ScopeY
Pretty much a regular
Just getting the thread started.
Also @mcculran, on post #2 of my week 3 or 4 thread (I believe) I discuss GPP positive leverage lineups.....the top 10/.1%/etc, lineup construction that are ahead of the field.
I will look into more recent numbers, they should change to which were best, but maybe the order.
#1 QB/RB/WR + WR
#2 QB/RB/WR
#3 QB/WR + WR
#4 QB/WR
Starting out a GPP lineup with this kind of base is how I start.
I try to limit the qbs I want exposure too, so I don't spread myself super thin. I'd rather take a stand with 3/4, maybe 5 guys MAX, that way I can vary those lineups more. So if the base hits, I have a ton of variability to have 1/2 explode.
I think when you fall in a common price range, you need to ask yourself... does this selection far and away blow out the rest of the area? (like curtis samuel 3k 2 weeks ago, nobody had his upside at that price ----- or cordarelle patterson 2 weeks ago as well, I forget the price). When you get that answer I then like to consider what are the other possible options in that area... are most being seeing this range and instantly going person A. If person B has scenario/scripts that show he actually can have a higehr ceiling, at a massively lower ownership, he needs to be considered.
There's a lot of times where you want to pay up in certain positions given the week, and you can't get there. I'd recommend going to your base, and chopping the WR1 you probably selected, to his WR2/3..... see godwin last week, while he did well... AB (and evans) outperformed him by a mile with the bonus/+2 tds, and he was much cheaper, and could allow you to go up at another position.
Feel like I'm rambling and hope some of that makes sense... not on desktop, but more than willing to have more convo's on it
Love this kinda shit….def moreso than plinko spread results. Got a question for you (and @2daBank) ……When you are making DK lineups, do you always do mini game stacks within each then fill out the rest with other guys you like from other games? I always find myself, when multi-entering, getting over-exposed to certain guys due to falling in a common price range. End up saying…well i don’t have marvin jones with the tb/mia stack so stick him in. Then i dont have marvin jones with the dak stack. How would you recommend combatting this? Any build thoughts appreciated…
Also @mcculran, on post #2 of my week 3 or 4 thread (I believe) I discuss GPP positive leverage lineups.....the top 10/.1%/etc, lineup construction that are ahead of the field.
I will look into more recent numbers, they should change to which were best, but maybe the order.
#1 QB/RB/WR + WR
#2 QB/RB/WR
#3 QB/WR + WR
#4 QB/WR
Starting out a GPP lineup with this kind of base is how I start.
I try to limit the qbs I want exposure too, so I don't spread myself super thin. I'd rather take a stand with 3/4, maybe 5 guys MAX, that way I can vary those lineups more. So if the base hits, I have a ton of variability to have 1/2 explode.
I think when you fall in a common price range, you need to ask yourself... does this selection far and away blow out the rest of the area? (like curtis samuel 3k 2 weeks ago, nobody had his upside at that price ----- or cordarelle patterson 2 weeks ago as well, I forget the price). When you get that answer I then like to consider what are the other possible options in that area... are most being seeing this range and instantly going person A. If person B has scenario/scripts that show he actually can have a higehr ceiling, at a massively lower ownership, he needs to be considered.
There's a lot of times where you want to pay up in certain positions given the week, and you can't get there. I'd recommend going to your base, and chopping the WR1 you probably selected, to his WR2/3..... see godwin last week, while he did well... AB (and evans) outperformed him by a mile with the bonus/+2 tds, and he was much cheaper, and could allow you to go up at another position.
Feel like I'm rambling and hope some of that makes sense... not on desktop, but more than willing to have more convo's on it