Subscriber Contest (3 Viewers)

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

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

This is such an important point. It sounds obvious, but I think part of the trick to winning is finding players who outperform their price. Obviously before the season we don't really know who those guys will be, but we do pretty much know who it won't be: the expensive "studs." At best they'll live up to their price, but I don't think they'll ever outproduce their cost by enough to be a difference-maker. You don't "swing for the fences" with expensive players - if you get lucky and everything goes right and they stay healthy all year and perform at a high level like they're supposed to, you will have gotten exactly what you paid for, and no more.

 

[BassNBrew]

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

Early returns don't support your statement. The injuries have started, but the byes haven't even hit yet.

 

[BaBastage]

I greatly whiffed on understanding your reply.

This. It's just a joke.

I can't believe that Doug actually did that.

It took me a minute to figure it out... hilarious!

 

[shader]

I may have screwed up this year due to not knowing the rules, but in future years I will always be looking to get as close to 30 players as possible.

I think quantity is much more important than quality in this game.

Now of course you sprinkle a few studs in...but trying to build a team of studs doesn't seem smart to me.

 

[Balco]

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.

No offense taken. And I am still in the boat of quantity over quality, although I believe that there is plenty of quality in my quantity. The issue with my receiving corps is that the guys who I pegged as my top 2 have been complete busts to this point. And some of the other guys I took have not stepped up (McCluster/Stroughter). THere is still some time for Garcon/Thomas to become consistent scores. We will see though. I love my quantity strategy with running backs. Filling the end of my roster with Brandon Jackson and Rashad Jennings has already paid dividends with Jackson getting a significant role with the Packers going forward.

THe great thing about quantity strategy is that there will always be a great performance from one of the "add ons". This week, it was Louis Murphy and Aaron Hernandez for me.

 

[rzrback77]

I am definitely a quantity guy in the discussion for WRs. There is simply not sufficient consistency with even the best WRs to limit your roster is size in best ball. You MUST have some quality though because I anticipate even higher scoring this year over last and you have to have solid scoring at all positions to even make the finals, let alone succeed there.

My WR roster is provided below and I think has one certified go-to guy in Steve Smith and several upside lower cost players that have an opportunity to score well over the season. I went with 11 and think that is not significant overkill. You need three scores and can use four with the flex.

Player is listed with cost, week 1 score, week 2 score, remaining owners, % survival rate and comment

Steve Smith $24 18.5 15.6 279 76.7% STUD that I anticipate using at least ten to twelve weeks

Pierre Garcon $12 7.3 2.1 2,727 75.6% not producing yet, but can score well any given week

Mike Williams $8 14.0 13.4 3,150 87.0% bargain guy that looks "stud capable"

Austin Collie $8 33.0 12.5 465 80.9% again nice ppr option and in concert with Garcon usually produces one nice game per week

L Robinson $7 10.8 1.4 2,045 84.1% expected #1 in St. Louis and Bradford has looked ok thus far

B Robiske $5 1.6 2.2 179 76.8% lower owned and talked up on Sirius has yet to be targeted much

Louis Murphy $4 6.8 21.1 2,948 92.2% another that has "stud potential"

D Henderson $4 11.8 5.8 1,362 80.9% wild card that has been targeted frequently and is capable of big weeks here and there

D Branch $3 10.1 7.1 1,036 86.8% nice ppr option

J Shipley $3 13.2 9.2 635 82.5% looks like he will be targeted as Bengal possession guy

Mark Clayton $3 21.9 16.4 600 89.0% another concert pick with Robinson that has already paid off

A list of eleven that although only has one higher priced player, provides several scoring options and with two WRBC guys from Colts and Rams has potential to catch team high scoring weeks.

 

[ctriopelle]

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

wow completely missed that the first go around! simulation humor...gotta love it!

 

[The Iguana]

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.

good ol' vbd.

 

[da_budman]

Entry 101310This entry is still horrible.

This is just hilarious. ASSUME the stars all aligned and he actually made it to week 10. At that point he has only has 1 wr 2rb's, and 1 QB (Garrard no less) to fill 8 scoring spots. This isn't you is it?

 

[QuizGuy66]

Entry 101310This entry is still horrible.

This is just hilarious. ASSUME the stars all aligned and he actually made it to week 10. At that point he has only has 1 wr 2rb's, and 1 QB (Garrard no less) to fill 8 scoring spots. This isn't you is it?

21-kicker guy will find a way -QG

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

good ol' vbd.

was it something I said?

 

[Bad_Mo]

So glad I re-thought my Vick for $3 pick in favor of Derek Anderson for $6.

 

[sinatravolta]

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

Uh - he also only spent $58 on WRs. If you went with "quality" I'm sure you spent more than that - so it's not really a fair comparison. On average - someone who spent say $75-$90 on WRs, if the picks are reasonable I'll take the one with 8-9 WRs over the one with 5. Both to get to the end and at the end. I think with the way the prices were this year - it makes sense to take some studs (they lowered the high-end and raised the low-end prices) - but it still makes sense to get some quantity - most especially at WR where there's a lot of fluctuation in week-to-week scores.

 

[BaBastage]

It sounds obvious, but I think part of the trick to winning is finding players who outperform their price. Obviously before the season we don't really know who those guys will be, but we do pretty much know who it won't be: the expensive "studs." At best they'll live up to their price, but I don't think they'll ever outproduce their cost by enough to be a difference-maker. You don't "swing for the fences" with expensive players - if you get lucky and everything goes right and they stay healthy all year and perform at a high level like they're supposed to, you will have gotten exactly what you paid for, and no more.

Very eloquently put.

 

[Modog814]

It sounds obvious, but I think part of the trick to winning is finding players who outperform their price. Obviously before the season we don't really know who those guys will be, but we do pretty much know who it won't be: the expensive "studs." At best they'll live up to their price, but I don't think they'll ever outproduce their cost by enough to be a difference-maker. You don't "swing for the fences" with expensive players - if you get lucky and everything goes right and they stay healthy all year and perform at a high level like they're supposed to, you will have gotten exactly what you paid for, and no more.

While I agree with you in that the trick of this contest (and any Fantasy game) is to find the players that outperform their cost, I think I disagree with the bolded section. It may have been true last year when a "stud" cost 20-25% of your total budget, but this year, the prices have been narrowed and I believe they can exceed their price. They may not offer the value of say someone like L.Murphy, but getting an expensive "stud"offers somethings that the lesser players don't:

1) More frequent scores that count (odds are if you have AJ and Murphy on your team, AJ will count more often)

2) Greater likelihood of Monster games

3) Higher floors, AJ's worst game should still net you 5-10 points, while Murphy may disappear for an entire game, and sometimes those 5-10 points can carry past the cut.

So no you're not getting insane value with some of the expensive stud's, but the additional cost is buying other things than pure upside. Stability.

I also think your last statement is incorrect. If a stud stays healthy and performs as expected, I think you get more than what your paid for this year because I believe a discount has been built into the price. If AJ gives me 115/1550/10, I believe he'll have exceeded his $32 cost.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

It sounds obvious, but I think part of the trick to winning is finding players who outperform their price. Obviously before the season we don't really know who those guys will be, but we do pretty much know who it won't be: the expensive "studs." At best they'll live up to their price, but I don't think they'll ever outproduce their cost by enough to be a difference-maker. You don't "swing for the fences" with expensive players - if you get lucky and everything goes right and they stay healthy all year and perform at a high level like they're supposed to, you will have gotten exactly what you paid for, and no more.

While I agree with you in that the trick of this contest (and any Fantasy game) is to find the players that outperform their cost, I think I disagree with the bolded section. It may have been true last year when a "stud" cost 20-25% of your total budget, but this year, the prices have been narrowed and I believe they can exceed their price. They may not offer the value of say someone like L.Murphy, but getting an expensive "stud"offers somethings that the lesser players don't:

1) More frequent scores that count (odds are if you have AJ and Murphy on your team, AJ will count more often)

2) Greater likelihood of Monster games

3) Higher floors, AJ's worst game should still net you 5-10 points, while Murphy may disappear for an entire game, and sometimes those 5-10 points can carry past the cut.

So no you're not getting insane value with some of the expensive stud's, but the additional cost is buying other things than pure upside. Stability.

I also think your last statement is incorrect. If a stud stays healthy and performs as expected, I think you get more than what your paid for this year because I believe a discount has been built into the price. If AJ gives me 115/1550/10, I believe he'll have exceeded his $32 cost.

I don't think the anti-stud crowd in this thread understands that the rules have changed from last year, and you can get great value in some of the studs this year vs. the mediocre players, who are more expensive this year. If Aaron Rodgers has a year like last year, he's a steal at $29 vs. mediocre guys like Kolb at $21 and Cassel at $13. If AJ has a year like last year, he's a steal at $32 vs. 2 mediocre $16 WR's like Devin Thomas and Lee Evans.

The teams that get cut early going with the stud approach are the ones that have silly rosters with no depth, like the ones with 1 QB or 3 RB's or 4 WR's or 1 TE or 1 D or 1 PK. Those all count against the smaller-roster teams in the stats, but they're not even viable teams. If you have studs and decent depth at each position, you can still have a very strong roster with fewer players -- you just need to get lucky with injuries and steady performance. The teams with more players need more luck in players outperforming their expectations.

Much more important than roster size in this contest (as long as you have decent depth, which is doable with 18 players) is player selection and luck in those players staying healthy and performing to/above expectations.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I don't think the anti-stud crowd in this thread understands that the rules have changed from last year, and you can get great value in some of the studs this year vs. the mediocre players, who are more expensive this year. If Aaron Rodgers has a year like last year, he's a steal at $29 vs. mediocre guys like Kolb at $21 and Cassel at $13. If AJ has a year like last year, he's a steal at $32 vs. 2 mediocre $16 WR's like Devin Thomas and Lee Evans.

The teams that get cut early going with the stud approach are the ones that have silly rosters with no depth, like the ones with 1 QB or 3 RB's or 4 WR's or 1 TE or 1 D or 1 PK. Those all count against the smaller-roster teams in the stats, but they're not even viable teams. If you have studs and decent depth at each position, you can still have a very strong roster with fewer players -- you just need to get lucky with injuries and steady performance. The teams with more players need more luck in players outperforming their expectations.

Much more important than roster size in this contest (as long as you have decent depth, which is doable with 18 players) is player selection and luck in those players staying healthy and performing to/above expectations.

Wow, that's um, pretty selective selecting there. Kolb instead of say, the $19 Rivers and $4 Vick (he was $4, right?) and $6 Anderson. Those 3 guys combined to make Rodgers $29 salary and in the first 2 weeks have been the better buy. And yeah, I was being a little selective with Vick so you can drop him out but I'll stand by Rivers/Anderson since both were opening day starters. Andre was good last week, but you need to start 3 guys. Mike Williams at $8 and Louis Murphy at $4 and Mark Clayton at $3 provided plenty bang for the buck - Clayton should be on par with many mid-$ guys all year it looks like. Those 3 guys cost less than your Lee Evans example.

I'm not saying that you should avoid all high $ guys, but basing your whole team on them and picking 18 of them is much more likely to fail due to injuries, bye weeks, and weeks where the stud gets shut down (and every stud gets shut down now and again). I own 2 guys that I would consider high $ - ADP and Calvin. I chose them to differentiate myself some from the crowd and to be anchors for my lineups. But that's plenty enough in my opinion.

It'll be fun to watch this play out yet again

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

Just for the heck of it:

Owners with Rodgers: 2976 entries. (out of 13,038). 82.16% still alive (76.79% is the benchmark for this and all the ones below)

Owners with Kolb AND Casell: 7 entries. 42.86% still alive for what that realistic example is worth.

Owners with D Anderson and Rivers: 432 entries. 87.50% still alive

Heh, throw in Vick with those 2 and you got: 6 entries. 83.33% still alive

Owners with Andre Johnson: 2856 entries. 85.50% still alive

Owners with Devin Thomas and Lee Evans. ZERO ENTRIES.

Owners with Mike Williams, Murphy and Clayton: 100 entries. 98.00% are still alive.

I'll put in what might be a more "realistic" basket of 4 WRs.

They total $31 and, aside from Andre are the 4 most owned guys - there are 2 clunkers in this group.

Mike Williams, Pierre Garcon, Louis Murphy and Bernard Berrian: 143 entries. 92.31% alive

I'll even go into the take 2 guys in the teens area to mimic your Thomas/Evans example. Though the 8-9-10 WR crowd didn't really bulk up on these types - it was much more about the $4-$8 guys.

I go $3 over the $32 mark with Malcolm Floyd and Johnny Knox. The two most popular guys in the $teens:

Owners with Floyd and Knox: 343 entries. 83.38% still alive. Not the level of Andre, that's true, but again I don't think the 2 guys in the teens is the crux of the argument. It's much more the 4 $8 guys approach.

-QG

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

I don't think the anti-stud crowd in this thread understands that the rules have changed from last year, and you can get great value in some of the studs this year vs. the mediocre players, who are more expensive this year. If Aaron Rodgers has a year like last year, he's a steal at $29 vs. mediocre guys like Kolb at $21 and Cassel at $13. If AJ has a year like last year, he's a steal at $32 vs. 2 mediocre $16 WR's like Devin Thomas and Lee Evans.

The teams that get cut early going with the stud approach are the ones that have silly rosters with no depth, like the ones with 1 QB or 3 RB's or 4 WR's or 1 TE or 1 D or 1 PK. Those all count against the smaller-roster teams in the stats, but they're not even viable teams. If you have studs and decent depth at each position, you can still have a very strong roster with fewer players -- you just need to get lucky with injuries and steady performance. The teams with more players need more luck in players outperforming their expectations.

Much more important than roster size in this contest (as long as you have decent depth, which is doable with 18 players) is player selection and luck in those players staying healthy and performing to/above expectations.

Wow, that's um, pretty selective selecting there. Kolb instead of say, the $19 Rivers and $4 Vick (he was $4, right?) and $6 Anderson. Those 3 guys combined to make Rodgers $29 salary and in the first 2 weeks have been the better buy. And yeah, I was being a little selective with Vick so you can drop him out but I'll stand by Rivers/Anderson since both were opening day starters. Andre was good last week, but you need to start 3 guys. Mike Williams at $8 and Louis Murphy at $4 and Mark Clayton at $3 provided plenty bang for the buck - Clayton should be on par with many mid-$ guys all year it looks like. Those 3 guys cost less than your Lee Evans example.

I'm not saying that you should avoid all high $ guys, but basing your whole team on them and picking 18 of them is much more likely to fail due to injuries, bye weeks, and weeks where the stud gets shut down (and every stud gets shut down now and again). I own 2 guys that I would consider high $ - ADP and Calvin. I chose them to differentiate myself some from the crowd and to be anchors for my lineups. But that's plenty enough in my opinion.

It'll be fun to watch this play out yet again

-QG

Yes, that was my point -- it's much more important which players you select than how big your roster is.This isn't possible: "basing your whole team on them and picking 18 of them." With a $250 cap, you can't even spend $14 per player with 18 of them. You can only afford a few studs and have to get a bunch of lower-tier players fill the roster, and if you have a good mix you can do very well.

Andre was good last week, but you need to start 3 guys. Mike Williams at $8 and Louis Murphy at $4 and Mark Clayton at $3 provided plenty bang for the buck

Actually, Andre, Mike Williams and Louis Murphy were 3 of my 4 WR's that counted last week, along with Welker. Just because the cheaper guys had a good week doesn't mean Andre and Welker weren't great values, too. You have to spend your money somewhere, and I think spending $32 for Andre and $21 for Welker, along with my cheaper guys, was probably better than adding 6 more WR's averaging $9. Andre got shut down in week 1, but the other guys more than made up for that.I didn't spend a lot at WR. For $75, I got those 4 guys and Branch and Berrian. Just because you get some studs doesn't mean you don't also have plenty of lower-tier guys who can outperform their expectations, too. I just think both can be good values.

It'll be fun to watch this play out yet again

Yet again? Because of the vastly differing player costs, this year's contest is much different from years past.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I don't think the anti-stud crowd in this thread understands that the rules have changed from last year, and you can get great value in some of the studs this year vs. the mediocre players, who are more expensive this year. If Aaron Rodgers has a year like last year, he's a steal at $29 vs. mediocre guys like Kolb at $21 and Cassel at $13. If AJ has a year like last year, he's a steal at $32 vs. 2 mediocre $16 WR's like Devin Thomas and Lee Evans.

The teams that get cut early going with the stud approach are the ones that have silly rosters with no depth, like the ones with 1 QB or 3 RB's or 4 WR's or 1 TE or 1 D or 1 PK. Those all count against the smaller-roster teams in the stats, but they're not even viable teams. If you have studs and decent depth at each position, you can still have a very strong roster with fewer players -- you just need to get lucky with injuries and steady performance. The teams with more players need more luck in players outperforming their expectations.

Much more important than roster size in this contest (as long as you have decent depth, which is doable with 18 players) is player selection and luck in those players staying healthy and performing to/above expectations.

Wow, that's um, pretty selective selecting there. Kolb instead of say, the $19 Rivers and $4 Vick (he was $4, right?) and $6 Anderson. Those 3 guys combined to make Rodgers $29 salary and in the first 2 weeks have been the better buy. And yeah, I was being a little selective with Vick so you can drop him out but I'll stand by Rivers/Anderson since both were opening day starters. Andre was good last week, but you need to start 3 guys. Mike Williams at $8 and Louis Murphy at $4 and Mark Clayton at $3 provided plenty bang for the buck - Clayton should be on par with many mid-$ guys all year it looks like. Those 3 guys cost less than your Lee Evans example.

I'm not saying that you should avoid all high $ guys, but basing your whole team on them and picking 18 of them is much more likely to fail due to injuries, bye weeks, and weeks where the stud gets shut down (and every stud gets shut down now and again). I own 2 guys that I would consider high $ - ADP and Calvin. I chose them to differentiate myself some from the crowd and to be anchors for my lineups. But that's plenty enough in my opinion.

It'll be fun to watch this play out yet again

-QG

Yes, that was my point -- it's much more important which players you select than how big your roster is.This isn't possible: "basing your whole team on them and picking 18 of them." With a $250 cap, you can't even spend $14 per player with 18 of them. You can only afford a few studs and have to get a bunch of lower-tier players fill the roster, and if you have a good mix you can do very well.

Andre was good last week, but you need to start 3 guys. Mike Williams at $8 and Louis Murphy at $4 and Mark Clayton at $3 provided plenty bang for the buck

Actually, Andre, Mike Williams and Louis Murphy were 3 of my 4 WR's that counted last week, along with Welker. Just because the cheaper guys had a good week doesn't mean Andre and Welker weren't great values, too. You have to spend your money somewhere, and I think spending $32 for Andre and $21 for Welker, along with my cheaper guys, was probably better than adding 6 more WR's averaging $9. Andre got shut down in week 1, but the other guys more than made up for that.I didn't spend a lot at WR. For $75, I got those 4 guys and Branch and Berrian. Just because you get some studs doesn't mean you don't also have plenty of lower-tier guys who can outperform their expectations, too. I just think both can be good values.

It'll be fun to watch this play out yet again

Yet again? Because of the vastly differing player costs, this year's contest is much different from years past.

True, but it'll still be fun I just think 18 is too small a team to rely on. Of course you have to pick the right guys. But I think that going 8 deep at WR is much better than 4.

-QG

 

[jdoggydogg]

So glad I re-thought my Vick for $3 pick in favor of Derek Anderson for $6.

Particularly painful for me since I had Vick in for awhile and then swapped him out for Anderson. Still, I don't see Max Hall starting any time soon. I think we'll see some big weeks from Anderson some time this year.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I don't think the anti-stud crowd in this thread understands that the rules have changed from last year, and you can get great value in some of the studs this year vs. the mediocre players, who are more expensive this year. If Aaron Rodgers has a year like last year, he's a steal at $29 vs. mediocre guys like Kolb at $21 and Cassel at $13. If AJ has a year like last year, he's a steal at $32 vs. 2 mediocre $16 WR's like Devin Thomas and Lee Evans

What you don't understand is that picking players - cheap or expensive - comes with a lot of variables that are impossible to predict. New rules haven't changed that fact. Picking a < $25 player isn't any less or more safe than picking a > $7 player. I picked Shonn Greene for $27. He's been an absolute disaster at that price. I picked Visanthe Shiancoe for $12. Shiancoe looks to be a steal at that price. The "all stud" strategy isn't any more valid or effective than a 28 man roster composed of great value players.

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

I just think 18 is too small a team to rely on. Of course you have to pick the right guys. But I think that going 8 deep at WR is much better than 4.

To win with 18 you definitely need to be lucky, but you need to be lucky to win no matter how many players you have, just in different ways.I agree 8 WR's is much better than 4. I don't think any roster with only 4 WR's is really viable when you can start 4 each week. With an 18-player roster, though, you can have much more than 4, even 8 if you want, but more likely 6 or 7.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I wonder what the number of entries are for each possible alignment of players.

I'm guessing that the 2-4-6-2-2-2 alignment would be the most popular (QB-RB-WR-TE-PK-TD). That is that most of the 18 people just went with double the minimum requirement.

FWIW my alignment is 3-6-8-3-3-3

More fun thoughts.

Survival rate by $ spent at a position.

QBs:

$1 to $25: 485 started. 63.71% remain

$26 to $30: 1071 started. 69.56% remain

$31 to $35: 2564 started. 78.16% remain

$36 to $40: 2676 started. 78.74% remain

$41 to $45: 3122 started. 80.40% remain

$46 to $50: 1515 started. 76.24% remain

$51 to $55: 830 stared. 80.12% remain

$56+: 798 started. 67.04% remain

RBs:

$1 to $60: 508 started. 75.00% remain

$61 to $70: 1264 started. 78.96% remain

$71 to $75: 1299 started. 79.52% remain

$76 to $80: 1864 started. 79.67% remain

$81 to $85: 2052 started. 77.78% remain

$86 to $90: 1963 started. 76.77% remain

$91 to $95: 1553 started. 77.01% remain

$96 to $100: 1099 started. 75.80% remain

$101 to $105: 661 started. 70.50% remain

$106+: 798 started. 67.04% remain

WRs:

$1 to $60: 833 started. 69.27% remain

$61 to $70: 1667 started. 76.06% remain

$71 to $75: 1444 started. 78.53% remain

$76 to $80: 1832 started. 78.77% remain

$81 to $85: 1915 started. 77.60% remain

$86 to $90: 1819 started. 78.17% remain

$91 to $95: 1371 started. 78.19% remain

$96 to $100: 961 started. 77.42% remain

$101 to $105: 581 started. 75.39% remain

$106+: 638 started. 69.91% remain

TEs:

$1 to $15: 1738 started. 67.84% remain

$16 to $20: 2229 started. 72.45% remain

$21 to $25: 2922 started. 77.24% remain

$26 to $30: 3151 started. 79.72% remain

$31 to $35: 1706 started. 79.89% remain

$36 to $40: 802 started. 82.17% remain

$41+: 513 started. 86.74% remain

PKs:

$1 to $4: 1946 started. 74.20% remain

$5: 1593 started. 80.92% remain

$6: 2454 started. 77.42% remain

$7: 1826 started. 80.23% remain

$8: 1709 started. 76.48% remain

$9: 1152 started. 77.69% remain

$10: 906 started. 74.50% remain

$11: 487 started. 77.82% remain

$12+: 988 started. 68.42% remain

TDs:

$1 to $5: 1000 started. 68.90% remain

$6 to $7: 1586 started. 78.94% remain

$8: 1630 started. 78.53% remain

$9: 2382 started. 78.42% remain

$10: 1669 started. 77.65% remain

$11: 1351 started. 75.80% remain

$12: 827 started. 77.75% remain

$13 to $14: 1451 started. 76.98% remain

$15+: 1165 started. 73.91% remain

So there you go.

-QG

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

I don't think the anti-stud crowd in this thread understands that the rules have changed from last year, and you can get great value in some of the studs this year vs. the mediocre players, who are more expensive this year. If Aaron Rodgers has a year like last year, he's a steal at $29 vs. mediocre guys like Kolb at $21 and Cassel at $13. If AJ has a year like last year, he's a steal at $32 vs. 2 mediocre $16 WR's like Devin Thomas and Lee Evans

What you don't understand is that picking players - cheap or expensive - comes with a lot of variables that are impossible to predict. New rules haven't changed that fact. Picking a < $25 player isn't any less or more safe than picking a > $7 player. I picked Shonn Greene for $27. He's been an absolute disaster at that price. I picked Visanthe Shiancoe for $12. Shiancoe looks to be a steal at that price. The "all stud" strategy isn't any more valid or effective than a 28 man roster composed of great value players.

Of course I understand that -- I'm not predicting anything. I think the people who insult those who go with an 18-player roster, saying bigger rosters are obviously always better, are the ones who don't understand that. There are lots of variables that are impossible to predict, so to say that last year's results showing higher survival rate for those with bigger rosters proves the same applies to this year, despite the different rules, is faulty logic. When you take out all the non-viable smaller rosters (e.g., 1 QB, 4 WR's, 1 D, etc.), those with good player selection and lots of luck can do very well, even with an 18-player roster.

The "all stud" strategy isn't any more valid or effective than a 28 man roster composed of great value players.

I never said anything about an "all stud" strategy being more effective. I just said that those who are so sure that the "no stud" strategy with far more players is definitely better because of last year's results with different rules or the first 2 weeks' results where many non-viable smaller-roster teams were eliminated, shouldn't be so sure.What I did say is, "Much more important than roster size in this contest (as long as you have decent depth, which is doable with 18 players) is player selection and luck in those players staying healthy and performing to/above expectations."

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

With an 18-player roster, though, you can have much more than 4, even 8 if you want, but more likely 6 or 7.

(as long as you have decent depth, which is doable with 18 players)

I'm just not seeing this. You start 10 players every single week - I don't see how any kind of 18-man roster has "decent depth." Going with 18 players means you only have 8 "backups" for your 10 "starters" - once the bye weeks start rolling in I think most of the 18-man rosters will be exposed. There just isn't enough depth there to deal with the inevitable down weeks and stay afloat, imo.For example, you're saying you can have 6-8 WRs on an 18-man roster. I can see 6, but 8? That means you only have 10 players at the other 5 positions - so you either have 2 of each, or you're rolling with just 1 at some position. Either way it's suicide. Even carrying 7 WRs would too severely cripple you at other positions. I assume if you go with 7 WRs on an 18-man roster, you probably have 2 each of QB, TE, K, and D, and 3 RBs. That's not "decent depth" - that team will most likely get crushed before the end of the year.

Despite all the claims of different pricing structures, etc., I am reasonably confident that the 18-man rosters are going to take a beating this year even worse than the one taken by 20-man rosters last year. Sure, a handful will last until the end just because there were so many of them to begin with, but the vast majority of them are going to regret such a small roster. In this format, it doesn't work.

 

[Jayrod]

For all of the depth proponents....

Why doesn't it seem to apply to kickers and defenses, the most volitile positions in the contest?

The majority have 3 of each, but why not go 4? It only costs $2-5 to add a quality defense or kicker and you are given one more option to save your team with a big score during the byes...if you space them out, you always have 3 options. And defenses can never get injured (although any of them can put up a zero vs. a team like NO or ATL).

 

[Lehigh98]

Took a risk at QB carrying only Stafford and Rothlesberger, now I don't have a QB until week 6.

Somehow survived week 2 but no way I can keep that up for 3 more weeks.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

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

Matthew Stafford $16 4.15 0.00 out? out? out? out? bye out? out?

Ben Roethlisberger $14 0.00 0.00 out? out? bye

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

Michael Turner $31 5.40 7.50 bye

Jahvid Best $27 18.10 45.70 bye

C.J. Spiller $17 3.40 4.60 bye

Darren McFadden $14 24.00 16.30 bye

Bernard Scott $6 6.50 1.70 bye

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

Michael Crabtree $22 3.20 4.20 bye

Wes Welker $21 26.40 15.80 bye

Donald Driver $15 14.00 13.80 bye

Jacoby Jones $10 4.90 17.30 bye

Bernard Berrian $7 1.30 4.40 bye

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

Jason Witten $19 7.20 12.60 bye

Vernon Davis $19 19.30 13.80 bye

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

Ryan Succop $2 3.00 11.00 bye

Matt Bryant $2 12.00 12.00 bye

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

San Diego Chargers $5 1.00 14.00 bye

Kansas City Chiefs $3 10.00 11.00 bye

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

TOTAL 140.05 161.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CUTOFF 125.90 141.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 

[BassNBrew]

Took a risk at QB carrying only Stafford and Rothlesberger, now I don't have a QB until week 6. Somehow survived week 2 but no way I can keep that up for 3 more weeks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew Stafford $16 4.15 0.00 out? out? out? out? bye out? out? Ben Roethlisberger $14 0.00 0.00 out? out? bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Michael Turner $31 5.40 7.50 bye Jahvid Best $27 18.10 45.70 bye C.J. Spiller $17 3.40 4.60 bye Darren McFadden $14 24.00 16.30 bye Bernard Scott $6 6.50 1.70 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Michael Crabtree $22 3.20 4.20 bye Wes Welker $21 26.40 15.80 bye Donald Driver $15 14.00 13.80 bye Jacoby Jones $10 4.90 17.30 bye Bernard Berrian $7 1.30 4.40 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jason Witten $19 7.20 12.60 bye Vernon Davis $19 19.30 13.80 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ryan Succop $2 3.00 11.00 bye Matt Bryant $2 12.00 12.00 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------San Diego Chargers $5 1.00 14.00 bye Kansas City Chiefs $3 10.00 11.00 bye ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------TOTAL 140.05 161.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CUTOFF 125.90 141.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Actually it's a very sound strategy for attempting to win, not so sound for just trying to get by.

 

[LittlePhatty]

For all of the depth proponents....Why doesn't it seem to apply to kickers and defenses, the most volitile positions in the contest?The majority have 3 of each, but why not go 4?

You mentioned that a DEF can't be injured - that's one. It's more about the fact that only one of those scores will count each week, as opposed to multiple WRs, RBs and even TEs with flex. K and DEF are also much less likely to "break out" for 40 or 50 points in one week, like Arian Foster or Jahvid Best have.I chose 3 each of K and DEF. Even if I could go back and change things now I would add a 10th WR instead of another K or DEF. I have a 28 player roster.

 

[Jayrod]

For all of the depth proponents....Why doesn't it seem to apply to kickers and defenses, the most volitile positions in the contest?The majority have 3 of each, but why not go 4?

You mentioned that a DEF can't be injured - that's one. It's more about the fact that only one of those scores will count each week, as opposed to multiple WRs, RBs and even TEs with flex. K and DEF are also much less likely to "break out" for 40 or 50 points in one week, like Arian Foster or Jahvid Best have.I chose 3 each of K and DEF. Even if I could go back and change things now I would add a 10th WR instead of another K or DEF. I have a 28 player roster.

Than why not just go with 2? Is the return on investment just not there for a 4th but it is for a 3rd?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

virtually all the discussion of depth is restricted to "by position" analysis.

however, if you have a short roster with multiple studs, you have scoring depth across positions.

team 1 3 qbs, 7 rbs, 9 wrs, 5 tes, 3 pks, 3 defs assume 2 studs

team 2 2 qbs, 5 rbs, 5 wrs, 3 tes, 2 pks, 2 defs assume 5 studs

during team 1's first stud bye week, there is 1 stud active on a 10 man starters list

during team 2's first stud bye week, there are 4 studs active on a 10 man starters list

oversimplistic, but my point remains.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Than why not just go with 2? Is the return on investment just not there for a 4th but it is for a 3rd?

I don't have a mathematical answer. It just felt right.I did several scenarios with only 2 K and 2 DEF but I felt more comfortable with 3 each. 4 seemed like a waste because I could always find a WR or RB I'd rather have for $3.

 

[BassNBrew]

Than why not just go with 2? Is the return on investment just not there for a 4th but it is for a 3rd?

I don't have a mathematical answer. It just felt right.I did several scenarios with only 2 K and 2 DEF but I felt more comfortable with 3 each. 4 seemed like a waste because I could always find a WR or RB I'd rather have for $3.

I think the quierier will provide the answer. Last year I think 2 QBs, and 3 D / 3 K were optimium as I recall.

 

[shader]

I can't imagine why you would go with 3 kickers and 3 defenses.

 

[Jayrod]

I can't imagine why you would go with 3 kickers and 3 defenses.

 

[GloryDaze]

I can't imagine why you would go with 3 kickers and 3 defenses.

Do you take more or less?

 

[LittlePhatty]

during team 1's first stud bye week, there is 1 stud active on a 10 man starters listduring team 2's first stud bye week, there are 4 studs active on a 10 man starters listoversimplistic, but my point remains.

As I said earlier, a "stud" can't truly be defined as such until after Week 16. The winner of this contest will have a team full of studs - but that doesn't mean they will be the high-priced studs.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

during team 1's first stud bye week, there is 1 stud active on a 10 man starters listduring team 2's first stud bye week, there are 4 studs active on a 10 man starters listoversimplistic, but my point remains.

As I said earlier, a "stud" can't truly be defined as such until after Week 16. The winner of this contest will have a team full of studs - but that doesn't mean they will be the high-priced studs.

Couldn't disagree more. Barring injury, Brady, Moss, Wayne, Gore and Gates are by definition studs. Manning, AJ, Megatron, Chris Johnson, Dallas Clark are by definition studs.Barring injury, these guys WILL put up league leading numbers.I agree with the notion that studs can be found at $15, 7 or less, but its a scavenger hunt.

 

[inca911]

Going with 18 players means you only have 8 "backups" for your 10 "starters" - once the bye weeks start rolling in I think most of the 18-man rosters will be exposed. There just isn't enough depth there to deal with the inevitable down weeks and stay afloat, imo.

Don't forget that these "studs" on the 18 man rosters are quite likely to score much more than "normal" players with reasonable frequency. CJ3 or AP can each score two or three times as much as two lesser players on the 30 man rosters--the Thomas Jones, Ricky Williams, Jamal Charles types of players. If you think of it in terms of variance, the "studs" have higher ceilings. Of course the contest winner needs to get lucky, but I disagree that 18 man rosters don't have depth. They have greater depth within each individual player, but less depth across all players. It will take max points in the final weeks to win the contest. An 18 man roster with players like CJ3 and AP has a harder time getting to the final weeks, but is dangerous once it gets there.

 

[MechEng]

Going with 18 players means you only have 8 "backups" for your 10 "starters" - once the bye weeks start rolling in I think most of the 18-man rosters will be exposed. There just isn't enough depth there to deal with the inevitable down weeks and stay afloat, imo.

Don't forget that these "studs" on the 18 man rosters are quite likely to score much more than "normal" players with reasonable frequency. CJ3 or AP can each score two or three times as much as two lesser players on the 30 man rosters--the Thomas Jones, Ricky Williams, Jamal Charles types of players. If you think of it in terms of variance, the "studs" have higher ceilings. Of course the contest winner needs to get lucky, but I disagree that 18 man rosters don't have depth. They have greater depth within each individual player, but less depth across all players. It will take max points in the final weeks to win the contest. An 18 man roster with players like CJ3 and AP has a harder time getting to the final weeks, but is dangerous once it gets there.

That's Deep.

 

[Doug Drinen]

It sounds obvious, but I think part of the trick to winning is finding players who outperform their price. Obviously before the season we don't really know who those guys will be, but we do pretty much know who it won't be: the expensive "studs." At best they'll live up to their price, but I don't think they'll ever outproduce their cost by enough to be a difference-maker. You don't "swing for the fences" with expensive players - if you get lucky and everything goes right and they stay healthy all year and perform at a high level like they're supposed to, you will have gotten exactly what you paid for, and no more.

I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree with it.If Rodgers goes 4400/30, you've gotten what you paid for, but Rodgers might go 4900/45.

It's easy to get excited about Mike Williams going 1000/7 for only 8 bucks or whatever. No question you'll need some of that to win. But if Adrian Peterson goes Shaun Alexander 2005, he's provided even more value. There are very few guys who are capable of having a transcendent, carry-you-on-their-back, super-duper-mega-season.

Studs do have more downside, but contrary to the bolded, they have upside too.

 

[QuizGuy66]

For all of the depth proponents....Why doesn't it seem to apply to kickers and defenses, the most volitile positions in the contest?The majority have 3 of each, but why not go 4? It only costs $2-5 to add a quality defense or kicker and you are given one more option to save your team with a big score during the byes...if you space them out, you always have 3 options. And defenses can never get injured (although any of them can put up a zero vs. a team like NO or ATL).

The majority of who? Entrants? There are 8223 entrants with 2 kickers. (77.50% survival) There are 2868 entrants with 3 kickers. (81.03% survival)There are 877 entrants with 4 or more. (73.09% survival)Looks like 3 is the sweet spot. Enough diversification to avoid a really disastrous number.There are 8623 entrants with 2 defenses. (77.51% survival)There are 2577 entrants with 3 defenses. (80.17% survival)There are 571 entrants with 4 defenses. (73.91% survival)Again 3 looks like the sweet spot. -QG

 

[Modog814]

For all of the depth proponents....Why doesn't it seem to apply to kickers and defenses, the most volitile positions in the contest?The majority have 3 of each, but why not go 4? It only costs $2-5 to add a quality defense or kicker and you are given one more option to save your team with a big score during the byes...if you space them out, you always have 3 options. And defenses can never get injured (although any of them can put up a zero vs. a team like NO or ATL).

The majority of who? Entrants? There are 8223 entrants with 2 kickers. (77.50% survival) There are 2868 entrants with 3 kickers. (81.03% survival)There are 877 entrants with 4 or more. (73.09% survival)Looks like 3 is the sweet spot. Enough diversification to avoid a really disastrous number.There are 8623 entrants with 2 defenses. (77.51% survival)There are 2577 entrants with 3 defenses. (80.17% survival)There are 571 entrants with 4 defenses. (73.91% survival)Again 3 looks like the sweet spot. -QG

Agree that 3 is the sweet spot for both and didn't need any numbers for it, although the numbers seem to confirm it. Defenses: So far this year Defenses have avg about 6.45 pts. Making a few assumptions about the distribution of scores, we can get estimate probabilities of chances a team will score X points if they have Y defenses rostered.I looked at the chances of scoring at least 5 points and at least 10 points:Rostering 1 defense gives you a probability of scoring less than 5 points 36.87% of the time. (This ignores byes for simplicity). And 79.34% of the time it won't score 10+ points.Rostering 2 def: 5+ number drops to 6.8% of the time, and 10+ number drops to 31.47%.Rostering 3 def: won't score 5+ 0.84% of the time, 10+ 8.32%Rostering 4 def: won't score 5+ 0.08% of the time, 10+ 1.65%This obviously makes many simplifying assumptions like independence, and all defenses created equal.Kickers:1 K -> 29.94% chance of not scoring 5+, 75.05% not scoring 10+2 K -> 4.48% chance of not scoring 5+, 28.17% not scoring 10+3 K -> 0.45% chance of not scoring 5+, 7.05% not scoring 10+4 K -> 0.03% chance of not scoring 5+, 1.32% not scoring 10+I think this analysis clearly shows that adding a 3rd Kicker and 3rd Defense can be really helpful in maximizing your floor. And at the same time the cost of a 4th kicker/defense, while helping, isn't helping nearly as much and is probably better spent on an additional position player.

 

[Jayrod]

For all of the depth proponents....Why doesn't it seem to apply to kickers and defenses, the most volitile positions in the contest?The majority have 3 of each, but why not go 4? It only costs $2-5 to add a quality defense or kicker and you are given one more option to save your team with a big score during the byes...if you space them out, you always have 3 options. And defenses can never get injured (although any of them can put up a zero vs. a team like NO or ATL).

The majority of who? Entrants? There are 8223 entrants with 2 kickers. (77.50% survival) There are 2868 entrants with 3 kickers. (81.03% survival)There are 877 entrants with 4 or more. (73.09% survival)Looks like 3 is the sweet spot. Enough diversification to avoid a really disastrous number.There are 8623 entrants with 2 defenses. (77.51% survival)There are 2577 entrants with 3 defenses. (80.17% survival)There are 571 entrants with 4 defenses. (73.91% survival)Again 3 looks like the sweet spot. -QG

There is no way that 4 defenses on its own is simply worse than 3. In earlier year's with smaller roster limits, it didn't make much sense to use up valuable roster spots. But with the expansion to 30, I believe the only real cost is the $2-4 you would have spent on another RB/WR/QB, or even just an upgrade of a player.Likely across all teams, that money is much better spent on offense than on a 4th defense as with the law of diminishing returns, there is less and less value to adding another defense. Looks like the peak is 3.

 

[Moonlight]

Additionally the first 2 weeks have been non-bye weeks. Having a 4th D or PK will result, if there is a sweet spot for 3, in higher survival rates during bye weeks for those carrying 4.

 

[Modog814]

Additionally the first 2 weeks have been non-bye weeks. Having a 4th D or PK will result, if there is a sweet spot for 3, in higher survival rates during bye weeks for those carrying 4.

only for the 3 (of the 7) bye weeks in which one of your kickers is on a bye

 

[QuizGuy66]

For all of the depth proponents....Why doesn't it seem to apply to kickers and defenses, the most volitile positions in the contest?The majority have 3 of each, but why not go 4? It only costs $2-5 to add a quality defense or kicker and you are given one more option to save your team with a big score during the byes...if you space them out, you always have 3 options. And defenses can never get injured (although any of them can put up a zero vs. a team like NO or ATL).

The majority of who? Entrants? There are 8223 entrants with 2 kickers. (77.50% survival) There are 2868 entrants with 3 kickers. (81.03% survival)There are 877 entrants with 4 or more. (73.09% survival)Looks like 3 is the sweet spot. Enough diversification to avoid a really disastrous number.There are 8623 entrants with 2 defenses. (77.51% survival)There are 2577 entrants with 3 defenses. (80.17% survival)There are 571 entrants with 4 defenses. (73.91% survival)Again 3 looks like the sweet spot. -QG

There is no way that 4 defenses on its own is simply worse than 3. In earlier year's with smaller roster limits, it didn't make much sense to use up valuable roster spots. But with the expansion to 30, I believe the only real cost is the $2-4 you would have spent on another RB/WR/QB, or even just an upgrade of a player.Likely across all teams, that money is much better spent on offense than on a 4th defense as with the law of diminishing returns, there is less and less value to adding another defense. Looks like the peak is 3.

In a perfect world, 22 defenses would give better results than 3 or 4 of course. But 3 is the sweet spot because that is the point where any extra investment in dollars gives diminishing returns elsewhere. That's pretty much the point. There are numbers of each position that are on average better suited to overall survival.I guess what I'm saying is, based on the numbers so far, I do not see a powerful argument for 4 defenses vs 3 of 'em. The marginal value is just not there.-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

Additionally the first 2 weeks have been non-bye weeks. Having a 4th D or PK will result, if there is a sweet spot for 3, in higher survival rates during bye weeks for those carrying 4.

Well, the thing is that the bye weeks impact all positions, not just kickers. It remains to be seen if investing in that 4th kicker for those weeks provides enough margin to make up for the losses at other positions too. -QG

 

[Ahmad Rashad]

With an 18-player roster, though, you can have much more than 4, even 8 if you want, but more likely 6 or 7.

(as long as you have decent depth, which is doable with 18 players)

I'm just not seeing this. You start 10 players every single week - I don't see how any kind of 18-man roster has "decent depth." Going with 18 players means you only have 8 "backups" for your 10 "starters" - once the bye weeks start rolling in I think most of the 18-man rosters will be exposed. There just isn't enough depth there to deal with the inevitable down weeks and stay afloat, imo.For example, you're saying you can have 6-8 WRs on an 18-man roster. I can see 6, but 8? That means you only have 10 players at the other 5 positions - so you either have 2 of each, or you're rolling with just 1 at some position. Either way it's suicide. Even carrying 7 WRs would too severely cripple you at other positions. I assume if you go with 7 WRs on an 18-man roster, you probably have 2 each of QB, TE, K, and D, and 3 RBs. That's not "decent depth" - that team will most likely get crushed before the end of the year.

Despite all the claims of different pricing structures, etc., I am reasonably confident that the 18-man rosters are going to take a beating this year even worse than the one taken by 20-man rosters last year. Sure, a handful will last until the end just because there were so many of them to begin with, but the vast majority of them are going to regret such a small roster. In this format, it doesn't work.

The way you get decent depth with 18 players is by going double the requirements at each position, with 2 QB's, 4 RB's, 6 WR's, 2 TE's, 2 PK's, and 2 D's. The flex will come from the 12 RB/WR/TE's. When you have higher quality players and get lucky with injuries/performance, you don't need as many players to have decent depth. So with that mix and good/lucky player selection, one could have decent enough depth to survive the regular season and have a very strong roster for the finals.Of course, doing it that way, you need to get lucky and avoid injuries and multiple stud dud weeks at the wrong time. You also need to be careful about bye weeks. Whoever wins will need to get lucky, no matter the roster size.

I didn't say 7-8 WR's on an 18-player roster would be wise -- just that it can be done, just like a 4 WR's can be done as you said. In fact, I don't think any 18-player roster with anything other than 2-4-6-2-2-2 distribution can have decent depth. Those teams with different distributions will get eliminated at a very high rate, making all 18-player rosters look bad.

It is a different pricing structure than last year, which makes a huge difference. Yes, many 18-man rosters will get eliminated because they don't have the right player mix or didn't account for byes or had bad luck with injuries, but those that were well selected and get lucky with injuries/performance will do very well. As I said before, the most important thing is player selection, not roster size.