Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Put one $9 entry into last night's game and finished in top 2% (1,691st out of 132,275). Went totally chalk and was within 1 point of the lead with about 4 minutes left in the game...

well, my 150 LUs are loaded.   I tell you what - I have new respect for people that do this MME stuff.  I am sure as I get used to it, I will be able to fine tune it more, but it's a pain in the ### t

I wrote down Hunt at first too, but then when I was doing my usual Monday research I saw they gave D.Johnson 13 carries in the game after Chubb left, and Hunt had 11 on the day.   

12 minutes ago, FatNate said:

I will post the league link later in the week.

I have barely looked, but I created this place holder:

Watson - CEH - Hunt - Cooper - Fuller - Moore - Engram - Davis - Texans

 

I wrote down Hunt at first too, but then when I was doing my usual Monday research I saw they gave D.Johnson 13 carries in the game after Chubb left, and Hunt had 11 on the day.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, I did my usual Monday starting point.  Here are the names my lists started with:

QB:  Dak, Mahommes, Jones, Allen, Ben, Murray, Burrrow

RB:  CE-H, J.Robinson, Zeke, D.Johnson, M.Davis, Singletary, Hunt, Gurley

WR:  Hopkins, Ridley, OBJ, Edelman, M.Brown, Cooper, R.Anderson, Diggs, Moore, Slayton, McLaurin

            (small sample, but I did find it interesting that D.Byrd got 29% of the targets and 53% of the air yards with Hoyer last night)

TE:  Kittle, Kelce, Andrews, Engram, Schultz, Ebron

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at adjusted line stats, Robinson and CE-H popped on the rankings from that list.  Not sure on the line, but Henry probably needs to be looked at and based on the adjusted line rankings and workload I also added Jacobs and Gibson on the list to look at.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Like I said, I did my usual Monday starting point.  Here are the names my lists started with:

QB:  Dak, Mahommes, Jones, Allen, Ben, Murray, Burrrow

RB:  CE-H, J.Robinson, Zeke, D.Johnson, M.Davis, Singletary, Hunt, Gurley

WR:  Hopkins, Ridley, OBJ, Edelman, M.Brown, Cooper, R.Anderson, Diggs, Moore, Slayton, McLaurin

            (small sample, but I did find it interesting that D.Byrd got 29% of the targets and 53% of the air yards with Hoyer last night)

TE:  Kittle, Kelce, Andrews, Engram, Schultz, Ebron

 

 

I'd avoid Hopkins at his price in cash until he shows he's healthy. In gpp would get low ownership but lots of risk for the upside

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Raging weasel said:

I'd avoid Hopkins at his price in cash until he shows he's healthy. In gpp would get low ownership but lots of risk for the upside

Good point, and I agree.  I am sure I will do a little cash, and was thinking about spending up at Qb and TE this week and middle of the road WRs with lots of targets.  

IF I can figure out how to use this optimizer, I was thinking about trying this 150 LU thing and doing that in the $.05 contest for a WTF.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Just did a cash placeholder of:

Lamar - CEH/Robinson/Davis - Diggs/R.Anderson/Byrd/ - Kittle - NE

I think my construction will be something on those lines.  

Looks alot like my early placeholder

Allen,CEH,Davis,Lamb,Gage,Anderson,Hunt,Little,Pitt

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Just did a cash placeholder of:

Lamar - CEH/Robinson/Davis - Diggs/R.Anderson/Byrd/ - Kittle - NE

I think my construction will be something on those lines.  

Looking at week 5, I am coming across similar lineups.

Personally, I like Teddy as a value QB, especially when combined with Anderson and Davis.  This allows me to slate Zeke, although I"m wondering if he can provide the return to justify his price.

Also thinking that one of the Giants (Freeman, Tate, or Slayton) can be good value plays against the Dallas D.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

Looking at week 5, I am coming across similar lineups.

Personally, I like Teddy as a value QB, especially when combined with Anderson and Davis.  This allows me to slate Zeke, although I"m wondering if he can provide the return to justify his price.

Also thinking that one of the Giants (Freeman, Tate, or Slayton) can be good value plays against the Dallas D.

I have him in my gpp pool to consider, but like I posted last week or the week before for cash QBs I personally look at the QBs that rush a bit more so I have that built in floor for cash.  I usually cut my list off at the Qbs that have 10%+ of the teams rushing market share.  

Dk is a different story, but on FD I usually stick the core of guys like Dak/Allen/Jackson/Mahommes/Murray

Link to post
Share on other sites

QB: Mahomes, Ryan, Dak, DeShaun as primary, pivot to their opponents on some entries: Carr, Bridgewater, Minshew, Daniel Jones

RB: CEH, Gordon, Gibson, David Johnson, Henry, Mixon (but I hate his matchup), Zeke, Taylor, Jacobs

The rest I'll leave to the lineup builder to help me hash out...

Cash lineup (for now): Deshaun Watson, CEH, Zeke, Robby Anderson, Keelan Cole, Darius Slayton, Akins/fells, Jacobs, Pittsburgh

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:
4 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

I wrote down Hunt at first too, but then when I was doing my usual Monday research I saw they gave D.Johnson 13 carries in the game after Chubb left, and Hunt had 11 on the day.   

Hunt doesn’t seem like the ‘free square’ I thought he might be, but still on my radar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been listening to pods (surprise, I know!) and some tutorials.  A lot keep hammering and hammering how important correlation is as you get to more and more entries.   Also, as you have more and more entries, we should be adding 2nd and maybe 3rd stacks to the LU.   

  • One of them had the point on Monday about ownership and that it looked like stacks weren't correlated in the Minn/Houst game.  I think the example was that Watson/Fuller/Cooks were up to 20% or so owned, but Thielen was a lot lower onwned, pointing to people probably using something like Watson/Cooks in gpps, but not running it back with a correlation play like Thielen  
  • Watching another video that was talking about how many of the top LUs have 2nd and maybe 3rd stacks in them.  The point was to target 3-5 games you really love and hammer the crap out of them in gpps.   So for example this week for a gpp start with Dak/Cooper/Slayton.   Then do a RB/WR combo from another game Davis-Ridley maybe? Then could add in a RB/Def or a RB/TE type of stack a % of your LUs if it's a contests with 100K+ entries.  Maybe CEH and KC D?   You get the idea. 

 

Been trying to do this more when I build LUs by hand, but just wanted another reminder and do give all another reminder.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

I wrote down Hunt at first too, but then when I was doing my usual Monday research I saw they gave D.Johnson 13 carries in the game after Chubb left, and Hunt had 11 on the day.   

FWIW, Hunt was nursing a groin injury through the week and was actually questionable to play.  I think CLE was managing his workload a little.  That said, Johnson probably played his way to earning some more looks moving forward.  How much was him vs the weak Dallas D?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

Been listening to pods (surprise, I know!) and some tutorials.  A lot keep hammering and hammering how important correlation is as you get to more and more entries.   Also, as you have more and more entries, we should be adding 2nd and maybe 3rd stacks to the LU.   

  • One of them had the point on Monday about ownership and that it looked like stacks weren't correlated in the Minn/Houst game.  I think the example was that Watson/Fuller/Cooks were up to 20% or so owned, but Thielen was a lot lower onwned, pointing to people probably using something like Watson/Cooks in gpps, but not running it back with a correlation play like Thielen  
  • Watching another video that was talking about how many of the top LUs have 2nd and maybe 3rd stacks in them.  The point was to target 3-5 games you really love and hammer the crap out of them in gpps.   So for example this week for a gpp start with Dak/Cooper/Slayton.   Then do a RB/WR combo from another game Davis-Ridley maybe? Then could add in a RB/Def or a RB/TE type of stack a % of your LUs if it's a contests with 100K+ entries.  Maybe CEH and KC D?   You get the idea. 

 

Been trying to do this more when I build LUs by hand, but just wanted another reminder and do give all another reminder.  

This is super helpful information. Thank you for this. I'm going to completely alter my normal stuff. Probably play many fewer lineups than usual.

So, in your second bullet point, are you saying the following:

say your favorite game this week is the LVR-KCC matchup. Your second fave is JAX-HOU. You would build lineups around say these stacks:

Mahomes-CEH-Kelce; Mahomes-CEH-Hill; Mahomes-Hill-Kelce

Carr-Jacobs-Waller; Carr-Jacobs-Renfrow; Carr-Waller-Renfrow

then maybe ALSO stack the following in:

Minshew-Robinson; Minshew-Cole; Minshew-Chark; Minshew-Eifert

Watson-David Johnson; Watson-Duke Johnson; Watson-Fuller; watson-Cooks; Watson-Akins/Wells

So a primary GPP lineup might look like this:

Mahomes-CEH-Duke Johnson-Renfrow-Cole-Ridley-Kelce-Jacobs-HOU

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Solomon Grundy said:

This is super helpful information. Thank you for this. I'm going to completely alter my normal stuff. Probably play many fewer lineups than usual.

So, in your second bullet point, are you saying the following:

say your favorite game this week is the LVR-KCC matchup. Your second fave is JAX-HOU. You would build lineups around say these stacks:

Mahomes-CEH-Kelce; Mahomes-CEH-Hill; Mahomes-Hill-Kelce

Carr-Jacobs-Waller; Carr-Jacobs-Renfrow; Carr-Waller-Renfrow

then maybe ALSO stack the following in:

Minshew-Robinson; Minshew-Cole; Minshew-Chark; Minshew-Eifert

Watson-David Johnson; Watson-Duke Johnson; Watson-Fuller; watson-Cooks; Watson-Akins/Wells

So a primary GPP lineup might look like this:

Mahomes-CEH-Duke Johnson-Renfrow-Cole-Ridley-Kelce-Jacobs-HOU

Yes, to the last part in theory.  Off hand that might be too stacked up in a weird way on FD.  I will post more tonight, as I am out with the kiddo now.  

A big piece of info I am missing is how players correlate with each other on the same team. Ie - if I remember right, Hill and Kelce rarely have big games together, so its probably not wise to go heavy on Mahommes/Kelce/Hill stacks.  I will try to find the article about what positions/stacks correlate the best.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding GPP stacks.  Every GPP lineup I do has a QB and 2 receivers from the same team and I run it back with at least one receiver from the other team.  Mostly that means QB + WR + WR from team A and a WR from team B.  Sometimes its QB + WR + TE vs WR/TE.  Sometimes I add two WRs from the other team or a WR/TE.  But every GPP has at least the QB + 2 receivers vs 1 receiver from the other team.

Another stack I'll use sometimes is RB + D from the same team.  Taking a quick look at the Vegas Value chart I see BAL as a 13.5 point home favorite so I'll probably have one lineup with G. Edwards + BALT D.  Typically this stack would be with a better RB, but using Edwards would be a cost savings move as well as a way generate uniqueness and still get the RB + D stack.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steeler said:

Regarding GPP stacks.  Every GPP lineup I do has a QB and 2 receivers from the same team and I run it back with at least one receiver from the other team.  Mostly that means QB + WR + WR from team A and a WR from team B.  Sometimes its QB + WR + TE vs WR/TE.  Sometimes I add two WRs from the other team or a WR/TE.  But every GPP has at least the QB + 2 receivers vs 1 receiver from the other team.

Another stack I'll use sometimes is RB + D from the same team.  Taking a quick look at the Vegas Value chart I see BAL as a 13.5 point home favorite so I'll probably have one lineup with G. Edwards + BALT D.  Typically this stack would be with a better RB, but using Edwards would be a cost savings move as well as a way generate uniqueness and still get the RB + D stack.  

Again, I am just talking out loud here, but when I read this my question was how selective are you with your Qbs when you do this? 

This is what I am thinking about as I try to narrow down what teams and stacks to target.  And as I was running some optimizers last night, looking at lists, and thinking about the info from pods I was asking:

  • How many Qbs/teams can actually support 2 others?
  • Is it worth even trying for teams that spread it around and/or don't throw enough?
  • if it's a lesser QB, what are the odds that this is going to beat out the normal top 6 QB studs on the week?

 

For that last point, I thought that it was an interesting point they had on Fitzpatrick last week.  He was getting popular, but IF he was slinging the ball that much to support a Parker/Gesiski stack, it probably means that Seattle was up big, which probably means that Russ was cooking and was a top QB play and Fitz probably wasn't outscoring him.   Also, with the Russ side you have two highly correlated studs that both get 20% targets and 30% air yards.  If you double stack Fitzpatrick you are doing Parker and throwing a dart.  So their point was in this case, if you thought the Seattle/Miami game would shoot out it was probably better just to stay on the Russ side and run it back with Parker:  Russ/Metcalf/Lockett - Parker.  I think a similar discussion should be had this week if we love that NYG/Dallas game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought a great part of that article is that 3 man stacks from a team hit less on FD because of lack of bonues, and that IF you are going that route the odds of your stack hitting 75pts were best for Q/R/W1,  then the expected Q/W/TE and Q/W/W.   But those hit at about  1/3 the frequency of a simple 2 man.  

Also the part about opposing offenses correlating, which again points to wanting to get in a run back in the stack.   

So instead of jamming in 3 player stack from 1 team plus a WR from the other team, is it better to stick to something like  Dak/Cooper/Slayton, then look for another game to put in a Rb/WR correlation stack?     Ie:  Dak/Cooper/Slayton + Davis/Ridley  instead of Dak/Cooper/Lamb/Slayton + Davis ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Again, I am just talking out loud here, but when I read this my question was how selective are you with your Qbs when you do this? 

Good discussion.  To answer your question, I'm probably not selective enough in choosing QBs who can support two receivers when I build GPP lineups. I will definitely consider this when selecting lineups in the future.  What I've done in previous years is use lineup optimizers to generate between 20 and 150 lineups (low entry fee stuff) and the more lineups I generated the more "lax" I was in selecting the QB and therefore the stacks.  This year I'm creating fewer lineups, using generators less, and trying to build better/optimal lineups so this is good advice and something else I'll consider.

Regarding this line:  if it's a lesser QB, what are the odds that this is going to beat out the normal top 6 QB studs on the week?

That's a good point but to play devil's advocate you also have to consider the salary and expected roster percentage of the QB/stack as well.  For example if the most expensive QB is going to be owned in 15% of the lineups and a mid priced QB is going to be owned only 3% (or whatever) it might make sense to go with the lesser QB, at least some of the time.

For example, last week I had a Goff (2%) + Woods  (10%) + Kupp (12%) + Tate (1%) stack.  Now, this didn't work at all but I still think the thought process was good.  I saw a stat that Goff averaged 25 fantasy points in home games where the Rams were big home favorites so I rolled with this stack.  If Goff did get to 25+ points odds are good that Woods and Kupp would have done well and with a top QB score at only 2% ownership you are way ahead of the field.

Interestingly I thought about the Wilson vs Fitzmagic choice last week and ended up with Fitzmagic + Parker + Gesicki + Metcalf (again this didn't work out, so maybe you want to ignore my thoughts :lol: ).  I was concerned about TD regression for Wilson which did sort of play out with Carson getting 2 rushing TDs.  Also Wilson was projected for 17% ownership and Fitz was only 7% so if it did turn into a shootout with both sides scoring well I'd rather have the less expensive and less owned player.

I think it's important to have low percentage players to increase the chance of winning the tourney.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I thought a great part of that article is that 3 man stacks from a team hit less on FD because of lack of bonues,

This is interesting too... I mostly play in DK (where the stacks I mentioned are more important due to the bonuses as you mentioned) so perhaps I need to change my strategy for FD tournaments. Thanks for the article!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steeler said:

This is interesting too... I mostly play in DK (where the stacks I mentioned are more important due to the bonuses as you mentioned) so perhaps I need to change my strategy for FD tournaments. Thanks for the article!

@Steeler similar findings, but there is a DK specific one HERE.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steeler said:

Good discussion.  To answer your question, I'm probably not selective enough in choosing QBs who can support two receivers when I build GPP lineups. I will definitely consider this when selecting lineups in the future.  What I've done in previous years is use lineup optimizers to generate between 20 and 150 lineups (low entry fee stuff) and the more lineups I generated the more "lax" I was in selecting the QB and therefore the stacks.  This year I'm creating fewer lineups, using generators less, and trying to build better/optimal lineups so this is good advice and something else I'll consider.

Regarding this line:  if it's a lesser QB, what are the odds that this is going to beat out the normal top 6 QB studs on the week?

That's a good point but to play devil's advocate you also have to consider the salary and expected roster percentage of the QB/stack as well.  For example if the most expensive QB is going to be owned in 15% of the lineups and a mid priced QB is going to be owned only 3% (or whatever) it might make sense to go with the lesser QB, at least some of the time.

For example, last week I had a Goff (2%) + Woods  (10%) + Kupp (12%) + Tate (1%) stack.  Now, this didn't work at all but I still think the thought process was good.  I saw a stat that Goff averaged 25 fantasy points in home games where the Rams were big home favorites so I rolled with this stack.  If Goff did get to 25+ points odds are good that Woods and Kupp would have done well and with a top QB score at only 2% ownership you are way ahead of the field.

Interestingly I thought about the Wilson vs Fitzmagic choice last week and ended up with Fitzmagic + Parker + Gesicki + Metcalf (again this didn't work out, so maybe you want to ignore my thoughts :lol: ).  I was concerned about TD regression for Wilson which did sort of play out with Carson getting 2 rushing TDs.  Also Wilson was projected for 17% ownership and Fitz was only 7% so if it did turn into a shootout with both sides scoring well I'd rather have the less expensive and less owned player.

I think it's important to have low percentage players to increase the chance of winning the tourney.

 

I have heard many pod gpp guys says that they stick to a core of 4-6 QBs most of the time, by that extension I would guess that means they are mostly in 2-3 games for stacking.  

I hear you 100% on the salary part as well, and I was going to start a discussion about that tonight too as I am staring at this week.  That was a huge reason Houst was so popular last week. Yes, they were playing Minny, but Watson+Cooks was also dirt cheap.   That is the hard thing about thinking about stacking teams like Balt and KC.  You can stack Lamar + Andrews + Brown, but that will cost +22K in salary so if we use the 4x rule for gpp, that means those three need to approach 90pts to pay off that stack.  On top of that, you are probably dumpster diving a bit at another spot.  

Not picking, because I had a similar Rams/NYG stack as well in a LU.  After thinking about it more this week in light of the stuff we are posting, it kind of goes back to my questions about if the Qb/team can support that.  Looking at the stats, Goff's highest attempts this year is 36 and his average air yards are a miniscule 187.3/game.  Now, LAR is a concentrated offense in that Kupp is averaging 23.5% and Woods 22.1% target % on the season, BUT we also have to consider the low volume and air yards, so that would be 6-8 targets each, and the targets aren't down field.    Similar - Tate is #3 on his team for target % and #3 on his team for air yards %.    There is a lot going against us for our stack to leap frog a lot of others on the slate. 

Now we compare that to the Dallas game were Dak throws 50x per game and is averaging 400 air yards and OBJ on the other side is going for almost 30% of targets and 46% of the air yards.  Yes, more chalky, but I think you get what I am saying.   

Also agree 100% on the low owned players in gpps, but it doesn't have to be in the QB stacks, and it doesn't 100% have to be on the players.   The other week Henry and Cook went off in the same game, and even if they were both owned, I am guessing that the % that had 2 RBs in the same game was pretty low.    Also adding that 2nd correlating stack in the LU I am guessing will differentiate a LU as well.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

I have heard many pod gpp guys says that they stick to a core of 4-6 QBs most of the time, by that extension I would guess that means they are mostly in 2-3 games for stacking.  

I hear you 100% on the salary part as well, and I was going to start a discussion about that tonight too as I am staring at this week.  That was a huge reason Houst was so popular last week. Yes, they were playing Minny, but Watson+Cooks was also dirt cheap.   That is the hard thing about thinking about stacking teams like Balt and KC.  You can stack Lamar + Andrews + Brown, but that will cost +22K in salary so if we use the 4x rule for gpp, that means those three need to approach 90pts to pay off that stack.  On top of that, you are probably dumpster diving a bit at another spot.  

Not picking, because I had a similar Rams/NYG stack as well in a LU.  After thinking about it more this week in light of the stuff we are posting, it kind of goes back to my questions about if the Qb/team can support that.  Looking at the stats, Goff's highest attempts this year is 36 and his average air yards are a miniscule 187.3/game.  Now, LAR is a concentrated offense in that Kupp is averaging 23.5% and Woods 22.1% target % on the season, BUT we also have to consider the low volume and air yards, so that would be 6-8 targets each, and the targets aren't down field.    Similar - Tate is #3 on his team for target % and #3 on his team for air yards %.    There is a lot going against us for our stack to leap frog a lot of others on the slate. 

Now we compare that to the Dallas game were Dak throws 50x per game and is averaging 400 air yards and OBJ on the other side is going for almost 30% of targets and 46% of the air yards.  Yes, more chalky, but I think you get what I am saying.   

Also agree 100% on the low owned players in gpps, but it doesn't have to be in the QB stacks, and it doesn't 100% have to be on the players.   The other week Henry and Cook went off in the same game, and even if they were both owned, I am guessing that the % that had 2 RBs in the same game was pretty low.    Also adding that 2nd correlating stack in the LU I am guessing will differentiate a LU as well.  

It makes sense to focus on a small number of QBs/stacks.  In week 3 I had a Wilson stack and considered a Prescott stack as well but decided against it.  In hindsight, I would have double my winnings that week had I used both stacks instead of only one of them.  

In week 4 I considered a Dak stack and obviously running it back with OBJ but didn't pull the trigger on it... hindsight 20/20 and all that... but it was really one of the stacks that should have been used in week 4.  And I agree with you that the lower percentage players don't have to come from the QB/stack necessarily, but it's still something I will consider going forward.  However, I will make that consideration less important than the stuff you brought up in the last few posts, maybe as a tie breaker after other considerations are made.  It's way more important to get the QB + WR + WR stack correct regardless of the ownership percentage than to get a 2/3% QB right on the off chance they hit.  There are other opportunities to diversify your lineup to create uniqueness without getting it from the QB/stack.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steeler said:

It makes sense to focus on a small number of QBs/stacks.  In week 3 I had a Wilson stack and considered a Prescott stack as well but decided against it.  In hindsight, I would have double my winnings that week had I used both stacks instead of only one of them.  

In week 4 I considered a Dak stack and obviously running it back with OBJ but didn't pull the trigger on it... hindsight 20/20 and all that... but it was really one of the stacks that should have been used in week 4.  And I agree with you that the lower percentage players don't have to come from the QB/stack necessarily, but it's still something I will consider going forward.  However, I will make that consideration less important than the stuff you brought up in the last few posts, maybe as a tie breaker after other considerations are made.  It's way more important to get the QB + WR + WR stack correct regardless of the ownership percentage than to get a 2/3% QB right on the off chance they hit.  There are other opportunities to diversify your lineup to create uniqueness without getting it from the QB/stack.

Great discussion regardless!   Looks like ownership is out on RG, so I know what I am heading to do with the kiddo is doing her online school!  

What I am trying to do is with the discussion and looking at stats is get an idea of the core of players that I want or am interested in and then look at %s.  If everybody is predicted to be chalk, then I will have to look at that, but if there are guys on my list that are lower owned..  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some interesting low ownership, but a bit of it is on those Denv/NE and Buff/Tenn games that are iffy to play.  Probalby best to check out the %s after it is clear they are going or not.   

As it now - Dallas/NYG and Car/Atl are uber chalk like expected.   So i guess if we are stacking those as well, look for a slight pivot or a couple other players to get in there.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say thanks to you guys for your contributions. I typically only play $5 or so with a few cheap GPP and a couple cash lineups. You guys really help with my thought process. @KarmaPolice early breakdown is really helpful to narrowing my thoughts and consideration. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

Just reserved my 150 LUs in the 5cent contest.  Hopefully I will be able to figure out how to upload a file.   :lol: 

It's super easy. The key is to make sure you copy the information from you FBG download into the spreadsheet that Fanduel provides, as it won't upload the FBG file directly. At least it didn't when I tried it, but copy - past special - values into the Fanduel spreadsheet worked fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing less $ than I usually am, but I have 210 LUs reserved between the two sites.  :lol:  

Some random thoughts on gpps this week and what I might be looking at:

  • Car/Atl and NYG/Dallas will be heavy owned (most of the core players 20-30% owned?), so need to make decisions there.   Go with the field, go overweight, or look elsewhere?
  • Qbs on my list that would be lesser owned were Allen, Murray, Watson, Burrow.
  • Didn't see a ton in the RBs.  Mixon, Singletary, Gaskin, Gibson, NE rbs were some really low owned players that were on my initial list to look into more. 
  • Crowder, Diggs, NE wrs, Denv WRs, Watkins, McLaurin were a few on my list of high volume guys that might be low%
  • Looks like Waller and Andrews might be the underowned guys of the TE studs.  Also, nobody wants to roster Schultz it seems, so I might be back on him.  Also Ertz witout Goedert
  • From my sack potential list, Cinci/Dallas/Wash/Miami were on there at tiny ownership.   I might put Dallas D in a little bit with Zeke to get different, and I might be trying Gibson + Washington a tiny bit in my LUs.   That right there would be enough low % to differentiate from chalk stacks.  

 

Examples:   Dak - CEH/Davis/Gibson - Cooper/Slayton/Gage - Andrews - Wash    Gets stacks from the 2 chalk games, stud TE, and then gpp dart of Gibson/Wash

                     Lamar -  Zeke/CEH/Davis - Brown/Higgins/Slayton - Schultz - Pitts      Again, loads up a bit with Dallas/Car, but adds in a lower owned Balt/Cinci stack and lower owned Schultz

 

:shrug:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been below the field on Zeke in weeks three and four.  I am back this week.  I think this is a Zeke week and with that said, I think Dak's numbers will be down compared to the last few weeks even though they are playing a bad Giants team.  I will be underweight on Dak and the Dallas WRs this week compared to the field.  I think I will be using mostly Lamar and Mahommes this week.  I will also working in some Watson and Bridgewater.  Lastly, I will be trying Allen and Flacco at league min price.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FatNate said:

I have been below the field on Zeke in weeks three and four.  I am back this week.  I think this is a Zeke week and with that said, I think Dak's numbers will be down compared to the last few weeks even though they are playing a bad Giants team.  I will be underweight on Dak and the Dallas WRs this week compared to the field.  I think I will be using mostly Lamar and Mahommes this week.  I will also working in some Watson and Bridgewater.  Lastly, I will be trying Allen and Flacco at league min price.

I think you might be just throwing money away on the Flacco and Allen lineups. Flacco was already a below average QB, no way he gets better on that awful team with that awful coach, and he doesn't run. Allen is a possibility, but he's playing against the Rams and their defense is very solid. Also, both games are estimated to be low-scoring compared to others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Solomon Grundy said:

I think you might be just throwing money away on the Flacco and Allen lineups. Flacco was already a below average QB, no way he gets better on that awful team with that awful coach, and he doesn't run. Allen is a possibility, but he's playing against the Rams and their defense is very solid. Also, both games are estimated to be low-scoring compared to others.

You are probably right, especially with Flacco.  I will am going to build one around Allen.  If I like it the pieces I will stick with it, but if not, I will drop it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Steeler

I was listening to the 4for4 podcast today and right in line with this thread today he said that he did research on the LU construction and all 4 of the winners of the milly maker this year have had 3 Players from a team and a run back of 1 player from another team.  :lol:  Also that was the case for 3 of the 4 top winners on the DK milly contest.    

ALSO he said all of those FD lineups also had a correlating stack from another game that included a RB, and then either WR/RB (I assume that Henry/Cook week), or DT.  So they hammered home about having that 2nd correlation in LUs.  

My plan before listening to that was to do 30% of a bigger stack like that, and then 70% of more 2 from a team + 1 run back.  I wonder if I should bump that up a little.  

Edited by KarmaPolice
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

@Steeler

I was listening to the 4for4 podcast today and right in line with this thread today he said that he did research on the LU construction and all 4 of the winners of the milly maker this year have had 3 Players from a team and a run back of 1 player from another team.  :lol:  Also that was the case for 3 of the 4 top winners on the DK milly contest.    

ALSO he said all of those FD lineups also had a correlating stack from another game that included a RB, and then either WR/RB (I assume that Henry/Cook week), or DT.  So they hammered home about having that 2nd correlation in LUs.  

My plan before listening to that was to do 30% of a bigger stack like that, and then 70% of more 2 from a team + 1 run back.  I wonder if I should bump that up a little.  

So, the takeaway here is that for GPP you should have QB-RB-WR1 from a high scoring team, the WR1 from the opposing team, and an RB-WR or RB/DT from maybe the second highest scoring team. Am I interpreting you correctly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

@Steeler

I was listening to the 4for4 podcast today and right in line with this thread today he said that he did research on the LU construction and all 4 of the winners of the milly maker this year have had 3 Players from a team and a run back of 1 player from another team.  :lol:  Also that was the case for 3 of the 4 top winners on the DK milly contest.    

ALSO he said all of those FD lineups also had a correlating stack from another game that included a RB, and then either WR/RB (I assume that Henry/Cook week), or DT.  

My plan before listening to that was to do 30% of a bigger stack like that, and then 70% of more 2 from a team + 1 run back.  I wonder if I should bump that up a little.  

Does this fit that equation:

QB - Watson Hou vs Jax

RB - DJ Hou vs Jax

WR - Fuller Hou vs Jax

RB - Robinson Jax at Hou

WR - Gage Atl vs Car

WR - Anderson Car at Atl

RB - Elliott Dal vs NYG

TE - Andrews Bal vs Cin

D - Arizona at NYJ

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Solomon Grundy said:

For cash this week, I'm going Daniel Jones - Zeke, Jacobs, Gordon - Fuller, DJ Moore, Slayton - Schultz - BAL. Dallas defense is so bad I just feel like Jones has a high floor. Stack him with Slayton and I should get around 40 points easy.

I think Jones is a very risky cash QB.  He has to get to 21-pts to be cash viable.  He needs something like 300-yds and 2-TDs or 250-yds and 3-TDs.  Also, if he struggles it could mean that Slayton also struggles.  I like the lineup for GPP and I think it will be a popular route for people this week, but for cash I would prefer a different QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Solomon Grundy said:

So, the takeaway here is that for GPP you should have QB-RB-WR1 from a high scoring team, the WR1 from the opposing team, and an RB-WR or RB/DT from maybe the second highest scoring team. Am I interpreting you correctly?

I'd have to listen again, but I think he said most were Q-W-W with a WR runback, but I think he said there was a RB one in there too.  I also believe he said it was RB/Rb from different teams or RB/Wr from different teams (but same game).   Basically just that there was another correlated stack involving a RB in the LUs as well.    So an obvious possible example for this week for a LU core would be:

Dak + Cooper + Gallup  with Slayton coming back, then CE-H + KC Def.     

The problem on FD is that I also believe that very few winners have WRs or TEs in the flex b/c of volume and the TD heavy format, so if you stack like that all your WRs are taken up on one game, where on DK you can add one more in the flex and correlate it with an RB.     So maybe Dak/Zeke/Cooper with Slayton, then Davis + Ridley will also be a popular way to accomplish what they are saying too.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

I'd have to listen again, but I think he said most were Q-W-W with a WR runback, but I think he said there was a RB one in there too.  I also believe he said it was RB/Rb from different teams or RB/Wr from different teams (but same game).   Basically just that there was another correlated stack involving a RB in the LUs as well.    So an obvious possible example for this week for a LU core would be:

Dak + Cooper + Gallup  with Slayton coming back, then CE-H + KC Def.     

The problem on FD is that I also believe that very few winners have WRs or TEs in the flex b/c of volume and the TD heavy format, so if you stack like that all your WRs are taken up on one game, where on DK you can add one more in the flex and correlate it with an RB.     So maybe Dak/Zeke/Cooper with Slayton, then Davis + Ridley will also be a popular way to accomplish what they are saying too.  

 

Got it. Thanks.

4 minutes ago, FatNate said:

I think Jones is a very risky cash QB.  He has to get to 21-pts to be cash viable.  He needs something like 300-yds and 2-TDs or 250-yds and 3-TDs.  Also, if he struggles it could mean that Slayton also struggles.  I like the lineup for GPP and I think it will be a popular route for people this week, but for cash I would prefer a different QB.

Yeah, you have me thinking I want to revise this. I want Mahomes in my cash LU, but I can't stack him and have salary for anything else, lol...

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FatNate said:

Does this fit that equation:

QB - Watson Hou vs Jax

RB - DJ Hou vs Jax

WR - Fuller Hou vs Jax

RB - Robinson Jax at Hou

WR - Gage Atl vs Car

WR - Anderson Car at Atl

RB - Elliott Dal vs NYG

TE - Andrews Bal vs Cin

D - Arizona at NYJ

Yes, but I would say that the bolded is the odd piece from what I am understanding, especially on FD where we don't get the ppr and bonuses.   Basically you are saying with that stack that Houston will be up big and Jax has to come from behind, and I think in these stacks the opposing WR1 is the best correlation according to the charts.     So I think Watson/Fuller/DJ + Chark would be the better stack statistically.   Then maybe Davis/Gage from that Car/Atl game.      DJ + Robinson could be an interesting correlation for another stack that uses all WRs like above though.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

The core plays from the 4for4 podcast were:

Lamar, Watson

CEH, Davis

Brown, McLaurin, Slayton

J.Smith (pivot to Schultz if they don't play), then Kittle/Kelce.  Do whichever is cheaper on that site.  

Houston, Balt

 

They also pointed out that Dak and the Atl/Car game was taking a lot of ownership away from studs like Lamar, Mahomes, Allen, and Murray.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Yes, but I would say that the bolded is the odd piece from what I am understanding, especially on FD where we don't get the ppr and bonuses.   Basically you are saying with that stack that Houston will be up big and Jax has to come from behind, and I think in these stacks the opposing WR1 is the best correlation according to the charts.     So I think Watson/Fuller/DJ + Chark would be the better stack statistically.   Then maybe Davis/Gage from that Car/Atl game.      DJ + Robinson could be an interesting correlation for another stack that uses all WRs like above though.   

Thanks for the feedback.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...