NFL FORUM

Comments

  • bhdevault

    • Lead Moderator

    • Blogger of the Month

    Saturday, January 16th
    4:35 PM EST : Kansas City ( 5 ) at New England ( -5 ) —- T: 43
    8:15 PM EST : Green Bay ( 7.5 ) at Arizona ( -7.5 ) —- T: 50

    Sunday, January 17th
    1:05 PM EST : Seattle ( 3 ) at Carolina ( -3 ) —- T: 44
    4:40 PM EST : Pittsburgh ( 7 ) at Denver ( -7 ) —- T: —

  • dflorea

    I would like to know the real odds of winning in a weekly dfs contest. For example next week 4 teams selecting one qb 2 rb 3wr and so on. I’m surprised that out of 100,000 plus participants there can be one top winner.

  • hoodOO7

    @dflorea said...

    I would like to know the real odds of winning in a weekly dfs contest. For example next week 4 teams selecting one qb 2 rb 3wr and so on. I’m surprised that out of 100,000 plus participants there can be one top winner.

    There are still a surprisingly staggering number of combinations (probably hundreds of thousands). Regardless, the top spot in such a small slate with huge numbers of LU’s is going to require near perfection to take it down, plus guessing which punt play(s) is/are the best.

  • ryan52

    @franklinwinthrop said...

    Yeah my blood pressure went through the roof when I saw how many azzholes had that lineup.

    Give me a fking break. What exactly goes through these retards minds? jesus christ.

    id assume what goes through their head when they pick that lineup is the same as what goes through yours when you pick yours… this gives me a good shot to win. this week, apparently the “retards” made better choices

  • hoodOO7

    @ryan52 said...

    id assume what goes through their head when they pick that lineup is the same as what goes through yours when you pick yours… this gives me a good shot to win. this week, apparently the “retards” made better choices

    To be fair, a bad LU can take down a tourney, with better LU’s losing.

    For example: I personally think James White was still a good play despite him doing squat. I knew the Pats not even attempt to establish a run game. Plus, White is a pass catching fiend with great YAC. He was on the field for the majority of the snaps (which I predicted would be the case) and Brady threw for 40+ passes (which is why I thought Brady was a no-brainer as top QB this week). It was a recipe for production, but he still went 2/39/0.

    In my opinion and on the other side of the coin: There were plenty of reasons to fade Fitzgerald at his cost with the way he’d been used over the last several weeks, and use someone like Brown or Floyd instead. In fact, fading him seemed like a great call until the last handful of plays in an OT which should have NEVER happened, when he racked up basically half of his points on 2 plays.

    Nevertheless, a seemingly good play was crap and a “so-so” play helped people take down Tournies.

    Basically, something isn’t a “better choice” simply because it yields better results. As another posted pointed out: There’s often too much results oriented focus in here haha

  • WorldWideWes

    @FXT said...

    I had a 3500% profit and I love the small slates. A lot less variance in the short slates. I prefer to research 2-6 teams tops.

    Same here. My best results – by far – have been small slates. Especially playoff and preseason, as odd as that sounds.

  • dflorea

    I’m just about breaking even. I’ve treid different combinations in around 10 to 20 slates. No perfection yet. But still hopeful.

  • FXT

    @hoodOO7 said...

    To be fair, a bad LU can take down a tourney, with better LU’s losing.

    For example: I personally think James White was still a good play despite him doing squat. I knew the Pats not even attempt to establish a run game. Plus, White is a pass catching fiend with great YAC. He was on the field for the majority of the snaps (which I predicted would be the case) and Brady threw for 40+ passes (which is why I thought Brady was a no-brainer as top QB this week). It was a recipe for production, but he still went 2/39/0.

    In my opinion and on the other side of the coin: There were plenty of reasons to fade Fitzgerald at his cost with the way he’d been used over the last several weeks, and use someone like Brown or Floyd instead. In fact, fading him seemed like a great call until the last handful of plays in an OT which should have NEVER happened, when he racked up basically half of his points on 2 plays.

    Nevertheless, a seemingly good play was crap and a “so-so” play helped people take down Tournies.

    Basically, something isn’t a “better choice” simply because it yields better results. As another posted pointed out: There’s often too much results oriented focus in here haha

    White was a terrible pick imo considering Pats RB situation is too saturated. Then you have to account for Edelman returning so all those checkdown plays that would normally go to White won’t need to since there is a very capable guy running out of the slot. This is exactly what ended up happening. I made a LU using Steven Jackson just for those goal line situations but it didn’t pan out. Still cashed in most of those just having the proper Brady/gronk/edelman stack.

    As far as Cards game, I agree that Floyd/Brown was the right play but Fitz killed it at the end. It was a miracle and it happens. All you can do is make multiple lineups for those kind of situations. On the GB side I knew Abbadabadooris was the right pick with James Jones being covered by Peterson but I couldn’t have predicted Cobb would get injured and then Janis would be the low man on the totem pole that would draw crap coverage and snake all the good catches.

    Again those things happen. Just have to make the right plays and hope the stars align while making money in the double ups and h2hs. GPP wins will come eventually when the stars align in your favor or your bankroll gives you multiple lineups like Maxdalury to kill some of the variance.

  • creamy_rick

    Anyone know any good places to research kicking stats, or is it really the ultimate dart throw like I think it is? I usually play DK so don’t worry about it, but am doing a three week thing with about 60 people and would be doing great (minus getting rocked by Fitz, which I still think was a bad play, and opting to leave out Edelman, though I had misplaced faith in DT with the full PPR) were it not for picking the wrong kickers. At this point I’m in fourth, about three points out of third, but would be doing much better if I didn’t pick Washington and Arizonas kickers these past two weeks despite each being in seemingly good matchups. It’s honestly one of the few places I can see where I can differentiate my lineup with the slates getting smaller and smaller. Should I finally go with my initially instinct and just pick a kicker from the latest game in hopes that I have a guy who could, just as with any other option, explode in volatile circumstances and make up ground? It was why I almost played McMannus today before switching over to the ‘safer’ matchup.

  • Genghis_Khan

    @FXT said...

    White was a terrible pick imo considering Pats RB situation is too saturated. Then you have to account for Edelman returning so all those checkdown plays that would normally go to White won’t need to since there is a very capable guy running out of the slot. This is exactly what ended up happening. I made a LU using Steven Jackson just for those goal line situations but it didn’t pan out. Still cashed in most of those just having the proper Brady/gronk/edelman stack.

    As far as Cards game, I agree that Floyd/Brown was the right play but Fitz killed it at the end. It was a miracle and it happens. All you can do is make multiple lineups for those kind of situations. On the GB side I knew Abbadabadooris was the right pick with James Jones being covered by Peterson but I couldn’t have predicted Cobb would get injured and then Janis would be the low man on the totem pole that would draw crap coverage and snake all the good catches.

    Again those things happen. Just have to make the right plays and hope the stars align while making money in the double ups and h2hs. GPP wins will come eventually when the stars align in your favor or your bankroll gives you multiple lineups like Maxdalury to kill some of the variance.

    Regardless of whether you two agree on White, the point is that there were rationales behind your thinking. The lineups that won the Sunday were actual nonsense (stacking 3 Sea weapons with Panthers D). That’s the stuff that’s hard to take.

  • Genghis_Khan

    P.S. I’m so pissed I’m quitting dfs.

    Oooh look next week’s slate is up on dk. See you next week.

    P.P.S check it out, weird pricing change/error on dk; min price on rb, wr, te all 2k. That adds an interesting wrinkle.

  • hoodOO7

    @FXT said...

    White was a terrible pick imo considering Pats RB situation is too saturated. Then you have to account for Edelman returning so all those checkdown plays that would normally go to White won’t need to since there is a very capable guy running out of the slot. This is exactly what ended up happening. I made a LU using Steven Jackson just for those goal line situations but it didn’t pan out. Still cashed in most of those just having the proper Brady/gronk/edelman stack.

    Anything within 1 yard is almost guaranteed to a QB sneak with Brady. In fact, my stat lines estimated Brady with 3 passing TD’s and a QB sneak. Pretty close. It’s common knowledge Bellichick won’t force the run against top rated defenses, so treating it as saturated in these obvious situations is silly. And, saying it was a terrible pick when he was on the field as much as he was, which was predicted by everyone with common sense? I’ll call: Didn’t pan out over terrible every day. Especially when the guy saying it was terrible picked a 32 year old running back up against the Chiefs defense, when Bellichick will have his check-down back in the vast majority of snaps.

    Regardless, like Khan said: Pros and cons for everyone. I still cashed with that LU having Kearse, Gronk, Brady, and Edelman. It also had James “goose egg” Jones. What could’ve been ;)

  • hoodOO7

    @Genghis_Khan said...

    Regardless of whether you two agree on White, the point is that there were rationales behind your thinking. The lineups that won the Sunday were actual nonsense (stacking 3 Sea weapons with Panthers D). That’s the stuff that’s hard to take.

    Agreed ;)

  • Bam79

    I cashed on 30/46 entries..Good weekend :)

  • bluesjack

    @Genghis_Khan said...

    The lineups that won the Sunday were actual nonsense (stacking 3 Sea weapons with Panthers D). That’s the stuff that’s hard to take.

    As a first year NFL player I’ll throw my 2 cents in on this and take the heat for it too :-)
    As a disclaimer I did not, unfortunately, use this approach.

    Sure, basic strategy says don’t use offensive players against your D, BUT let’s not forget this was a 4 game slate. Pickins were slim, you’ve got to get your points where you can.

    You can be as optimistic as you want when you pick a D but it’s absurd to expect that there will be no fantasy points scored by QB’s, RB’s or WR’s.

    No one can count on defensive TD’s but If you expect your D to play well and the offense to get out to a big lead, it’s only natural for the D to trade space for time. In that case garbage time points will be scored.

    I’m not at all being results oriented here but short slate plus game script makes this
    a situation that is in play.

  • hoodOO7

    @Bam79 said...

    I cashed on 30/46 entries..Good weekend :)

    Grats ;)

  • lfn1992

    I’m still hot under the collar that Shula basically shelved Newton up 31-0, and EVEN WHEN THE GAME WAS STARTING TO GET INTERESTING Newton was basically relegated to handing the ball off. Newton is all-world in most of the last four games, but now they’re in the playoffs Shula pretends he’s decrepit Peyton Manning. I loathe when the actual coaches don’t do what I would do in that situation. All Shula needed to do is be a man and attack for maybe one or two more drives – then the Seahawks don’t push so hard at the end and get those garbage TDs.

  • Genghis_Khan

    @bluesjack said...

    Sure, basic strategy says don’t use offensive players against your D, BUT let’s not forget this was a 4 game slate. Pickins were slim, you’ve got to get your points where you can.

    This I actually agree with, and am not opposed to using an offensive player with the opposing D, especially when they may actually correlate well. E.g. an rb in an rbbc who gets a lot of passing game work will likely correlate positively with an opposing D that is shutting down longer routes and getting to the qb. I had tons of Toussaint along with the Broncos D yesterday e.g. Also had Demariyus and the Steelers, hoping for a large number of bubble screens. But I was specifically referencing a superstack of outside receivers and a qb against a defense, as is the one that won the Sunday big GPP. That is simply extreme.

  • JTXterminator

    Ever consider that someone was able to change their lineup during the contest. I’m convinced that it happens. I was winning on FD after the final scoring play of the Pitt/Den game. After the onside kick, I’m in third. Now FD won’t answer my emails.

  • dflorea

    @JTXterminator said...

    Ever consider that someone was able to change their lineup during the contest. I’m convinced that it happens. I was winning on FD after the final scoring play of the Pitt/Den game. After the onside kick, I’m in third. Now FD won’t answer my emails.

    Wow, if that was true it would be a huge fraud class action lawsuit.

  • hoodOO7

    @JTXterminator said...

    Ever consider that someone was able to change their lineup during the contest. I’m convinced that it happens. I was winning on FD after the final scoring play of the Pitt/Den game. After the onside kick, I’m in third. Now FD won’t answer my emails.

    Did you have the Denver Defense? There was an error with how sites were reporting a botched special teams play. They were reporting it a safety and it was changed afterwards to remove the 2 points they erroneously gave the Denver D.

    This was all mentioned in prior posts in this forum, in case you’re interested. In dropped me several hundo, as well.

  • JTXterminator

    @hoodOO7 said...

    Did you have the Denver Defense? There was an error with how sites were reporting a botched special teams play. They were reporting it a safety and it was changed afterwards to remove the 2 points they erroneously gave the Denver D.

    This was all mentioned in prior posts in this forum, in case you’re interested. In dropped me several hundo, as well.

    I did have Denver’s defense. But the person I passed at end of the game by a point did not. So if they changed it after the onside kick, he should have passed me.
    Besides that, my score didn’t go down. I was just mysteriously overtaken by 2 tenths of a point.

  • dflorea

    Aren’t there point adjustments during any given game? I’ve noticed errors in yardage made as the game progresses then adjusted points. At any rate, I hope point manipulation is not true. If what happened to you was not an error but manipulation of some sort I would not play again.

  • hoodOO7

    @JTXterminator said...

    I did have Denver’s defense. But the person I passed at end of the game by a point did not. So if they changed it after the onside kick, he should have passed me.
    Besides that, my score didn’t go down. I was just mysteriously overtaken by 2 tenths of a point.

    Can you provide a link to the contest? I imagine there is a very simple explanation for this if you just look at the stats and LU’s. And, like dflorea suggests, there are adjustments to points as the games go on, plus things can be slow to update.

  • JTXterminator

    First of all, thanks to everyone who has responded. I’ve gotten more feedback here then I’ve gotten from FanDuel. I decided to give everyone as much info as I could, so this may take awhile.

    Top 3 teams when Pittsburgh started the last drive
    Team A 164.14
    Team B 161.49
    Team C 160.04

    First play incomplete pass. No scoring change.
    Second play pass to Bryant
    Team A 164.14
    Team B 162.69
    Team C 161.24

    Third play pass to Bryant
    Team B 165.34
    Team A 164.14
    Team C 162.64

    Fourth play spike, no change in scoring
    Fifth play Boswell kick no change as no one has him
    Onside kick

    Team D 165.54
    Team E 165.54
    Team B 165.34
    Team F 164.74
    Team G 164.74
    Team A 164..14
    Team C 162.69

    Teams D,E,F and G, not sure where these teams came from

    Now, I’ve heard about point adjustments and such, so assuming that all adjustments from the Sea/Car game were done before the last 20 seconds of the Den/Pitt game, I’ll only go over the players in the Den/Pitt game.

    Teams D and E the eventual 1st place teams
    CJ Anderson
    M Bryant
    E Sanders
    B McManus

    Team B
    R Hillman
    M Bryant
    B McManus
    Denver D

    Teams F and G tied for fourth
    CJ Anderson
    E Sanders
    M Bryant
    B McManus

    Team A
    F Troussaint
    E Sanders
    M Bryant

    Team C
    CJ Anderson
    E Sanders
    B McManus
    Denver D

    As you can see, every player that teams D and E, and teams F and G have, at least one of us have. So if one would have been adjusted, one of the original three also would have been adjusted. I’m simply looking for an explanation that makes sense.

    hood007, I’m an old guy,not sure how to send you a link to the contest but I’ll try to figure it out.

  • JTXterminator

    @hoodOO7 said...

    Can you provide a link to the contest? I imagine there is a very simple explanation for this if you just look at the stats and LU’s. And, like dflorea suggests, there are adjustments to points as the games go on, plus things can be slow to update.

    Here is the link
    https://www.fanduel.com/games/14407/contests/14407-21915258/entries/387104302/scoring

  • X Unread Thread
  • X Thread with New Replies*
  • *Jumps to your first unread reply

Subforum Index

RotoGrinders.com is the home of the daily fantasy sports community. Our content, rankings, member blogs, promotions and forum discussion all cater to the players that like to create a new fantasy team every day of the week.

If you or someone you know has a gambling problem, crisis counseling and referral services can be accessed by calling 1-800-GAMBLER (1-800-426-2537) (IL). Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER (NJ/WV/PA/MI), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (CO), 1-800-BETS OFF (IA), 1-888-532-3500 (VA) or call/text TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN).