rob Bironas - TEN/9 - $3

PK - Sebastian Janikowski - OAK/10 - $2

PK - Matt Bryant - ATL/8 - $2

Went with 3 cheap kickers, all on different bye weeks. Spent more time typing this section, than actually selecting them.

TD - Carolina Panthers - CAR/6 - $4

TD - Tampa Bay Buccaneers - TB/4 - $3

TD - Detroit Lions - DET/7 - $2

Went with some defenses who seemed under-valued. Originally had Bears D, but I didn't like their playoff matchups.

 

[Titans_fan]

Joe Flacco/8 $17

Vince Young/9 $14

Josh Freeman/4 $12

Jason Campbell/10 $11

I picked a team quickly shortly after the contest opened and didn't do much tinkering along the way. I ended up with 4 QBs, and now I think I would have been better served dropping one and grabbing another WR or RB. I ended up with a running QB, a QB with some new toys, and 2 QBs on teams likely to be throwing a lot as they are behind.

Pierre Thomas/10 $27

Marion Barber/4 $18

Ahmad Bradshaw/8 $18

Arian Foster/7 $13

Thomas Jones/4 $7

In the PPR format, I feel the FLEX player is likely to come from the WR or TE position, so I went with upside and TD guys at RB. Four different BYEs for 5 players makes me feel pretty good about the production from this position throughout the year. A Barber trade could give him a nice boost near the end of the year and I'm excited about the number of touches Thomas got in week 1 with all the talk of how Bush's game has evolved.

Wes Welker/5 $21

Nate Burleson/7 $11

Jacoby Jones/7 $10

James Jones/10 $7

Sammie Stroughter/4 $4

Louis Murphy/10 $4

Justin Gage/9 $2

At the WR position I looked for a couple things. Possession receivers, #2s with a bunch of upside and QB/WR combos. Welker is the ultimate possession guy and should be at full strength after a few weeks. Burleson and Jacoby have studs opposite them, meaning a lot of single coverage all season. James Jones could be a wildcard in a pass happy offense and Stroughter, Murphy and Gage compliment 3 of my QBs. I like the value at the WR position on this team and expect good numbers week in and week out.

Owen Daniels/7 $13

Chris Cooley/9 $13

Jermaine Gresham/6 $6

I knew I was going 3 TEs at 1.5 PPR all along. Daniels should be Schaub's favorite target on short/intermediate routes and will be more involved as the season goes on. Cooley is in a great position on a Shanahan coached team with McNabb at QB. Both LOVE the TE position. Gresham is a shot-in-the-dark as Palmer targeted him often in the preseason. I'm looking for each of these guys to catch 50+ passes this season and possibly be my FLEX player each week.

Nick Folk/7 $4

Joe Nedney/7 $3

Sebastian Janikowski/10 $2

Kickers. Nothing to see here.

San Francisco 49ers/9 $5

New Orleans Saints/10 $4

New England Patriots/5 $4

I thought the best value on the board was SF, but in skimming the thread I seem to have a lot of friends with me on that one. The other two are teams where the offense should put up points and lead in most games forcing the opposition to throw leading to INT opportunities and sack opportunities.

I have no aspirations of winning, but I love to see how my limited knowledge stacks up.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Believe me, I enjoy this as much as you do. I run lots of pools with buddies, and sometimes I don't even enter them. I just love the strategy and the math. Seriously.

What's your data/informed opinion say about the ideal number of players this year? Guessing it's at least 24, but probably not 30?

 

[rzrback77]

Anxious for the week to week analysis to see the variation of roster sizes that are eliminated.

I can save you the wait and give you the answer now.

Oh I agree with you, just stating that I will enjoy seeing the stats shown.

 

[rzrback77]

I'm one of the 272 entries who went with a roster 30 players. In a best ball format having more players is a bigger competitive advantage than having Studs.I just don't see how the entries with 18 teams even make it to the top 250. Hopefully we can put this argument to rest this year.

Personally I expected that the memories from last year would be strong enough to not have that discussion again, but the rules changes allowed it to be renewed. I can only hope that there are a few twists again next year so that it can be taken advatage of again.

 

[rzrback77]

Believe me, I enjoy this as much as you do. I run lots of pools with buddies, and sometimes I don't even enter them. I just love the strategy and the math. Seriously.

What's your data/informed opinion say about the ideal number of players this year? Guessing it's at least 24, but probably not 30?

Excellent question and look forward to the always informative response from Mr. Cowboy Drinnen. I am a huge fan also!

 

[Doug Drinen]

Believe me, I enjoy this as much as you do. I run lots of pools with buddies, and sometimes I don't even enter them. I just love the strategy and the math. Seriously.

What's your data/informed opinion say about the ideal number of players this year? Guessing it's at least 24, but probably not 30?

I really don't know, but my instincts agree with yours: somewhere between 24 and 30. First, I don't know that last year's results tell us much. If the pricing structure was similar to last year's, then yes: 30 would be an absolute no-brainer. But the prices changed quite a bit, and now I'm not nearly as sure. After looking at the data below, though, I think 30 is probably still where I'd lean.Here is some summary data from the week 1 simulation:

+-------------+-------------------+--------------------+| roster_size | avg_survival_prob | avg_expected_score |+-------------+-------------------+--------------------+|		  18 |			  90.8 |			  159.1 ||		  19 |			  91.6 |			  160.1 ||		  20 |			  92.4 |			  160.9 ||		  21 |			  92.9 |			  161.6 ||		  22 |			  92.9 |			  161.8 ||		  23 |			  93.5 |			  162.6 ||		  24 |			  93.9 |			  163.5 ||		  25 |			  94.6 |			  164.3 ||		  26 |			  93.9 |			  163.7 ||		  27 |			  94.8 |			  164.9 ||		  28 |			  94.1 |			  163.6 ||		  29 |			  93.2 |			  163.8 ||		  30 |			  93.6 |			  164.5 |+-------------+-------------------+--------------------+

A few things to note here:1. The relatively weaker showing for the 18-man group may be more correlation than causation. I would guess that an 18-man roster is much more a signal of contest inexperience or apathy than it is a cause a poor week one (predicted) performance. I wouldn't be surprised if well-constructed 18-man teams (if we could somehow agree on what that means) show just as well as anyone else in week one.2. The numbers look just about identical from 25 to 30. I would have to imagine that injuries, byes, and unexpected breakout players will only help the bigger rosters compared to the smaller ones, right? I mean, if smaller rosters don't appear to have an advantage in week 1, when all studs are healthy and all the low-priced guys still project to be low performers, how are they going to make up that ground when_____insert expensive stud_______ gets hurt and _____ insert three young cheap guys_______ break out?

 

[menobrown]

Winning out of 13,000 entries is obviously pure luck.All of the strategy being discussed will help you get further and increase your chances, but to be the #1 when Week 16 comes around is all luck.For instance, people have said that guys like Jamaal Charles and Jermichael Finley were gold last year. They were gold enough to get you into the finals, yes. But those picks were very common among the entries that made the final cut. In the end, they weren't the reason that the #1 entry won because most other teams had those players too. It was the players he had that were different from the other entries. He wouldn't have won without Earl Bennett's 12 points in Week 16, or the Lions TD getting 14 points in Week 15.

It's true I would not have won without Earl or the Lions but it's wrong to say it's pure luck. I'll be the first one to tell you it takes luck to win this thing. A ton of luck, more so than probably any fantasy footbal contest in the world and when I won last year I felt more lucky than anything. But it's wrong to say it's pure luck. There is a skill level involved in assembling a roster and after that yes you are going to need a ton of luck to be on your side to win the whole thing but when someone says pure luck it's like saying you can win without putting any thought into your roster. I've done this contest 3 times. First time I finished somewhere between 100-150 but don't remember were. Second time I got bounced around midseason and won it last year. It's my belief it takes a ton of luck to win the whole thing but there is a certain skill level to get you into the 250 to give you a shot in the first place and after that you have to have a lot of luck on your side. Here is my team this year:Eli Manning $19 Kyle Orton $12 Derek Anderson $6 Michael Turner $31 Ryan Mathews $29 Ahmad Bradshaw $18 Arian Foster $13 Leon Washington $8 Rashad Jennings $3 Mike Tolbert $1 Johnny Knox $18 Mike Williams $8 Austin Collie $8 Bernard Berrian $7 Louis Murphy $4 Devery Henderson $4 Deion Branch $3 Greg Camarillo $3 Patrick Crayton $3 Jermichael Finley $21 Dustin Keller $9 Aaron Hernandez $5 Rob Gronkowski $3 Rob Bironas $3 Sebastian Janikowski $2 Oakland Raiders $4 Kansas City Chiefs $3 Detroit Lions $2

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Great info Doug... thanks. Will be really interesting to see how this plays out. I'll put my money on 28 or 29 adding the greatest lift to the survival rate when all is said and done. But I think there'll be plenty of teams with 23-30 players in the final 250.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Another thing to keep in mind is that, however it turns out doesn't necessarily mean it had to turn out that way.

What I mean by that is that the roster composition of the small teams is quite a bit different from that of the larger teams.

Guys like Arian Foster are highly owned by everyone, but take a look at Jermichael Finley. He is the 3rd-most owned player by teams with 20 or fewer players, but he is only 34th-most-owned by teams with 28--30 players.

Other guys picked at random:

Aaron Rodgers: 4th-most-owned by small rosters, 49th-most-owned by large rosters.

Andre Johnson: 5th most owned by small rosters, not in top 75 by large rosters.

Laurent Robinson: 9th most owned by large rosters. 49th by small rosters.

Leon Washington: 12th by large rosters. 60th by small rosters.

If Andre Johnson goes off for 1800/15, this will be a far different-looking contest, as far as the big vs small roster debate is concerned, than if he "only" hits 1300/7.

 

[Cheesedawg]

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

Joe Flacco $17 0.00

Ben Roethlisberger $14 0.00

Sam Bradford $9 0.00

Derek Anderson $6 0.00

Took three starters for early in the year to help me survive until Roeth gets back. Hoping to be in a minority with owning Big Ben for the stretch drive.

Ahmad Bradshaw $18 0.00

Cadillac Williams $16 0.00

Tim Hightower $13 0.00

Arian Foster $13 0.00

LaDainian Tomlinson $12 0.00

Brandon Jackson $4 0.00

I didn't see the need to overspend on RB's with the bargains in this years contest. BJax will catch a lot of balls and would be gold if Grant got hurt. He looked much improved in preseason.

Andre Johnson $32 0.00

Jacoby Jones $10 0.00

Bernard Berrian $7 0.00

Laurent Robinson $7 0.00

Harry Douglas $5 0.00

Sammie Stroughter $4 0.00

Louis Murphy $4 0.00

Greg Camarillo $3 0.00

Went with 8 WR's. Lots of bargains here too in PPR. Hoping that Camarillo develops into a key checkdown receiver in Minny.

Jermichael Finley $21 0.00

John Carlson $11 0.00

Jermaine Gresham $6 0.00

Like my potential with these three. At 1.5 PPR it is worth spending $ on TE's.

Neil Rackers $4 0.00

Jeff Reed $3 0.00

Rob Bironas $3 0.00

Three kickers seem to be the ideal number. I'm heavily invested in Houston's offense in this contest for sure.

San Diego Chargers $5 0.00

Kansas City Chiefs $3 0.00

Went with a combo straight from the FBG article on D/ST committees.

Love the contest and follow it about as closely as my two leagues. Count me among those who think it is worth the price of the subscription all by itself. I'm actually pretty happy with the list I came up with this year and didn't change it once on the final day, which is a new record for me!

 

[LittlePhatty]

It's my belief it takes a ton of luck to win the whole thing but there is a certain skill level to get you into the 250 to give you a shot in the first place and after that you have to have a lot of luck on your side.

Pretty much exactly what I meant, though my phrase "pure luck" may have been misleading.Strategy will help you get deeper and increase your chances, but by the time there are only 250 entries left it comes down to luck as to whether or not the picks you made 16 weeks earlier will put you in the #1 spot as opposed to #5 spot or even #249.I have a lot of the common " cheap" players, like Mike Williams and Louis Murphy were popular choices among bargain spenders. But I wanted to include a couple of "luck" picks that I knew wouldn't be chosen by many other entries. I went with Emmanuel Sanders and Brandon Jackson as my roll-the-dice "luck" guys.

 

[therokie0070]

I think around 25 is the magic number because it gives you diversity but allows you to add more quality players, 30 players streaches you to thin on quality. while this is my theory it also really depends on the players selected, Bye weeks and obviously alot of luck.

 

[therokie0070]

It's my belief it takes a ton of luck to win the whole thing but there is a certain skill level to get you into the 250 to give you a shot in the first place and after that you have to have a lot of luck on your side.

Pretty much exactly what I meant, though my phrase "pure luck" may have been misleading.Strategy will help you get deeper and increase your chances, but by the time there are only 250 entries left it comes down to luck as to whether or not the picks you made 16 weeks earlier will put you in the #1 spot as opposed to #5 spot or even #249.I have a lot of the common " cheap" players, like Mike Williams and Louis Murphy were popular choices among bargain spenders. But I wanted to include a couple of "luck" picks that I knew wouldn't be chosen by many other entries. I went with Emmanuel Sanders and Brandon Jackson as my roll-the-dice "luck" guys.

Good point also it is important to go against the grain and make a couple picks you think 80% of the other contestents wont do

 

[therokie0070]

My against the grain picks were two big TE Finley and Witten, figured not many teams would have thouse two together. Also I went cheap and alot on WR but quality on RB Rice, Gore, Matthews, foster, Jennings. last year I tried to go with two above average QB this year I decided to grab rodgers and two cheap back ups Anderson and Mat Moore. (think I have 12 WR)

 

[H8fulHuck]

Another thing to keep in mind is that, however it turns out doesn't necessarily mean it had to turn out that way.

What I mean by that is that the roster composition of the small teams is quite a bit different from that of the larger teams.

Guys like Arian Foster are highly owned by everyone, but take a look at Jermichael Finley. He is the 3rd-most owned player by teams with 20 or fewer players, but he is only 34th-most-owned by teams with 28--30 players.

Other guys picked at random:

Aaron Rodgers: 4th-most-owned by small rosters, 49th-most-owned by large rosters.

Andre Johnson: 5th most owned by small rosters, not in top 75 by large rosters.

Laurent Robinson: 9th most owned by large rosters. 49th by small rosters.

Leon Washington: 12th by large rosters. 60th by small rosters.

If Andre Johnson goes off for 1800/15, this will be a far different-looking contest, as far as the big vs small roster debate is concerned, than if he "only" hits 1300/7.

Great observations. I was looking for a way to sort by player based on the number of players rostered.

Kicking myself for not going with Romo. I thought Schaub would be less popular since Romo has a week 4 bye.

Will you post your roster? I'm interested in what you came up with.

 

[QuizGuy66]

My against the grain picks were two big TE Finley and Witten, figured not many teams would have thouse two together. Also I went cheap and alot on WR but quality on RB Rice, Gore, Matthews, foster, Jennings. last year I tried to go with two above average QB this year I decided to grab rodgers and two cheap back ups Anderson and Mat Moore. (think I have 12 WR)

95 entries have Finley and WittenUm, the querier says nobody has Rice, Gore, Mathews, Foster and Jennings There are two entries with Rice, Gore, Mathews and Foster - one of which has just those 4, the other of which has Tolbert as well.But neither of those two entries have Finley and Witten (in fact 1 has just Finley, the other has neither of them). -QG

 

[panhead55]

Tom Brady $24 0.00

Matt Schaub $23

Cedric Benson $24

Reggie Bush $22

Arian Foster $13

Larry Fitzgerald $30

Calvin Johnson $27

Jabar Gaffney $16

Pierre Garcon $12

Chris Chambers $7

Julian Edelman $5

Brian Finneran $1

Jermichael Finley $21

Jermaine Gresham $6

Ryan Longwell $5

Neil Rackers $4

Cincinnati Bengals $5

San Francisco 49ers $5

I went with the minimum number of players and will be playing injury suicide. No matter which stategy you use, you need some luck also.

 

[otis68]

My against the grain picks were two big TE Finley and Witten, figured not many teams would have thouse two together. Also I went cheap and alot on WR but quality on RB Rice, Gore, Matthews, foster, Jennings. last year I tried to go with two above average QB this year I decided to grab rodgers and two cheap back ups Anderson and Mat Moore. (think I have 12 WR)

95 entries have Finley and WittenUm, the querier says nobody has Rice, Gore, Mathews, Foster and Jennings

There are two entries with Rice, Gore, Mathews and Foster - one of which has just those 4, the other of which has Tolbert as well.

But neither of those two entries have Finley and Witten (in fact 1 has just Finley, the other has neither of them).



-QG

I assume it is this one...no fosterhttp://subscribers.footballguys.com/contest/2010/109444.php

 

[BaBastage]

2. The numbers look just about identical from 25 to 30. I would have to imagine that injuries, byes, and unexpected breakout players will only help the bigger rosters compared to the smaller ones, right? I mean, if smaller rosters don't appear to have an advantage in week 1, when all studs are healthy and all the low-priced guys still project to be low performers, how are they going to make up that ground when_____insert expensive stud_______ gets hurt and _____ insert three young cheap guys_______ break out?

You couldn't have said it more clearly. If the low roster teams appear near equal today, they'll be disadvantaged over the course of the season.

Aaron Rodgers: 4th-most-owned by small rosters, 49th-most-owned by large rosters.Andre Johnson: 5th most owned by small rosters, not in top 75 by large rosters.Laurent Robinson: 9th most owned by large rosters. 49th by small rosters.Leon Washington: 12th by large rosters. 60th by small rosters.

This stands to reason.... small rosters focus on studs, and large rosters look for quantities of value.Doug- thanks for your work on all this - Here's something fun for you to consider:13,000 teams.Avg 2 hours of time planning and submitting their team (Granted the die hards - including me - are vastly above 2 hours on this)=A lot of benefit you've added for your followers

 

[QuizGuy66]

Well, I took a look at what my team could've done differently if I had gone with 30 players instead of 26. Basically the scenario where I try to optimize value plays at the expensive of having the studly ADP and where my personal preference of Stafford over Ryan wouldn't have come into play.

Essentially I would be losing:

QB - Matt Stafford

RB - Adrian Peterson

RB - Bernard Scott

PK - Sebastian Janikowski

DE - Detroit Lions

and replacing them with

QB - Matt Ryan

RB - Fred Taylor

RB - Darren McFadden

WR - Brian Hartline

WR - Nate Washington

WR - Dwayne Jarrett

WR - Brian Finneran (technically not a top value play, but the best of the $1 guys)

PK - Nick Folk

DE - San Diego Chargers

Will chart both versions and see if "true" value based on my metrics would've prevailed.

My 3-6-8-3-3-3 alignment becomes a 3-6-12-3-3-3 alignment in this scenario.

Link to my actual entry. The balance of the players would be the same: Here I am

-QG

 

[HairySasquatch]

Well, I took a look at what my team could've done differently if I had gone with 30 players instead of 26. Basically the scenario where I try to optimize value plays at the expensive of having the studly ADP and where my personal preference of Stafford over Ryan wouldn't have come into play.

Essentially I would be losing:

QB - Matt Stafford

RB - Adrian Peterson

RB - Bernard Scott

PK - Sebastian Janikowski

DE - Detroit Lions

and replacing them with

QB - Matt Ryan

RB - Fred Taylor

RB - Darren McFadden

WR - Brian Hartline

WR - Nate Washington

WR - Dwayne Jarrett

WR - Brian Finneran (technically not a top value play, but the best of the $1 guys)

PK - Nick Folk

DE - San Diego Chargers

Will chart both versions and see if "true" value based on my metrics would've prevailed.

My 3-6-8-3-3-3 alignment becomes a 3-6-12-3-3-3 alignment in this scenario.

Link to my actual entry. The balance of the players would be the same: Here I am

-QG

I don't think I would have dropped Peterson to get to 30 players. I would have dropped Calvin Johnson and his $27 dollar price tag.

I also wouldn't pick up more expensive K and Def. Pick up another $2 kicker and $3 defense. That will leave you $22 left over for three more players. Then pick up 3 more WRs. I think there are a few combos that can be put together for $22 that will put up just as many points as Calvin Johnson.

That's how I would do it.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Well, I took a look at what my team could've done differently if I had gone with 30 players instead of 26. Basically the scenario where I try to optimize value plays at the expensive of having the studly ADP and where my personal preference of Stafford over Ryan wouldn't have come into play.

Essentially I would be losing:

QB - Matt Stafford

RB - Adrian Peterson

RB - Bernard Scott

PK - Sebastian Janikowski

DE - Detroit Lions

and replacing them with

QB - Matt Ryan

RB - Fred Taylor

RB - Darren McFadden

WR - Brian Hartline

WR - Nate Washington

WR - Dwayne Jarrett

WR - Brian Finneran (technically not a top value play, but the best of the $1 guys)

PK - Nick Folk

DE - San Diego Chargers

Will chart both versions and see if "true" value based on my metrics would've prevailed.

My 3-6-8-3-3-3 alignment becomes a 3-6-12-3-3-3 alignment in this scenario.

Link to my actual entry. The balance of the players would be the same: Here I am

-QG

I don't think I would have dropped Peterson to get to 30 players. I would have dropped Calvin Johnson and his $27 dollar price tag.

I also wouldn't pick up more expensive K and Def. Pick up another $2 kicker and $3 defense. That will leave you $22 left over for three more players. Then pick up 3 more WRs. I think there are a few combos that can be put together for $22 that will put up just as many points as Calvin Johnson.

That's how I would do it.

Calvin is actually I guy I wouldn't get rid of - I see him as a good value even at his price, actually. Also good to have at least one anchor there. I'm not convinced the gaggle of WRs would replace him on his best weeks. The tricky part of all this of course is that diversification keeps you above the cut line but it's questionable whether it put you over the top at the very end. -QG

 

[HairySasquatch]

I can see Johnson having monster games this year.....over a hundred yards and 2 TDs would not surprise me. But I can also see him put up 30 or 40 yards with 0 TDs. Too many of those, and it will be hard to advance.

 

[HairySasquatch]

I'm not sure I would have kept ADP either though, for what it's worth. I ended up with Peterson on my team, but I'm starting to second guess that move.

However, I do think that ADP will be more consistent than CJ over the course of the season. That's where I want to spend my big money....on a RB.

I will take my 10-12 WR's all under the price of 16. I'm betting that I will get at least 3 TD's out of that group and be happy with it. That team will be more consistent than having a team with a couple stud WRs and only a couple back ups.

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

How much trouble am i in with this team. Very short on depth but i spread out the byes very good.

Tom Brady 5 $24

Matthew Stafford 7 $16

Ahmad Bradshaw 8 $18

C.J. Spiller 6 $17

Arian Foster 7 $13

Rashad Jennings 9 $3

Mike Tolbert 10 $1

Calvin Johnson 7 $27

Wes Welker 5 $21

Terrell Owens 6 $19

Malcom Floyd 10 $17

Mike Williams 4 $8

Louis Murphy 10 $4

Jermichael Finley 10 $21

Jason Witten 4 $19

Rob Gronkowski 5 $3

Sebastian Janikowski 10 $2

Olindo Mare 5 $2

Graham Gano 8 $2

Matt Bryant 8 $2

Jason Hanson 7 $2

San Francisco 49ers 9 $5

New Orleans Saints 10 $4

 

[WisWolvrns]

one last strategy tip I try to adhere to is not to get sucked into the hyped guys so much that I depend on them in my roster as a weekly scorer. It makes a lot of sense to be on the bandwagon, since if they do go off many other people will be owning them and they will become critical for survival. However if they don't and you built your team with them as a starting centerpiece... then you are really in trouble. So mixing in a decent amount of known quantity players is needed to balance out the high risk high reward types.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Doug- thanks for your work on all this - Here's something fun for you to consider:....A lot of benefit you've added for your followers

+1This contest will be a major reason why I will continue to buy a subscription.Thanks!

 

[ratbast]

This stands to reason.... small rosters focus on studs, and large rosters look for quantities of value.

There is the possibility that $200 was spent on the same players. What was done with the last $50? Did they buy 2 players or 10?I've been trying to explain with my previous posts that I don't thinks roster size is that much of a factor. I propose that the concept of a balanced value roster vs. studs and duds is really the more important difference between these entries.

 

[Redmen62]

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

There is some theoretical price-flatness point where it would not make sense to have as many players as possible in this format, but we ain't there yet.

 

[FUBAR]

a lot of people, including me, are feeling stupid for not paying $21 for Welker right now

 

[Bristol]

a lot of people, including me, are feeling stupid for not paying $21 for Welker right now

Over react much? It's the first game of the season.

 

[cstu]

a lot of people, including me, are feeling stupid for not paying $21 for Welker right now

Over react much? It's the first game of the season.

I said it before that $21 for Welker was the best deal for WR's if he's healthy and he looks healthy to me.

 

[FUBAR]

a lot of people, including me, are feeling stupid for not paying $21 for Welker right now

Over react much? It's the first game of the season.

Overreact to the fact that the only reason he was cheap was the concern over how he'd come back from his injury, now to see that he's come back just fine? That's not an overreaction.

 

[Bristol]

a lot of people, including me, are feeling stupid for not paying $21 for Welker right now

Over react much? It's the first game of the season.

Overreact to the fact that the only reason he was cheap was the concern over how he'd come back from his injury, now to see that he's come back just fine? That's not an overreaction.

It's week one. Do you really know if he is "fine"? I don't and neither do you. It's an overreaction.You probably rushed to pick up Devery Henderson on Thursday as well.