SoSH Survivor Pool - Week 2 Discussion

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
None of that is to say that I wouldn't pick the Saints on a number of tickets in a survivor pool this week, but loading up heavily and almost exclusively on them is exactly the sort of knee-jerk reaction I'd expect of the betting public - the only real value you're getting out of this pick is getting the Saints out of the way, and if they wet the bed at home you're probably screwed. Conversely, if you go easy on the Saints (maybe 5 tickets out of 20) and they somehow lose, that hurts you a lot less than it's going to hurt the rest of the field. Honestly, I'd say that one of two overall strategies makes sense this week: either a) trust your preseason instincts and load up on the teams you thought were going to be good before Week 1, using the Week 1 results sparingly to inflect those instincts, or b) don't trust yourself at all and diversify, on the basis that Week 1 results will throw off the public enough that Week 2 "upsets" will put you in a stronger position going forward in relative terms.

 
 

Thoughts? (not thoughts on which you would pick, but if these should be our scenarios to vote on)

 
Strictly from a strategic POV, I'd divide the scenarios into two questions:  (1) how many picks do we want to put on NO and (2) what do we do with the rest of the picks.
 
I'm breaking this out into two questions because it seems that NO is the lynchpin of our entire analysis.  It seems like we've agreed (along with basically the rest of the betting population) that we need to play them.  But do we want to overplay them, underplay them, or just be neutral?
 
Putting anywhere from 7 to 10 picks on NO basically means that we basically won't be gaining - or losing - any ground on the rest of the population. 
 
If we decide to overplay them (say 15+ picks), that will influence how we allocate the rest of the picks.
 
If we decide to underplay them, then we will be overplaying other game(s) and we should figure out which games they are.
 
I would be interested in hearing how many picks people think we should put on NO.  I don't claim any special insight to either of those teams or that matchup so I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on this.

 

[tims4wins]

Very good question.
 
Personally I would lean toward underplaying them, with the line of thinking that TB could have easily beaten them last year in NO, and that you're never as bad as you look when you get blown out.
 
But I think I am leaning toward either over playing or under playing them, and not going neutral.

 

[tonyandpals]

 
But I think I am leaning toward either over playing or under playing them, and not going neutral.

This is where I am, just not sure exactly what side I fall on.
 
I do like the alignment with out MIA picks, so I guess 6 would be a slight underplay.  
 
It's safe to say we aren't playing the THU game, right?
 
Doesn't look like many people taking the same approach as last week (picking all 21 and then going scenario after).  I'm fine with that but I'll likely be checking in less and less up through Saturday as I'm putting on a fundraiser (which if you're local,you should come to: MNBLFamilyDay.com)
 
So if you don't hear from me, don't worry.

 

[CantKeepmedown]

How many teams are we looking at here?  
 
NO
Pitt
Miami
Baltimore
St. Louis
 
I'm certainly not advocating picking all 5 teams.  And if we underplay NO, do we overplay Pitt or Miami?  Go even on 3-4 of the teams?  There are people here a lot smarter than me, so I'm not sure if loading up on one is the smart play, or going even steven on 4 teams is better.  

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
 
I do like the alignment with out MIA picks, so I guess 6 would be a slight underplay.  

 

 
I like the alignment with Miami and then going heavy on Miami this week so I'm going to adjust my votes:
 
Superceded
NO-6
MIA-10
BAL-3
PIT-2
 
I like to try to follow a season long strategy so I don't get stuck in a week later on with no viable picks.  That could be the case with the BAL and PIT entries since I think they're the best bets of weeks 5 and 10, respectively.  If you look at week 10 the good bets are BAL, PIT, maybe DAL (who we've used a bunch already) and maybe STL.  Week 5 you got BAL, maybe ATL, DEN on the road, maybe KC.  Without BAL that's not a great looking week 3 weeks from now.

 

[Stitch01]

I don't usually like to overplay the consensus pick, but I do this week.  I agree with the post above about the public overreacting to week 1 in that game in the sense Id take the 10.5, but NO is probably one of the two most likely teams to win this week and is probably not that good either, so Id still lean towards going heavy
 
Week 5 Id say Atlanta is likely to be in a pretty good spot but Balt has value.

 

[tims4wins]

GB also a week 5 possibility but that is shaping up as a tough week overall. I like having Baltimore available that week for a lot of picks. I'd support a strategy of not using Baltimore at all this week if others think the same.

 

[glennhoffmania]

GB also a week 5 possibility but that is shaping up as a tough week overall. I like having Baltimore available that week for a lot of picks. I'd support a strategy of not using Baltimore at all this week if others think the same.

 
I'd go along with this.  GB in week 5 is a little scary but we'll know more in a couple of weeks.  I have ATL as the third best week 5 game with Denver second.  Maybe we increase NO and MIA by a couple each this week and just put a couple on PIT and call it a day.  I'd match up all of the GB week 1 entries with MIA, and MIA with NO.  Then spread the rest around to the DAL and NE entries.

 

[tims4wins]

 
I'd go along with this.  GB in week 5 is a little scary but we'll know more in a couple of weeks.  I have ATL as the third best week 5 game with Denver second.  Maybe we increase NO and MIA by a couple each this week and just put a couple on PIT and call it a day.  I'd match up all of the GB week 1 entries with MIA, and MIA with NO.  Then spread the rest around to the DAL and NE entries.

 
I could definitely get behind a NO / MIA / Pit strategy, with the thinking that we are unlikely to use Mia or NO again. I know others want to avoid Indy this week, I will defer on that. Similarly, I would prefer not to use Arizona on the road, although others may disagree. So maybe something like 10 NO / 8 Mia / 3 Pit?

 

[mauf]

 
 
 
Strictly from a strategic POV, I'd divide the scenarios into two questions:  (1) how many picks do we want to put on NO and (2) what do we do with the rest of the picks.
 
I'm breaking this out into two questions because it seems that NO is the lynchpin of our entire analysis.  It seems like we've agreed (along with basically the rest of the betting population) that we need to play them.  But do we want to overplay them, underplay them, or just be neutral?
 

 
I think this is the right way to think about this.
 
If you post a poll today and figure out how many picks to lay on New Orleans, you could post a separate poll tomorrow on how to allocate the remaining picks.

 

[j44thor]

 
I could definitely get behind a NO / MIA / Pit strategy, with the thinking that we are unlikely to use Mia or NO again. I know others want to avoid Indy this week, I will defer on that. Similarly, I would prefer not to use Arizona on the road, although others may disagree. So maybe something like 10 NO / 8 Mia / 3 Pit?

 
First I hate looking ahead more than a week or two at most since the consensus is likely to change considerably due to injuries and just learning more about teams.  Having said that KC is likely an easy play week 5 and the best week to use them unless people plan on saving them for week 16.
 
My concerns with BAL is that they are a defense heavy team and already lost Suggs.  If they lose any more on the defensive side they are going to be tough trust to use moving forward.  They should tear through the OAK Oline this week but CLE OLine is another story.  
 
What I'm thinking is their future value may not be as great as it currently looks if only because the team may not be as good in the future.
 
The opposite holds true of PIT (who I still like this week) they will be getting back arguably the best RB in the NFL in 2 weeks, a quality 2/3 WR in 4 weeks and hopefully Pouncey later in the year. 
 
I'm going to amend my original scenario and go with
 
10 NO
6 MIA
5 BAL

 

[JoePoulson]

I'm going to amend my original scenario and go with
 
10 NO
6 MIA
5 BAL

 
I would also like to amend my original scenario and go with this one.  

 

[glennhoffmania]

Thor convinced me about Pit so I'm going:
 
MIA 10
NO 6
BAL 5

 

[tims4wins]

My nominations:
Saints - 5
Steelers - 5
Dolphins - 5
Colts - 3
Ravens - 3
 
To be clear, I likely wouldn't support using five different teams this week, and I will vote accordingly at the end of the week. However, I wanted to get votes on all of these teams so they all get some consideration. IMO week 1 was different in that it was a very hard week going in, so diversification was a good play so that we didn't end up with the same scenario as last year where the Bears knocked out half our entries. Now that we have some data, as well as some appealing games in week 2, I will likely support putting the bulk of our eggs in maybe 2 baskets with maybe one more small share on a 3rd team.

 
Revising this to:
Miami - 12
New Orleans - 5
Pitt - 4

 

[Hambone]

NO - 5
Balt - 5
MIA - 4
PIT- 3
IND - 4

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Rather than do a poll, I'm happy to keep track of how many people think we should overplay and how many think we should underplay - particularly since I have no idea right now.  I'm counting any vote of 6 or less as underplay and 10 or more as overplay.  Right now it's 3-2 for underplay.
 
OVERPLAY:  j44thor (10); Poulsonator (10)
NEUTRAL: 
UNDERPLAY:  glennhoffmania (6); tims4wins (5); Hambone (5)
 
One thing with the bolding.  When people change their vote (totally understandable), can they please go back and remove the bold from the superceded vote?  In case anyone needs to tabulate stuff this weekend, it would probably be easier if only the final votes were bolded to the extent possible.

 

[Spaulding Smails]

NO - 10
BAL - 6
MIA - 5

 

[DanoooME]

NO - 10
BAL - 6
MIA - 5

 
I like this one.  I hate Pittsburgh this week, even at home against a WC team playing at 1 PM.

 

[glennhoffmania]

WBCD, that's a good point.  I unbolded mine and wrote superceded.

 

[Bunt4aTriple]

I haven't been piping in because my non-Patriots football knowledge is lacking.  I don't play fantasy and don't watch many other games.  I'll contribute if I think I have anything to offer, but otherwise, I'll abstain.  Or I could just turn over my votes to the winner of the FL4L3SS vs. PP mini golf showdown.
 
I will buy everyone else a beer should we prevail.

 

[tims4wins]

WBCD, that's a good point.  I unbolded mine and wrote superceded.

 
Ditto

 

[JoePoulson]

 
Ditto

 
Same.
 
Edited to add:  I'm still terrified of the NO pick.  In fact, I don't have much confidence in any pick this week, strangely.  However, I think that trio, regardless of the pick breakdown, is solid.

 

[tims4wins]

 
Same.
 
Edited to add:  I'm still terrified of the NO pick.  In fact, I don't have much confidence in any pick this week, strangely.  However, I think that trio, regardless of the pick breakdown, is solid.

 
I am kind of the same way. I think that most of Indy, NO, Baltimore, Miami, Pitt, and even Arizona will win. But I am near certain that one of them will lose, maybe two. And I would like to avoid having too many entries on that team. I could be convinced to go NO 5, and 4 each on Indy, Baltimore, Miami, and Pitt, with the idea that if 4 of the 5 win then we get 75% of our entries through to next week, whereas if we put 10+ on NO or Miami and lose we are in a big time hole.

 

[edmunddantes]

Damn... if NO loses, there are a lot of people going out in Survivor pools. Survivorgrid.com has them at 47% or so average across the pools it looks at. (the last time I looked).

 

[tims4wins]

Damn... if NO loses, there are a lot of people going out in Survivor pools. Survivorgrid.com has them at 47% or so average across the pools it looks at. (the last time I looked).

 
45.7% as of right now.
 
This may push me more towards underplaying them, since overplaying them would require significantly more than 10 entries and really put us at risk with a loss

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
45.7% as of right now.
 
This may push me more towards underplaying them, since overplaying them would require significantly more than 10 entries and really put us at risk with a loss

 
This is why I voted the way I did.  If NO loses, a ton of people will be out.  I'd be shocked if both MIA and BAL lose.  Since this is probably our last shot with MIA (yeah, the HOU game could be an option but Foster should be back by then and the defense is very solid), I ranked them first.  If NO loses, we only lose 6 entries but probably 40-50% of the pool is eliminated.  If we can assume that 2 of the 3 win, worst case scenario is we have 11 entries left and half the pool is out.  And we still can use NO and BAL for a lot of picks down the road.  If all 3 win, well we spent most of our capital on the team with the least future value.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Update:  Overplay 4; Underplay 3.
 
OVERPLAY:  j44thor (10); Poulsonator (10); Spaulding Smails (10); DanoooME (10);
NEUTRAL: 
UNDERPLAY:  glennhoffmania (6); tims4wins (5); Hambone (5)
 

 

[tims4wins]

I don't think 10 is an overplay any more given that sites like survivorgrid show the Saints in the mid-high 40s. That would equate to 10 picks out of 21. So basically 10 shares is following the crowd. If we take the over I think we need to put 12+ on them to make it worth it. Otherwise under play.
 
Edit: USA Today is at 42% on NO - would equate to 9 picks. Survivorgrid is at 45.7% on NO - would equate to 10 picks.
 
I maintain that we need to go with 12 or more, or maybe 7 or less in order to gain an advantage from this

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I don't think 10 is an overplay any more given that sites like survivorgrid show the Saints in the mid-high 40s. That would equate to 10 picks out of 21. So basically 10 shares is following the crowd. If we take the over I think we need to put 12+ on them to make it worth it. Otherwise under play.

 
Point taken.  I agree that there is one block that wants to underplay and then another block that wants higher, but it doesn't look like anyone wants to put 15 picks on NO.
 
Which is probably correct because as we saw Sunday night and again last night, the NFL is so crazy that a couple of brain farts by players or coaches (or both) can turn an eminently winnable game into a brutal loss.
 
And just to update people on what the general population appear to be doing, the following pick percentages are from the four websites I've mentioned before (and in parentheses the number of our picks we would use if we were to follow these percentages, rounded to the nearest .5 pick).
 
Survivorgrid = NO = 45.7% (9.5 picks), followed by BAL = 14.3% (3 picks); MIA =12.6% (2.5 picks); IND = 7.2% (1.5 picks); STL + PIT = 5.5% (.5 pick); and TEN = 2.5%.
 
Survivorpoolmap.com:  NO = 46.7% (10 picks), followed by BAL = 14.1% (3 picks); MIA =12.2% (2.5 picks); IND = 8.1% (1.5 picks); PIT = 6.6% (1.5 picks); STL = 4.0% (1 pick); and TEN = 1.6%.
 
USAFootball = NO = 42% (9 picks), followed by MIA = 14% (3 picks); BAL =12% (2.5 picks); IND = 9% (2 picks); STL + PIT = 6% (1 pick); and TEN = 3%.
 
FoxSports = NO = 37% (8 picks), followed by MIA = 14% (3 picks); BAL =13% (3 picks); IND + TEN = 7% (1.5 picks); STL = 6% (1 pick); and PIT = 3%.

 

[tims4wins]

Thanks for posting those. Looks like we can expect ~40% of the entries to go on New Orleans. And I fully agree that no one is saying we should put 15 entries on them.
 
The more I think about this - and I have thought about it a ton this week - the more I would like to diversify our picks. I realize that the more teams we pick the more chances we have of losing entries, but I would hate to see us put say 12 of our 21 entries on one single team and have that team lose. Otherwise what was the point of putting in 22 entries?
 
I think something like 6 NO / 6 Miami / 6 Pitt / 3 Indy is the way to go. If one of these teams loses we aren't screwed - at worst we would still have 15 entries left.

 

[FL4WL3SS]

When does the voting start? I'd like to get a vote in today, I won't be around tomorrow.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
I think something like 6 NO / 6 Miami / 6 Pitt / 3 Indy is the way to go. If one of these teams loses we aren't screwed - at worst we would still have 15 entries left.

 
[SIZE=12pt]So you want to pass on BAL?  If diversifying is the plan I'd go 7 each on NO, MIA and BAL.  I still want no part of Indy and Pit is far from a lock plus they have a ton of future value.[/SIZE]

 

[tims4wins]

Yeah I would pass on Baltimore - road game, no Suggs, future home game vs. Browns. In general my philosophy is don't use a road team if you don't have a good reason to - if there are comparable home teams to use, or if you won't use that team again. So I am good with Miami since we likely wouldn't use them again, whereas with Baltimore we could use them again.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I see your point on BAL.  I'm still very anti-Indy though.  But we'll see how the voting turns out because clearly some people like that game.

 

[tims4wins]

I am ok with avoiding Indy since they get Jax later. If we don't use Indy or Baltimore I would probably go 7-7-7 NO-Miami-Pitt

 

[weeba]

NO 8
MIA 7
INDY 5
STL 1

 

[tims4wins]

To kind of recap where are are right now:
- I think everyone agrees that we should put a solid amount of picks on NO - 5, at the very least, and up to 10
- I think everyone also agrees that we should put a bunch on Miami - again, in the 5-10 range
- People seem split on using any picks on Pittsburgh - may be close to 50-50 ratio, hard to tell
- Ditto Indy, although it seems more like 30-70 on people wanting to use Indy vs. not using Indy
- Similar story with Baltimore, may be close to 50-50 ratio
- A couple votes here and there for St. Louis and Arizona, but no real movement
 
So if we "under" NO and go with say 6 or 7 shares, and then put another 5-6 on Miami, that leaves us with 8-10 more shares to allocate between Pitt, Indy, and Baltimore (unless we go heavy on Miami with say 10 and another 6 on NO, giving us 5 left).
 
If we "over" NO and go with more than 10 shares, plus another 6 or so on Miami, that also leaves us with a small handful of picks to spread.
 
It's going to be hard to build consensus since we all seem to have differing opinions on which of the remaining teams we want to use (Pitt / Indy / Baltimore).
 
This is hard, yo.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Yeah I would pass on Baltimore - road game, no Suggs, future home game vs. Browns. In general my philosophy is don't use a road team if you don't have a good reason to - if there are comparable home teams to use, or if you won't use that team again. So I am good with Miami since we likely wouldn't use them again, whereas with Baltimore we could use them again.

 
This confuses me.  PIT doesn't have Bell, Bryant, or Pouncey; they are facing a better team; and BAL isn't really traveling since they stayed out on the West Coast this week (cost almost $1M I understand).
 
In addition to this, OAK is out both of their starting safeties; Harbaugh is something like 50-10 against teams with a losing record; and PIT had some of the worst fantasy losses last week (plus their defense sucks).
 
AND PIT has a ton of future value left, particularly since they play CLE and OAK at home on back-to-back weeks.

 

[tims4wins]

 
This confuses me.  PIT doesn't have Bell, Bryant, or Pouncey; they are facing a better team; and BAL isn't really traveling since they stayed out on the West Coast this week (cost almost $1M I understand).
 
In addition to this, OAK is out both of their starting safeties; Harbaugh is something like 50-10 against teams with a losing record; and PIT had some of the worst fantasy losses last week (plus their defense sucks).
 
AND PIT has a ton of future value left, particularly since they play CLE and OAK at home on back-to-back weeks.

 
Not saying I would necessarily use Pitt either - you make good points. Just that in general I hate using road teams when there are really good home team options out there.
 
I still think Pitt's chances are better than Balt's though. I think Balt could be one of those teams that just has a poor year. Their offense has major suck potential and they are now without one of their best defensive players.

 

[glennhoffmania]

The good points both of you are making are why I'd go light on both or not use one or both of them at all.  Both have a lot of future value.  Both have question marks this week. BAL should be used for most of our entries in week 5.  I saw we let the voting work it all out and allocate accordingly.

 

[beezer]

NO - 10
BAL - 6
MIA - 5

 
I'm backing this one as well. 

NO - 10
BAL - 6
MIA - 5
 

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The good points both of you are making are why I'd go light on both or not use one or both of them at all.  Both have a lot of future value.  Both have question marks this week. BAL should be used for most of our entries in week 5.  I saw we let the voting work it all out and allocate accordingly.

 
I'm not even sure what we are voting for.  But trying to parse things out, here is basically what I can come up with.  If anyone wants to add, refine, or throw out, that's fine.
 
Scenario 1:  Neutral.
1(a):  Neutral / Three teams:  NO (10-ish); MIA (6-ish); choose one team.
1(b):  Neutral / Four teams:  NO (10-ish); MIA; choose two teams.
1(c):  Neutral / Five teams:  NO (10-ish); MIA (5-ish); choose three teams
 
Scenario 2:  Underplay
2(a):  Underplay / Bullish on MIA/ Three teams:  NO (6-ish); MIA (10-ish); choose one team
2(b);  Underplay / Bullish on MIA/ Four teams:  NO (6-ish); MIA (10-ish); choose two teams
2(c):  Underplay / Neutral on MIA / Three teams:  NO (6-ish); MIA (6-ish); choose one team
2(d):  Underplay / Neutral on MIA / Four teams:  NO (6-ish); MIA (6-ish); choose two teams
2(e):  Underplay / Neutral on MIA / Five teams:  NO (6-ish); MIA (6-ish); choose three teams
 
Scenario 3:  No Guts No Glory:  21 picks on NO.
 
Scenario 4:  No Guts at all:  3 picks each on NO, MIA, BAL, PIT, IND, TEN; and CIN.
 
My thought is that if we can determine which scenario we want, we can fill in the teams and picks later. 

 

[Cumberland Blues]

I think that given how many picks we'd have to have on the Saints to gain an edge if they win - the wise choice is to underplay them.  Overplay and they lose and we're down 60% of our tickets two weeks in - that's a disaster scenario.  Disaster avoidance in the early weeks is essential to having enough options in the later weeks to have a decent shot at this.  I think splitting between 3-4 teams seems like the sweet spot for getting most of our tickets through - and a fair chance at getting them all through, while having a pretty small chance of a real disaster scenario.  I'd favor a 7-7-7 split with 3 teams - and a 6-6-5-4 or maybe 7-7-3-2 split if we go 4 teams.  I think if we get the non-Saints plays right this week, we're ahead of the game regardless the outcome of that one.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Don't know if this helps at all but ran across this website - http://nflpickwatch.com/?text=1&week=2 - that aggregates all of the "experts" picks for the week.
 
The games that currently have over 90% of "experts" picking them are:  NO (99%), BAL (95%), MIA (92%), and IND (91%).  For whatever that is worth.

 

[tims4wins]

 
I'm not even sure what we are voting for.  But trying to parse things out, here is basically what I can come up with.  If anyone wants to add, refine, or throw out, that's fine.
 
Scenario 1:  Neutral.
1(a):  Neutral / Three teams:  NO (10-ish); MIA (6-ish); choose one team.
1(b):  Neutral / Four teams:  NO (10-ish); MIA; choose two teams.
1(c):  Neutral / Five teams:  NO (10-ish); MIA (5-ish); choose three teams
 
Scenario 2:  Underplay
2(a):  Underplay / Bullish on MIA/ Three teams:  NO (6-ish); MIA (10-ish); choose one team
2(b);  Underplay / Bullish on MIA/ Four teams:  NO (6-ish); MIA (10-ish); choose two teams
2(c):  Underplay / Neutral on MIA / Three teams:  NO (6-ish); MIA (6-ish); choose one team
2(d):  Underplay / Neutral on MIA / Four teams:  NO (6-ish); MIA (6-ish); choose two teams
2(e):  Underplay / Neutral on MIA / Five teams:  NO (6-ish); MIA (6-ish); choose three teams
 
Scenario 3:  No Guts No Glory:  21 picks on NO.
 
Scenario 4:  No Guts at all:  3 picks each on NO, MIA, BAL, PIT, IND, TEN; and CIN.
 
My thought is that if we can determine which scenario we want, we can fill in the teams and picks later. 

 
 

I think that given how many picks we'd have to have on the Saints to gain an edge if they win - the wise choice is to underplay them.  Overplay and they lose and we're down 60% of our tickets two weeks in - that's a disaster scenario.  Disaster avoidance in the early weeks is essential to having enough options in the later weeks to have a decent shot at this.  I think splitting between 3-4 teams seems like the sweet spot for getting most of our tickets through - and a fair chance at getting them all through, while having a pretty small chance of a real disaster scenario.  I'd favor a 7-7-7 split with 3 teams - and a 6-6-5-4 or maybe 7-7-3-2 split if we go 4 teams.  I think if we get the non-Saints plays right this week, we're ahead of the game regardless the outcome of that one.

 
First thanks to WBCD - I think you have nailed the potential scenarios. I personally am in favor of 2A or 2B. I think there is also one more scenario in the 2s of underplay NO (5), Miami with 10, and split the last 6 picks 2-2-2 on 3 other teams (likely Pitt-Balt-Indy).
 
And I totally agree with Cumby on the Saints - overplaying them puts us at a ton of risk, and I don't see the point in going neutral on them.
 
Edit: don't think you meant to include TEN there - maybe Arizona or Carolina?

 

[DanoooME]

I'm voting for 2B.  The more I read from everyone, the more i am convinced we should go with Miami as the primary and NO as a secondary choice.  My other two teams would be Balt (2) and Indy (3).  I want no part of Pittsburgh.  San Fran isn't going to be a pushover.

 

[Buffalo Head]

I think that given how many picks we'd have to have on the Saints to gain an edge if they win - the wise choice is to underplay them.  Overplay and they lose and we're down 60% of our tickets two weeks in - that's a disaster scenario.  Disaster avoidance in the early weeks is essential to having enough options in the later weeks to have a decent shot at this.  I think splitting between 3-4 teams seems like the sweet spot for getting most of our tickets through - and a fair chance at getting them all through, while having a pretty small chance of a real disaster scenario.  I'd favor a 7-7-7 split with 3 teams - and a 6-6-5-4 or maybe 7-7-3-2 split if we go 4 teams.  I think if we get the non-Saints plays right this week, we're ahead of the game regardless the outcome of that one.

I haven't chimed in this week, but I favor the approach here. I don't see how you can justify 10(+) on any one team in Week 2, putting half or more of the tickets at risk to be eliminated in one game. I would push for a 6-6-5-4 scenario to avoid a huge loss in case something totally unforeseen (Brees concussion) happens in the one game we loaded up on.
 
EDIT: I'm in the 2 C-E camp.

 

[j44thor]

 
 
 
First thanks to WBCD - I think you have nailed the potential scenarios. I personally am in favor of 2A or 2B. I think there is also one more scenario in the 2s of underplay NO (5), Miami with 10, and split the last 6 picks 2-2-2 on 3 other teams (likely Pitt-Balt-Indy).
 
And I totally agree with Cumby on the Saints - overplaying them puts us at a ton of risk, and I don't see the point in going neutral on them.
 
Edit: don't think you meant to include TEN there - maybe Arizona or Carolina?

Picking 5 teams seems like a terrible idea this week. We are most likely to go 3-2, perhaps 4-1 at best, unnecessarily siphoning off picks in a week that the majority gets through on NO. This is exactly the type of play I'd be hoping from others if I was going NO heavy this week.

We are basically betting on NO losing this week to gain an edge which is a losing proposition IMO. No need to bet against the house if you don't have to. There will be plenty of tougher weeks to get through, week two is not the time to start out thinking ourselves.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

 
Edit: don't think you meant to include TEN there - maybe Arizona or Carolina?

 
Dude, if I could convince y'all, I'd put the entire 21 picks on TEN.  Mariota is the second coming of Fran Tarkenton!!!
 
 
 
But seriously, just included Scenarios 3 & 4 as the extremes.  Neither are really serious choices . . . .   are they?

 

[Stitch01]

Picking 5 teams seems like a terrible idea this week. We are most likely to go 3-2, perhaps 4-1 at best, unnecessarily siphoning off picks in a week that the majority gets through on NO. This is exactly the type of play I'd be hoping from others if I was going NO heavy this week.

We are basically betting on NO losing this week to gain an edge which is a losing proposition IMO. No need to bet against the house if you don't have to. There will be plenty of tougher weeks to get through, week two is not the time to start out thinking ourselves.

 
Remember though, we have to beat like a zillion people to win the pool so we need to be looking at places to bet against the house rather than trying to avoid it.  We're going to have to hit long shots somewhere.  The reward of not picking New Orleans and cutting the pool in half is much better than the reward of picking New Orleans and advancing along with the herd and we can still pick the correct games elsewhere and advance. Getting through when everyone gets through doesnt get us that much, like we had a good week last week but so did anyone else.  So when you say "betting on NO is a losing proposition", that's almost certainly correct if you are talking about it being a 50/50 shot but we dont need NO to lose even close to half the time to make not picking them correct.  The goal isnt to get as many teams as possible through each week, its to have the last team standing.
 
Now all that said given their likely lack of future value and my personal lack of confidence in many of the other semi-large favorites this week, I still want to pick mostly NO but I might be making a mathematical error by doing so.  If this was like TB @ GB, this weekend Id be inclined to underweight heavily, but NO's future value is just likely so limited.