Subscriber Contest (1 Viewer)

[rzrback77]

Looking over my team's positions as strength vs. weakness:

QB - After Schaub's explosion last week, I'm calling strength. I gambled here with just Schuab and Roethlisberger, but if I get past week 5, these two could be an awesome duo for the money.

RB - My most glaring weakness and could be my undoing. Things have not gone as planned and I only took 4 RB's. I have Foster and, for now, Hightower. My other two are Spiller, who has yet to show up, and Reggie Bush, who is now out several weeks. And to top it off, Spiller and Hightower have the same bye in week 6 so I'm already taking a zero with no Bush that week. Luckily I have no one else on bye that week and my lone back is Foster.

WR - My biggest strength. Went with 5 and I've used them all at least once with double digit scores all around. White & Welker are worth the price and got middle price quality with Santana & Dez and then my bargain payoff in Louis Murphy. None of them have the same bye.

TE - Similar to QB, a minor strength with hope for the future. Finley has yet to breakout big, but Hernandez looked exciting this week for $5 and I'm waiting for Big Ben to get back and start rolling with Miller as a third solid option. Miller & Hernandez both on bye in week 5.

PK - Went with quantity and like my 4 choices of Rackers, Bironas, SeaBass & Hanson to break 10 each week. Strength. Rackers & Hanson have the same bye in week 7.

TD - Minor issue as I have four here as well, but I don't see any of them being consistent. I'm going weakness on this group of San Fran, Oakland, New England & Detroit. Hope I'm wrong here, but a score of 6 this week wasn't inspiring. No bye week pairings here at least.

Having scored 188 & 195 for the first two weeks has me pumped. If I can survive the byes and get Bush back and somewhat effective, I've got a real chance to make the final grouping. This team is better than my team last year where I got knocked out in week 12 or 13. The year before that I made the finals and only scored over 180 twice. This team feels like my best team over the last 3 years for both strength and consistancy.

Going with only five is definitely not a team strength at WR where you need three scores each week

 

[QuizGuy66]

141.75

Turk is gone.

Even the Turk isn't safe from the Turk!! Glad to be moving on to week 3.





-QG

Who is this Turk guy?

First MentionI dare not speak the Turk's name

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

1 of the 2 21-kicker guys is still alive!!!







-QG

in order for the 3000 or so that couldn't outlast this guy. He's cleared the hurdle by double digit points to top it off.

Honorable mention to 17-defense guy who is also still alive!As an aside, that's 5 more defenses than any other entry. On top of that there were only 4 guys that started out with 9 or more defenses (including 17TDG) and a total of 36 entries that started out with 6 or more defenses.

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

Maximum players by position still surviving.

QB - 10 with 8 kickers

QB - 10 with 7 kickers

RB - 15

WR - 18

TE - 15

PK - 21

TD - 17

-QG

 

[LittlePhatty]

Who is this Turk guy?

First Mention

That still doesn't explain it.But a Google search does.

It's a nickname for the guy on the team's staff who is responsible for telling players they have been cut.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Wasn't there a 14 kicker guy who made it to week 10 or something last year?

 

[The Ref]

#23 last week, #230 this week. So far so good....

 

[CalBear]

#23 last week, #230 this week. So far so good....

Following the trend line, that means you'll be #2300 next week and out in week 4.

 

[The Ref]

#23 last week, #230 this week. So far so good....

Following the trend line, that means you'll be #2300 next week and out in week 4.

Yup, that sounds about right.

 

[Rovers]

I did my entry so fast, I didn't even check for bye weeks. LOL... I'll do well till week 8.

 

[Jayrod]

Looking over my team's positions as strength vs. weakness:

QB - After Schaub's explosion last week, I'm calling strength. I gambled here with just Schuab and Roethlisberger, but if I get past week 5, these two could be an awesome duo for the money.

RB - My most glaring weakness and could be my undoing. Things have not gone as planned and I only took 4 RB's. I have Foster and, for now, Hightower. My other two are Spiller, who has yet to show up, and Reggie Bush, who is now out several weeks. And to top it off, Spiller and Hightower have the same bye in week 6 so I'm already taking a zero with no Bush that week. Luckily I have no one else on bye that week and my lone back is Foster.

WR - My biggest strength. Went with 5 and I've used them all at least once with double digit scores all around. White & Welker are worth the price and got middle price quality with Santana & Dez and then my bargain payoff in Louis Murphy. None of them have the same bye.

TE - Similar to QB, a minor strength with hope for the future. Finley has yet to breakout big, but Hernandez looked exciting this week for $5 and I'm waiting for Big Ben to get back and start rolling with Miller as a third solid option. Miller & Hernandez both on bye in week 5.

PK - Went with quantity and like my 4 choices of Rackers, Bironas, SeaBass & Hanson to break 10 each week. Strength. Rackers & Hanson have the same bye in week 7.

TD - Minor issue as I have four here as well, but I don't see any of them being consistent. I'm going weakness on this group of San Fran, Oakland, New England & Detroit. Hope I'm wrong here, but a score of 6 this week wasn't inspiring. No bye week pairings here at least.

Having scored 188 & 195 for the first two weeks has me pumped. If I can survive the byes and get Bush back and somewhat effective, I've got a real chance to make the final grouping. This team is better than my team last year where I got knocked out in week 12 or 13. The year before that I made the finals and only scored over 180 twice. This team feels like my best team over the last 3 years for both strength and consistancy.

Going with only five is definitely not a team strength at WR where you need three scores each week

I don't know if you realize it, but 5 > 3.You don't even need more than 4. You just need the right 4. It doesn't matter how many extra names you have....if you don't have the high scoring ones it doesn't matter. I currently have at least 4 receivers playing every week that have done well through 2 weeks. Most weeks I will have all 5 going. I have scored better in these 2 weeks than I did in either of the last two entire seasons where I went very deep into the contest. I've been in the top 15% both weeks thanks primarily to my WR's.

IMO, Quality >>> Quantity ...... We'd all like to have Quality + Quantity, but I think the contest is set up so as to not allow that.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I don't know if you realize it, but 5 > 3.You don't even need more than 4. You just need the right 4. It doesn't matter how many extra names you have....if you don't have the high scoring ones it doesn't matter.

Yeah, but even the high scoring ones don't put up consistently high points every single week. Going with just 4 or 5 is an enormous risk because even if you happen to pick the "right 4" they're still likely to have a few down weeks over the course of the season, and when they do you've got no one behind them to pick up the slack.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Okay, let's look at survival rates so far based on number or WRs. I think this is one of the key areas where the 18-player vs 30-player entries diverge the most.

For referece, the overall survival rate in the contest stands at 76.79%

3 WR: 44.44%

4 WR: 64.04%

5 WR: 74.54%

6 WR: 78.12%

7 WR: 78.73%

8 WR: 81.27%

9 WR: 81.80%

10+ WR: 83.06%

It'll be interesting to see how these rates look once the bye weeks start.

Ah, what the heck - here's the other positions:

2 RB: 53.38%

3 RB: 73.21%

4 RB: 76.95%

5 RB: 77.66%

6 RB: 78.47%

7 RB: 76.90%

8 RB: 74.33%

9+ RB: 76.40%

1 QB: 65.94%

2 QB: 77.87%

3 QB: 77.05%

4 QB: 73.96%

5+ QB: 58.38%

1 TE: 63.45%

2 TE: 76.68%

3 TE: 81.10%

4 TE: 82.44%

5+ TE: 79.63%

1 PK: 63.31%

2 PK: 77.50%

3 PK: 81.03%

4 PK: 76.79%

5-20 PK: 76.79%

21 PK: 50.00% :(

1 TD: 66.51%

2 TD: 77.51%

3 TD: 80.17%

4+ TD: 73.91%

-QG

 

[Mister CIA]

I don't know if you realize it, but 5 > 3.You don't even need more than 4. You just need the right 4. It doesn't matter how many extra names you have....if you don't have the high scoring ones it doesn't matter.

Yeah, but even the high scoring ones don't put up consistently high points every single week. Going with just 4 or 5 is an enormous risk because even if you happen to pick the "right 4" they're still likely to have a few down weeks over the course of the season, and when they do you've got no one behind them to pick up the slack.

For a second, I drifted off and thought this was a discussion about wives and girlfriends.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I don't know if you realize it, but 5 > 3.You don't even need more than 4. You just need the right 4. It doesn't matter how many extra names you have....if you don't have the high scoring ones it doesn't matter.

Yeah, but even the high scoring ones don't put up consistently high points every single week. Going with just 4 or 5 is an enormous risk because even if you happen to pick the "right 4" they're still likely to have a few down weeks over the course of the season, and when they do you've got no one behind them to pick up the slack.

Using similar logic, dont you have to pick the "right 9" if you go with 9 wrs?The arguments presented here confuse me.Wayne, Moss, OchoCinco, Driver, Henderson <--- my 5 wrs

 

[CalBear]

I don't know if you realize it, but 5 > 3.You don't even need more than 4. You just need the right 4. It doesn't matter how many extra names you have....if you don't have the high scoring ones it doesn't matter.

Yeah, but even the high scoring ones don't put up consistently high points every single week. Going with just 4 or 5 is an enormous risk because even if you happen to pick the "right 4" they're still likely to have a few down weeks over the course of the season, and when they do you've got no one behind them to pick up the slack.

Using similar logic, dont you have to pick the "right 9" if you go with 9 wrs?The arguments presented here confuse me.Wayne, Moss, OchoCinco, Driver, Henderson <--- my 5 wrs

No, if you pick 9 WRs you have to hit on about half of them to be right. If you pick 5 WRs you have to hit on all of them to be right.

 

[Kuz]

Looking over my team's positions as strength vs. weakness:

QB - After Schaub's explosion last week, I'm calling strength. I gambled here with just Schuab and Roethlisberger, but if I get past week 5, these two could be an awesome duo for the money.

RB - My most glaring weakness and could be my undoing. Things have not gone as planned and I only took 4 RB's. I have Foster and, for now, Hightower. My other two are Spiller, who has yet to show up, and Reggie Bush, who is now out several weeks. And to top it off, Spiller and Hightower have the same bye in week 6 so I'm already taking a zero with no Bush that week. Luckily I have no one else on bye that week and my lone back is Foster.

WR - My biggest strength. Went with 5 and I've used them all at least once with double digit scores all around. White & Welker are worth the price and got middle price quality with Santana & Dez and then my bargain payoff in Louis Murphy. None of them have the same bye.

TE - Similar to QB, a minor strength with hope for the future. Finley has yet to breakout big, but Hernandez looked exciting this week for $5 and I'm waiting for Big Ben to get back and start rolling with Miller as a third solid option. Miller & Hernandez both on bye in week 5.

PK - Went with quantity and like my 4 choices of Rackers, Bironas, SeaBass & Hanson to break 10 each week. Strength. Rackers & Hanson have the same bye in week 7.

TD - Minor issue as I have four here as well, but I don't see any of them being consistent. I'm going weakness on this group of San Fran, Oakland, New England & Detroit. Hope I'm wrong here, but a score of 6 this week wasn't inspiring. No bye week pairings here at least.

Having scored 188 & 195 for the first two weeks has me pumped. If I can survive the byes and get Bush back and somewhat effective, I've got a real chance to make the final grouping. This team is better than my team last year where I got knocked out in week 12 or 13. The year before that I made the finals and only scored over 180 twice. This team feels like my best team over the last 3 years for both strength and consistancy.

Going with only five is definitely not a team strength at WR where you need three scores each week

I don't know if you realize it, but 5 > 3.You don't even need more than 4. You just need the right 4. It doesn't matter how many extra names you have....if you don't have the high scoring ones it doesn't matter. I currently have at least 4 receivers playing every week that have done well through 2 weeks. Most weeks I will have all 5 going. I have scored better in these 2 weeks than I did in either of the last two entire seasons where I went very deep into the contest. I've been in the top 15% both weeks thanks primarily to my WR's.

IMO, Quality >>> Quantity ...... We'd all like to have Quality + Quantity, but I think the contest is set up so as to not allow that.

I don't think WR will probably be your downfall. You actually look okay there with the 5 you have. If you somehow make it past week 6 then you may do okay with all of the good players you have. Very unlikely that you survive past week 5 or 6 though. That Bush injury was a killer. I could see going to bat with those 4 RB's hoping Spiller would start to do something but with only having 3 - you're not looking to good.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I don't know if you realize it, but 5 > 3.You don't even need more than 4. You just need the right 4. It doesn't matter how many extra names you have....if you don't have the high scoring ones it doesn't matter.

Yeah, but even the high scoring ones don't put up consistently high points every single week. Going with just 4 or 5 is an enormous risk because even if you happen to pick the "right 4" they're still likely to have a few down weeks over the course of the season, and when they do you've got no one behind them to pick up the slack.

Using similar logic, dont you have to pick the "right 9" if you go with 9 wrs?The arguments presented here confuse me.Wayne, Moss, OchoCinco, Driver, Henderson <--- my 5 wrs

No, if you pick 9 WRs you have to hit on about half of them to be right. If you pick 5 WRs you have to hit on all of them to be right.

I see. And do these 9 WRs have the same likelihood of success as the 5 WRs?

 

[CalBear]

No, if you pick 9 WRs you have to hit on about half of them to be right. If you pick 5 WRs you have to hit on all of them to be right.

I see. And do these 9 WRs have the same likelihood of success as the 5 WRs?

No, the 9 WRs have a greater likelihood of producing 5 successful WRs than the 5 WRs.

 

[rzrback77]

Looking over my team's positions as strength vs. weakness:

WR - My biggest strength. Went with 5 and I've used them all at least once with double digit scores all around. White & Welker are worth the price and got middle price quality with Santana & Dez and then my bargain payoff in Louis Murphy. None of them have the same bye.

Going with only five is definitely not a team strength at WR where you need three scores each week

I don't know if you realize it, but 5 > 3.You don't even need more than 4. You just need the right 4. It doesn't matter how many extra names you have....if you don't have the high scoring ones it doesn't matter. I currently have at least 4 receivers playing every week that have done well through 2 weeks. Most weeks I will have all 5 going. I have scored better in these 2 weeks than I did in either of the last two entire seasons where I went very deep into the contest. I've been in the top 15% both weeks thanks primarily to my WR's.

IMO, Quality >>> Quantity ...... We'd all like to have Quality + Quantity, but I think the contest is set up so as to not allow that.

FYI the top ten WRs in 2009 and the number of weeks with single digit ppr scoring includiing their bye week

1) A Johnson 4

2) R Moss 5

3) M Austin 6

4) D Jackson 5

5) L Fitzgerald 3

6) R Wayne 6

7) R White 7

8) S Rice 5

9) B Marshall 6

10) V Jackson 6

Lots of low scoring weeks there even in the top ten, but to each their own.

 

[firstseason1988]

Okay, let's look at survival rates so far based on number or WRs. I think this is one of the key areas where the 18-player vs 30-player entries diverge the most. For referece, the overall survival rate in the contest stands at 76.79%3 WR: 44.44%4 WR: 64.04%5 WR: 74.54%6 WR: 78.12%7 WR: 78.73%8 WR: 81.27%9 WR: 81.80%10+ WR: 83.06%It'll be interesting to see how these rates look once the bye weeks start.Ah, what the heck - here's the other positions:2 RB: 53.38%3 RB: 73.21%4 RB: 76.95%5 RB: 77.66%6 RB: 78.47%7 RB: 76.90%8 RB: 74.33%9+ RB: 76.40%1 QB: 65.94%2 QB: 77.87%3 QB: 77.05%4 QB: 73.96%5+ QB: 58.38%1 TE: 63.45%2 TE: 76.68%3 TE: 81.10%4 TE: 82.44%5+ TE: 79.63%1 PK: 63.31%2 PK: 77.50%3 PK: 81.03%4 PK: 76.79%5-20 PK: 76.79%21 PK: 50.00% 1 TD: 66.51%2 TD: 77.51%3 TD: 80.17%4+ TD: 73.91%-QG

very predictable except 21K dude. dems skillz.

 

[ctriopelle]

No, if you pick 9 WRs you have to hit on about half of them to be right. If you pick 5 WRs you have to hit on all of them to be right.

I see. And do these 9 WRs have the same likelihood of success as the 5 WRs?

No, the 9 WRs have a greater likelihood of producing 5 successful WRs than the 5 WRs.

I look at this scenario a bit differently...with 5 WR's its nearly imperative that they all be good, and fairly consistently good. With 9 WR's I can succeed with none of them necessarily "breaking out" as the next Jerry Rice, as long as any 3 of them manage to put up a good week in any given week. They may each only have 2 or 3 good weeks the entire year, and the best ball format guarantees I get to use them. Most mid-low tier WR's end up with a couple of respectable weeks, and as long as they don't all have them together, a pile of them usually makes for a decent solution. The fact that byes become less of an issue with this approach is a benefit too.

 

[gregjcross]

Maximum players by position still surviving.

QB - 10 with 8 kickers

QB - 10 with 7 kickers

RB - 15

WR - 18

TE - 15

PK - 21

TD - 17

-QG

My 6 WRs set , see below (top 3 performances each week not counting Flex) have beaten #108023's group of 18 WRs 98 to 97 pts total over two weeks.Of course, I paid $88 for my six while #108023 paid $74 for 18, so the value of Quantity is beating to this point. For me, this is going to be very interesting to track over the next month esp. during early byes, because I have high risers in G.Jennings and Desean Jax that I don't believe any of his WRs can match -except Mike Williams, who I also have. I predict the 18 WRs outscore mine but if it cost the opportunity to roster a 4th RB and 3rd QB it will hurt that team. Now i want to find a team with 12 WRs to compare to. A dozen is likely a better value than 18 to ensure quantity at all positions, not just WR but maybe that removes Mark Clayton, Mr. out of nowhere.

Rest of my team

Greg Jennings $26 19.2 6.6

DeSean Jackson $25 7 24 bye

Mich Crabtree $22 3.2 4.2

Mike Williams $8 14 13.4 bye

Louis Murphy $4 6.8 21.1

Greg Camarillo $3 3.9 1.3 bye

Totals wk1 40 wk2 58.5 2 week total 98.5

 

[Marauder]

My 6 WRs set , see below (top 3 performances each week not counting Flex) have beaten #108023's group of 18 WRs 98 to 97 pts total over two weeks.

Of course, I paid $88 for my six while #108023 paid $74 for 18, so the value of Quantity is beating to this point yet if the cutoff was a lot higher he might have visited the Turk. For me, this is going to be very interesting to track over the next month esp. during early byes, because I have high risers in G.Jennings and Desean Jax that I don't believe any of his WRs can match -except Mike Williams, who I also have. I predict the 18 WRs outscore mine but if it cost the opportunity to roster a 4th RB and 3rd QB it will hurt that team. Rest of my team Now i want to find a team with 12 WRs to compare to. A dozen is likely a better value than 18 to ensure quantity at all positions, not just WR but maybe that removes Mark Clayton, Mr. out of nowhere.

Greg Jennings $26 19.2 6.6

DeSean Jackson $25 7 24 bye

Mich Crabtree $22 3.2 4.2 108023

Mike Williams $8 14 13.4 bye

Louis Murphy $4 6.8 21.1

Greg Camarillo $3 3.9 1.3 bye

Totals wk1 40 wk2 58.5 2 week total 98.5

Hmmm, If there is ever a time when quality should beat quantity it's weeks 1 and 2, before any bye weeks and before injuries start piling up yet he has played you basically even. Obviously this is way too small a sample size to make any judgements off but if you were inclined to do so I think it's clear that quantity is winning this race.

 

[gregjcross]

My 6 WRs set , see below (top 3 performances each week not counting Flex) have beaten #108023's group of 18 WRs 98 to 97 pts total over two weeks.

Of course, I paid $88 for my six while #108023 paid $74 for 18, so the value of Quantity is beating to this point yet if the cutoff was a lot higher he might have visited the Turk. For me, this is going to be very interesting to track over the next month esp. during early byes, because I have high risers in G.Jennings and Desean Jax that I don't believe any of his WRs can match -except Mike Williams, who I also have. I predict the 18 WRs outscore mine but if it cost the opportunity to roster a 4th RB and 3rd QB it will hurt that team. Rest of my team Now i want to find a team with 12 WRs to compare to. A dozen is likely a better value than 18 to ensure quantity at all positions, not just WR but maybe that removes Mark Clayton, Mr. out of nowhere.

Greg Jennings $26 19.2 6.6

DeSean Jackson $25 7 24 bye

Mich Crabtree $22 3.2 4.2 108023

Mike Williams $8 14 13.4 bye

Louis Murphy $4 6.8 21.1

Greg Camarillo $3 3.9 1.3 bye

Totals wk1 40 wk2 58.5 2 week total 98.5

Hmmm, If there is ever a time when quality should beat quantity it's weeks 1 and 2, before any bye weeks and before injuries start piling up yet he has played you basically even. Obviously this is way too small a sample size to make any judgements off but if you were inclined to do so I think it's clear that quantity is winning this race.

I agree, It is for sure. But in this case that team has just too many players (of the 30 max) at WR making it, at least to me, fatally flawed. Mine might be dead early too if Crabtree doesnt turn up the heat. Surviving byes is going to be tough as i'll surely take a 0 at some point at the third position

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

My 6 WRs set , see below (top 3 performances each week not counting Flex) have beaten #108023's group of 18 WRs 98 to 97 pts total over two weeks.

Of course, I paid $88 for my six while #108023 paid $74 for 18, so the value of Quantity is beating to this point yet if the cutoff was a lot higher he might have visited the Turk. For me, this is going to be very interesting to track over the next month esp. during early byes, because I have high risers in G.Jennings and Desean Jax that I don't believe any of his WRs can match -except Mike Williams, who I also have. I predict the 18 WRs outscore mine but if it cost the opportunity to roster a 4th RB and 3rd QB it will hurt that team. Now i want to find a team with 12 WRs to compare to. A dozen is likely a better value than 18 to ensure quantity at all positions, not just WR but maybe that removes Mark Clayton, Mr. out of nowhere.

Rest of my team

Greg Jennings $26 19.2 6.6

DeSean Jackson $25 7 24 bye

Mich Crabtree $22 3.2 4.2

Mike Williams $8 14 13.4 bye

Louis Murphy $4 6.8 21.1

Greg Camarillo $3 3.9 1.3 bye

Totals wk1 40 wk2 58.5 2 week total 98.5

I think 6 WR's can work well, as long as you have the right 6. I paid $75 for my 6, and they've scored 121.2 for the top 3 the first 2 weeks:
Andre Johnson $32 6.30 33.80 Wes Welker $21 26.40 15.80Mike Williams $8 14.00 13.40Bernard Berrian $7 1.30 4.40Louis Murphy $4 6.80 21.10Deion Branch $3 10.10 7.10I think people are focusing too much on the number of players rather than the quality/value. It's true that you need some depth, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to have 9 WR's, with 6 extra WR's riding pine. Bench points don't count. If you're somewhat lucky (and you have to be lucky to win this) with injuries/performance, 3 extra for the byes, injuries, flex, and poor performances can be more than enough. Andre Johnson put up a dud in week 1, but the others made up for it, and his week 2 performance also helped.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

No, if you pick 9 WRs you have to hit on about half of them to be right. If you pick 5 WRs you have to hit on all of them to be right.

I see. And do these 9 WRs have the same likelihood of success as the 5 WRs?

No, the 9 WRs have a greater likelihood of producing 5 successful WRs than the 5 WRs.

I look at this scenario a bit differently...with 5 WR's its nearly imperative that they all be good, and fairly consistently good. With 9 WR's I can succeed with none of them necessarily "breaking out" as the next Jerry Rice, as long as any 3 of them manage to put up a good week in any given week. They may each only have 2 or 3 good weeks the entire year, and the best ball format guarantees I get to use them. Most mid-low tier WR's end up with a couple of respectable weeks, and as long as they don't all have them together, a pile of them usually makes for a decent solution. The fact that byes become less of an issue with this approach is a benefit too.

Well, i dont pretend to :know" the right answer here, but my feeling is that 9 $7 WRs is more likely to survive week to week variability, but less likely to win the contest than 5 $13 receivers (oversimplistically)....if two teams make the finals and one has laurent robinson, chris chambers, deon branch, etc and the other has reggie wayne, randy moss, chad ochocinqo, etc., who is more likely to score the most points in the finals?So, the axiom is quantity gets you to the finals and quality wins you the finals, with the caveat that there's so much luck involved that you might as well pray that you randomly select the right cheap players to stumble into high scoring during the finals.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Preliminary week 3 sim

 

[firstseason1988]

Preliminary week 3 sim

Wow my highest ranking ever at 358.

 

[ctriopelle]

Preliminary week 3 sim

Doug:What is driving the "lock" team at the top?

 

[Donsmith753]

700th ish, I'll take it.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Preliminary week 3 sim

Doug:What is driving the "lock" team at the top?

Based on an earlier post in the thread, I made some minor tweaks to improve the simulation, and that's what came out Maybe somebody can find the post I'm talking about.

 

[rzrback77]

Well, i dont pretend to :know" the right answer here, but my feeling is that 9 $7 WRs is more likely to survive week to week variability, but less likely to win the contest than 5 $13 receivers (oversimplistically)....if two teams make the finals and one has laurent robinson, chris chambers, deon branch, etc and the other has reggie wayne, randy moss, chad ochocinqo, etc., who is more likely to score the most points in the finals?

So, the axiom is quantity gets you to the finals and quality wins you the finals, with the caveat that there's so much luck involved that you might as well pray that you randomly select the right cheap players to stumble into high scoring during the finals.

So your example is to compare 9 $7 guys to 5 $13 guys and then the list of #13 guys includes Wayne, Moss, and Ocho???? FAIL

 

[inca911]

Preliminary week 3 sim

Doug,Is it possible to get all the "good links" added to the first page? Or alternatively linked somehow to the contest home page? I really like all the extra info you've put together (sims, query tool, etc), but it can be difficult to locate. Thanks!

 

[QuizGuy66]

21 Kicker guy is 66% to advance based on the simulator

-QG

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Well, i dont pretend to :know" the right answer here, but my feeling is that 9 $7 WRs is more likely to survive week to week variability, but less likely to win the contest than 5 $13 receivers (oversimplistically)....if two teams make the finals and one has laurent robinson, chris chambers, deon branch, etc and the other has reggie wayne, randy moss, chad ochocinqo, etc., who is more likely to score the most points in the finals?

Wayne, Moss, Ochocinco are not $13 receivers. I don't have the prices handy but I'm certain those three alone would cost you more than $65. And if you just went with those three, as "studly" as they are, you'd have almost no chance of winning the contest.ETA: I see now that you actually are a Wayne/Moss/Ochocinco owner. You spent $100 on 5 WRs. My guess is that you could have spent the same amount on 10 WRs instead and it would have greatly increased your chances in this contest. But all the differing strategies is what makes this contest fun.

 

[apalmer]

Preliminary week 3 sim

Doug,Is it possible to get all the "good links" added to the first page? Or alternatively linked somehow to the contest home page? I really like all the extra info you've put together (sims, query tool, etc), but it can be difficult to locate. Thanks!

Links to most of them are on the weekly content page

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Preliminary week 3 sim

Doug:What is driving the "lock" team at the top?

Based on an earlier post in the thread, I made some minor tweaks to improve the simulation, and that's what came out Maybe somebody can find the post I'm talking about.

Philosophical question: does the fact that your sims had me ranked as just under the 6000th place team and I scored over 200 points motivate you to change the simulation algorithms? I have a 18 man roster / all studs and the simulation results had me perturbed, lol. Entry 101289.

 

[BassNBrew]

1 of the 2 21-kicker guys is still alive!!!







-QG

in order for the 3000 or so that couldn't outlast this guy. He's cleared the hurdle by double digit points to top it off.

Honorable mention to 17-defense guy who is also still alive!As an aside, that's 5 more defenses than any other entry. On top of that there were only 4 guys that started out with 9 or more defenses (including 17TDG) and a total of 36 entries that started out with 6 or more defenses.

-QG

LOL...would have been cheaper just to take the Jets and Steelers.

 

[Jayrod]

I guess to clarify my position on only using 5 WR's.....

My goal is to win the contest, not just stay alive. For the last two years I've stayed alive for a long time, but had no real chance to win it all. Not enough boom/bust type players and too many safety plays. This year I swung for the fences, had some players I targeted and built my team around them. In hindsight, I wish I'd added Mike Williams as a 6th WR, but didn't really feel like I could sacrifice anywhere else to get him in there. I wanted the WR's I had already and didn't feel I could go any cheaper at QB or RB. I maybe could have pulled it off with a cheaper #2 TE (went with H Miller), and some cheaper defenses, but I'm still thinking Miller could pay off big after Big Ben comes back. I'm really banking on huge things from Roethlisberger and Miller.

I know that I'll have to get lucky to get through weeks 5 & 6, but I'd rather roll the dice early in the contest while cut lines are lower than to have a mediocre team in weeks 14-16. I sacrificed weekly comfort for future glory...but that was very intentional.

However, I'm pretty sure WR will not be my undoing, but RB. What the heck was I thinking counting on Reggie to last the season?

 

[Jayrod]

Preliminary week 3 sim

Doug:What is driving the "lock" team at the top?

Based on an earlier post in the thread, I made some minor tweaks to improve the simulation, and that's what came out Maybe somebody can find the post I'm talking about.

Philosophical question: does the fact that your sims had me ranked as just under the 6000th place team and I scored over 200 points motivate you to change the simulation algorithms? I have a 18 man roster / all studs and the simulation results had me perturbed, lol. Entry 101289.

Well, maybe the problem was that he actually has a 19 man roster instead of 18.

 

[BassNBrew]

Preliminary week 3 sim

Doug:What is driving the "lock" team at the top?

Based on an earlier post in the thread, I made some minor tweaks to improve the simulation, and that's what came out :( Maybe somebody can find the post I'm talking about.

Maybe you need to keep tweaking because I'll wager you any amount of money that Entry 101289 won't score 1/2 of the 999 pts you have him projected for.Either you mis-understood the question or I greatly whiffed on understanding your reply.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I greatly whiffed on understanding your reply.

This. It's just a joke.

 

[apalmer]

Preliminary week 3 sim

Doug:What is driving the "lock" team at the top?

Based on an earlier post in the thread, I made some minor tweaks to improve the simulation, and that's what came out Maybe somebody can find the post I'm talking about.

Maybe you need to keep tweaking because I'll wager you any amount of money that Entry 101289 won't score 1/2 of the 999 pts you have him projected for.Either you mis-understood the question or I greatly whiffed on understanding your reply.

He probably won't score that much, but SeniorVBDStudent hasn't complained about where the Sim ranks him since Doug made the change.

 

[BassNBrew]

I greatly whiffed on understanding your reply.

This. It's just a joke.

I can't believe that Doug actually did that.

 

[Balco]

Year 2 for me. Last year injuries hurt. And also stupidly selecting 3 tight ends with the same bye week! Got out pretty early (week 6 or 7, I believe).

Phillip Rivers $ 19

Brett Favre $ 18

Sam Bradford $ 9

I was shocked that Rivers was only 19 dollars. He is an elite qb with or without Vincent Jackson, and the Chargers upgraded at running back, which should only help. Also thought Favre was a solid value at 18. As long as he doesn't break, he will put up good stats. I could not decide what to do at # 3. I thought of Derek Anderson hard, but I believe he will not be the starter all year. I am very high on Bradford and believe he can put up a couple big games. All QB's have different byes.

Adrian Peterson $ 38

Matt Forte $ 20

CJ Spiller $17

Arian Foster $ 13

Leon Washington $ 8

Brandon Jackson $ 4

Rashad Jennings $ 3

Wanted a stud at rb, and Peterson fits the bill. Banking on him getting more action in the passing game. Debated between Ronnie Brown and Forte, and ended up with Forte. Foster was a no brainer at that price, and I like Spiller to put up nice receiving stats. If Washington is even 90 % to where he was, $8 is a steal. Took two backups, hoping to hit a home run. I like my top 5.

Pierre Garcon $ 12

Mike Thomas $ 11

Mike Williams (TB) $ 8

Dexter McCluster $ 7

Laurent Robinson $ 7

Sammie Stroughter $ 4

Louis Murphy $ 4

Deon Branch $ 3

Justin Gage $ 2

Didn't go for a stud here, and I need some breakouts, but for what I spent, I feel pretty good. I thought Branch at 3 and Murphy at 4 were great values. This area could be my downfall.

Zach Miller $15

Ben Watson $ 5

Aaron Hernandez $ 5

Probably should have went with an extra tight end, and Rob Gronkowski was the 4th for awhile, but switched it up late. Miller at 15 was great value now that he has an nfl caliber qb throwing the ball to him. Watson should put up nice stats in Cleveland, and I think Hernandez is going to be a weapon in New England.

Sebastian Janikowski $ 2

Matt Bryant $ 2

Rian Lindell $ 2

Jason Hanson $ 2

I had two kickers last year, and Phil Dawson was one of them. He was also hurt for several games. Not good. I decided to go with quantity here, and the only player I am really nervous about is Matt Bryant, who could get cut if he starts out shaky. All have different byes, so I need one kicker out of those 4 a week to have an above average game.

Cleveland $ 3

Tampa Bay $ 3

St. Louis $ 2

Detroit $ 2

Same thinking as with kickers. I picked 4 cheap defenses. One of those 4 needs to have an above average fantasy week per week.

If my receivers don't step up, this could be a short stay for me. Things I like about my team thus far:

I am happy I went with 4 kickers and 4 D's. I went with quantity over quality here, and I think it will work out fine. Two double digit point weeks for my kickers and 2 for my D.

I have pretty good running back depth. Forte was a last second addition.

Things I don't like:

Brett Favre - I hope he is just working out the kinks

Sammie Stroughter - Really whiffed here

Mike Thomas/Pierre Garcon - These 2 were supposed to be the anchors of my cheap receiver stable. I was counting on consistent points. Not looking so good.

I have had two solid weeks, but I just don't have the receivers, I think to make it far.

 

[Jayrod]

Pierre Garcon $ 12

Mike Thomas $ 11

Mike Williams (TB) $ 8

Dexter McCluster $ 7

Laurent Robinson $ 7

Sammie Stroughter $ 4

Louis Murphy $ 4

Deon Branch $ 3

Justin Gage $ 2

Didn't go for a stud here, and I need some breakouts, but for what I spent, I feel pretty good. I thought Branch at 3 and Murphy at 4 were great values. This area could be my downfall.

If my receivers don't step up, this could be a short stay for me. I have had two solid weeks, but I just don't have the receivers, I think to make it far.

Quantity <<< Quality

 

[LittlePhatty]

Quantity <<< Quality

Eh, you need both to wind up #1.A large quantity of high quality players.

The winner will have a team full of studs, with the "studs" being defined as such after the season, not before.

A $35 stud will have down weeks, and a $3 guy who becomes a stud will also have down weeks.

Player scores have peaks and valleys. A larger roster means less chance of those valleys lining up all in one week.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Pierre Garcon $ 12

Mike Thomas $ 11

Mike Williams (TB) $ 8

Dexter McCluster $ 7

Laurent Robinson $ 7

Sammie Stroughter $ 4

Louis Murphy $ 4

Deon Branch $ 3

Justin Gage $ 2

Didn't go for a stud here, and I need some breakouts, but for what I spent, I feel pretty good. I thought Branch at 3 and Murphy at 4 were great values. This area could be my downfall.

If my receivers don't step up, this could be a short stay for me. I have had two solid weeks, but I just don't have the receivers, I think to make it far.

Quantity <<< Quality

I don't think his team will really give us any insight about quality vs quantity because he only spent $58 on his WR corps, which was a huge mistake in my opinion (no offense Balco). I think the most effective teams will have somewhere around $100 allocated to WRs. So he could have added 5-6 more $7 guys, or 3 more $12 guys, or 1-2 "studlier" guys, or he could have upgraded all the guys he has, and his team would look a lot different right now. Which of those four, if any, would be the "right" way to manage the roster is obviously up for debate. But if we're looking at the quality vs. quantity debate I don't think $58 worth of WRs is going to give us any useful answers.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Preliminary week 3 sim

Doug:What is driving the "lock" team at the top?

Based on an earlier post in the thread, I made some minor tweaks to improve the simulation, and that's what came out Maybe somebody can find the post I'm talking about.

Philosophical question: does the fact that your sims had me ranked as just under the 6000th place team and I scored over 200 points motivate you to change the simulation algorithms? I have a 18 man roster / all studs and the simulation results had me perturbed, lol. Entry 101289.

Solid work here by the Turk.-QG