Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Subscriber Contest is LIVE (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter David Dodds
- Start date
I'm not sure I feel comfortable with it, but I've got $56 on bye in week 10, which is pretty risky that late in the season. However, I've got a 30 man roster and I'm not losing more than 2 players per position. Also have $52 missing in week 7, but again, not more than 2 players per position.
Sorry, a little late to this.
You did share two strategies - avoiding a highly owned cheap player (risky) and handcuffing (safe). If you avoid Adams while handcuffing then you've got contradicting strategies at play. However, if you just meant that you own some backups (example: you own Oliver, but not Gordon) then that's different than handcuffing (owning both Gordon and Oliver). Owning a few high upside backups would fall into the risky category and would mesh with your avoid Adams strategy.
FWIW, I do fully understand the two strategies at play in this contest - surviving and then thriving. Personally, I don't think owning a $9 commonly owned player like Adams hurts you very much, if at all, during the second phase of the contest. Especially if you have a large roster.
LittlePhatty
Footballguy
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
Yeah....I wanted the suspension to be upheld. I was taking him even with losing him for 4 games. The suspension was going to keep his ownership relatively low....not now.
That's a good point and I've had him on my roster since the beginning, but just feeling everyone else out.
I foresee a boatload of rosters with Brady/Bradford for $27 total.
LittlePhatty
Footballguy
Yep, the " highly owned" thing is causing me some grief. I think to win it all you have to have some variance, but the question is how much?
Instinctive
Footballguy
Yep. In the end, I pick all the guys I think are the best values, and then try to make sure I haven't missed a super cheap lotto ticket. Combine that with picking my own less-obvious (I hope) tickets and some stud players you think will be the best...
Nobody ever has the same exact roster. Make the best possible team and then step aside. I think I've focused too much in the past on whether I have the right amount of variance and such instead of going with the much simpler approach.
FUBAR
Footballguy
yeah, those two or Brady + cheap guys will be on a lot of rosters. Brady is one of two guys I haven't changed out, ever.
(HULK)
(Smash)
Like last year when many were debating the Manning-only QB team, and sweating out week 5 with 0 at the position. I initially thought there would be a ton of teams with 2 QB's--Brady and a $3-5 QB (Fitz, Tyrod, etc).
Wonderllama
Footballguy
Tom Brady had a very nice run in the middle of last season but the first & last month were poor. Ultimately, he ended up at QB7. You shouldn't expect much more than that. He will not be top 5 IMO.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Brady, and Adams the 2 highest owned players that aren't kickers or defense?
He's at an age where decline can easily creep in. He was overpriced before, but is fairly valued now. I don't see what makes him more valuable than the guys directly (+/- $1) around him.Wonderllama said:
Combine the last two seasons and River ($13) is QB6, Stafford ($15) is QB8, Brady ($14) is QB10, and Tannehill ($15) is QB11. Why take the risk of the 38 year old guy declining?
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
Yeah....I'm having a hard time keeping him as well.(HULK) said:
Warrior
Footballguy
Tom Brady is a WORSE play now than before.
Before, he wouldn't have been owned by many teams, despite the fact that you can skate through the first four weeks. Now lots of teams will have him because they don't understand this contest, and he's no longer a 'unique' player.
Taking him off my team after today's news.
Before, he wouldn't have been owned by many teams, despite the fact that you can skate through the first four weeks. Now lots of teams will have him because they don't understand this contest, and he's no longer a 'unique' player.
Taking him off my team after today's news.
Bradford for $13, Adams for $9, Abdullah for $14, Funchess for $5, Martin for $12 are going to be on a ton of rosters.
That's not bad though, about 20% of the budget on highly owned players. After that, pick the studs you like and the rosters will vary wildly.
Last edited by a moderator:
(HULK)
(Smash)
Hybrid
Footballguy
It's not a joke, but I don't agree with the reasoning. I take what I think is the best value no matter perceived ownership percentage. There will be enough variance in rosters at other spots anyway.
That being said, I've never had Brady on my roster and probably still won't. Don't think his value is much different than others around the same price, though his early bye week is tempting.
LittlePhatty
Footballguy
They are being serious, thinking that a highly-owned QB won't separate them from the pack enough to win it all.
There's some truth to that, but what happens if Brady is the highest-scoring QB in the final 3 weeks and 75% of rosters have him?
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
Not a joke...just betting against the masses and Brady. If he gets hurt or has a few off weeks, it could eliminate a lot of Brady teams. Do you ride the wave, hope he has a top 5 season, and let the rest of your roster put you over the top of the masses....or do you watch from the sideline and hope the wave crashes, taking away a lot of other teams with him.
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
It will be hard to pass on a potentially top 5 ranked QB with a $14 price tag with a week 4 bye.
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
This. He's been a consistent name because I thought folks would be scared off of him. I never thought he was the best bargain at QB, just a good bargain with likely low ownership. Now, meh.(HULK) said:
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
But here's the rub:
You probably still lose if you do have him.
If you think the guy is going to be the top QB the final 3 weeks and a top 5 QB season-long, then you should roster him. I didn't and I still don't, but before I figured the ownership would be low enough that low probability of a big season would pay off well enough if it hit. Now, I'm focused a lot more on the low probability side of the equation because the pay-off will be reduced.
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
The NFL is going to appeal....it's not likely to effect this season however. If this gets overturned though and he has to sit out in the middle or end of the season, that would kill those teams.
HairySasquatch
Footballguy
The statement above is the only thing you need to read about the topic of Tom Brady in this contest. Well said.
FUBAR
Footballguy
Sure, but what if I just think the value of him and others I can get because of his cost is better than the options?
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
Then you should roster them, IMO. Always start with the guys you think are going to score the most points for you, because that's what matters. It's always best to have the best players rostered. I don't have that level of confidence on any player, but others may.
Regardless, I don't (and didn't) think Brady is the best value at QB and I don't (and didn't) think he is likely to be the best QB to roster at that price point. But I am always willing to accept that I might be wrong in what I think. The prospect of a lower ownership percentage with the suspension was enough for me to have him rostered -- the risk/reward analysis had reward > risk for me at that point. The prospect of higher ownership without the suspension and the classic overreaction of the masses has the risk/reward analysis tilted to risk > reward for me. Everyone else's analysis will necessarily differ from mine to some degree.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Right now I am sitting at this.
3 qbs for 17
5 rbs for 97
7 receivers for 81
3 tight ends for 34
3 kickers for 7
3 defenses for 14
I am sure this isn't my final
3 qbs for 17
5 rbs for 97
7 receivers for 81
3 tight ends for 34
3 kickers for 7
3 defenses for 14
I am sure this isn't my final
I agree with this. No sense being unique and going for little owned guys who will be just average. Worry about making it to the end first by rostering the best guys, not about whether or not anybody else has the same lineup as you.
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
I agree he is a worse play now than before, but he has an early bye week. That alone makes him slightly more valuable than the guys around him. Tannehill at $15 with a week 5 bye is the closest.
FUBAR
Footballguy
The Man With No Name
Footballguy
Been set for a week with no changes expected.
QB= $28
RB= $89
WR= $85
TE= $ 30
PK= $ 9
TD= $ 9
BYES:
4= $ 3
5= $77
6= $49
7= $33
8= $20
9= $19
10=$46
11=$ 3
QB= $28
RB= $89
WR= $85
TE= $ 30
PK= $ 9
TD= $ 9
BYES:
4= $ 3
5= $77
6= $49
7= $33
8= $20
9= $19
10=$46
11=$ 3
Instinctive
Footballguy
I feel like at least one of the teams I have submitted is good enough to make the final 250. The problem is that I don't know which one.
Tennessee_ATO
Footballguy
I like TMWNN's format so I'll just use it:
QB= $33
RB= $86
WR= $73
TE= $31
PK= $12
TD= $15
BYES:
4= $14
5= $25
6= $71
7= $42
8= $26
9= $30
10=$24
11=$18
Not in love with that much invested at PK and DST and that little at WR, but I've always liked having 3 PK and DST and I think there is value to be had at WR at lower prices this year.
QB= $33
RB= $86
WR= $73
TE= $31
PK= $12
TD= $15
BYES:
4= $14
5= $25
6= $71
7= $42
8= $26
9= $30
10=$24
11=$18
Not in love with that much invested at PK and DST and that little at WR, but I've always liked having 3 PK and DST and I think there is value to be had at WR at lower prices this year.
Yea, no kidding. Something like 70% of the final 250 had cutler, and the top teams still had him because he scored high in week 14. You don't need to be unique to win.
Mr. Soup Nazi
Footballguy
Did last year have passing TD's at 4pts as well?
Yes to the 4pt pass TD (I believe it was Sanu passed to Dalton for a TD) Sanu 4pt Dalton 6 pt.
0 bye week issue this year have made hundreds of changes but never had a big issue. Only issue is a lot of top end talent have late byes however in the past the later rounds have some of the lower cuts.
Taking a gamble on week 5 though this year but I'm making my early call to be brought up later in the contest..... Wait for it.... Week 5 lowest cut (within the byes) and week 6 highest cut of the competition.
Let the games begin in 5 days!!!
0 bye week issue this year have made hundreds of changes but never had a big issue. Only issue is a lot of top end talent have late byes however in the past the later rounds have some of the lower cuts.
Taking a gamble on week 5 though this year but I'm making my early call to be brought up later in the contest..... Wait for it.... Week 5 lowest cut (within the byes) and week 6 highest cut of the competition.
Let the games begin in 5 days!!!
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
It's really hard to commit to the muscle hamster as RB3 when I feel like I should be taking Plastic BoJackson. I keep thinking there is a pro Randle bias and McFadden will end up with greater carries. Not taking Abdullah The Butcher cuz I've already got Lions passing game investments. Not feeling the Shetland Pony this year either. It's pretty much down to these four for my RB3....convince me?
