**OFFICIAL - 2 QB League thread ** (1 Viewer)

Let me first say that this problem of overvalued RBs and undervalued QBs can not be remedied by simply changing the scoring system again. Changing the scoring system would only have a minimal effect because its all relative. It doesn't matter if the QB scored a million points, if the difference from the first and worst QB is still only 50 points. The only way to remedy the problem is to add or takeaway roster spots. I, for one, do not want to only start 1 RB and 2 WR, so the other option is to add a roster spot for a QB.I am going to be continually editing and adding information to this post. If you have any questions or don't understand something, just ask.PROS:1. This system will bring value to the QB position in FF. Currently, the position does not have near the same value as a RB or WR because we only start 1 QB, (12 starters out of 32 NFL teams = 38%) compared to 2 RBs (24 starters out of 32 = 75%) or 3WRs (36 starters out of 64 = 57%). It is these percentages which give you indication of why RBs are so valuable and why the QB is not. The reason RBs are valuable and are hoarded is because they are scarce. Due to the fact that more RBs are started, make the ones at the top more valuable than a Top QB.For example: Take the current stats from the start of the year.1st overall QB: 225 points12 overall QB: 175 pointsDifference of 50 points.1st overall RB: 242 points24th overall RB: 91 pointsDifference of 151 points1st overall WR: 200 points36th overall WR: 72 pointsDifference of 128 pointsIt is this exact reason why RBs and WRs are so much more valuable. Look at the difference in points between the top player and the worst starter in the league.Now lets look at what it would be if it was a 2 QB system.1st overall QB: 225 points24th overall QB: 111 pointsDifference of 114 points.Notice how the top QBs became that much more valuable now because of adding an extra roster spot. Adding that roster spot has made the QB on par with the other positions in terms of value.2. The 2 QB system will also make keeping a QB a viable option because they will be more valuable. In the current system, there were only 2 QBs kept this past year compared to the dozen RBs. If QBs were made more valuable, it would mean that a nice QB pick or pick-up could be kept.In our system, you can't keep a nice up-and-coming QB because it is just not even worth it. Unless the QB is gonna be a top 5 QB for sure, there is no value in having them as an 8th round keeper. Simply adding the QB spot will not make the RB/WR keepers such an advantage3. The Draft would be alot more fun because it would not be scripted like it is right now. Currently, the draft basically goes RBs early rounds, WRs middle rounds, QBs later rounds.In this system, it would be a mixture of positions throughout the draft, which IMO makes it alot more interesting because the draft would not be so cut and dry.The first few rounds normally only contain 2-4 QBs, but this system would make it so that drafting 8-10 would not be out of the ordinary, and by default, this would push the oter positions down, spreading them out.4. Draft strategy. Due to the fact that the QBs would become more valuable and lessen how valuable the RBs are, it would mean that someone can put alot more strategy into their draft. As it currently sits, there isn't much strategy in the draft because of how it is scripted because of how certain positions are more valuable than others. Because the RB is so much more valuabel than the QB, people aren't even thinking of taking a QB in the first round, that not even one of their options, its basically deciding between RBs.You can also strategize of how you want to lay out your team. With the extra QB spot, you can decide to go Stud QBs and draft two QBs in the first 2 rounds and build your team around that.Making the positions level and adding the roster spot makes the strategy of the draft that much more open and fun.CONS:1. Putting the system in place and getting used to it, will no doubt be a hassle. There are a few items that would need to be discussed such as what to do with current QB keepers.My idea for this would be to just decide to make the change in 2-3 years so that everyone knows in advance and that the value or current QBs will fall during those years to make them not as valuable when the change is made.The other item might be dealt with a little further down the road, which is having to change the scoring system for some positions (i.e. WRs get a point for every reception). I don't know what changes will need to be made, so we will see what needs editting after it has been in place and we can see the results.2. Scarcity. There are only 32 starting QBs in the league. We would have 24 starting and bye weeks or injuries. Although this is similar to RBs, teams can go by RBBC, making there more than on RB option one a team (i.e. Tatum Bell and Mike Anderson). Thats not the case with QBs.This is where the idea of making it a Flex position and you can start a QB/RB/WR in that spot. Under normal circumstances, a QB would/should be in that spot becuase the average QB score more points than a RB or WR, but the Flex position would not be cornered into starting a backup QB or a terrible QB if he team had injuries or bye weeks.

Click to expand...

I kinda sorta did a study on this last year.First off, I want to say that there were AT LEAST 46 starting QBs by week #8. So don't give me this BS about there only being 32 starting QBs. Every year there is tons of turnover. Either draft a couple good qbs high and be safe, or draft several QBs with the chance of becoming starters later on.Starter Data, updated Oct 19, 2005:ARIZONA Warner (1,2,3), McCown(4,5,BYE,7,8)ATLANTA Vick (1,2,3,4,6,7,BYE), Schaub (5)BALTIMORE Boller (1), Wright (2, BYE,4,5,6,7,8)BUFFALO Losman (1,2,3,4), Holcomb (5,6,7,8)CAROLINA Delhomme (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE,8)CHICAGO Orton (1,2,3,BYE,5,6,7,8)CINCINNATI Palmer (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)CLEVELAND Dilfer (1,2,3,BYE,5,6,7,8)DALLAS Bledsoe (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)DENVER Plummer (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)DETROIT Harrington (1,2,BYE,4,5,6), Garcia (7,8)GREEN BAY Favre (1,2,BYE,4,5,BYE,7,8)HOUSTON Carr (1,2,BYE,4,5,6,7,8)INDIANAPOLIS Manning (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,BYE)JACKSONVILLE Leftwhich (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE,8)KANSAS CITY Green (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)NEW ENGLAND Brady (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE,8)NEW ORLEANS Brooks (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)NEW YORK (NYG) Manning (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)NEW YORK (NYJ) Pennington (1,2,3), Bollinger(4), Testeverde(5,6,7,8)MIAMI Frerotte (1,2,3,BYE,5,6,7,8)MINNESOTA Culpepper (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)OAKLAND Collins (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)PHILADELPHIA McNabb (1,2,3,4,5,BYE,7,8)PITTSBURGH Reothlisberger (1,2,3,BYE,5,7,8), Maddox(6)ST. LOUIS Bulger (1,2,3,4,5,6), Martin(7,8)SAN DIEGO Brees (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)SAN FRANCISCO Rattay (1,2,3,4), ASmith (5,BYE,7), Dorsey(8)SEATTLE Hasselbeck (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)TAMPA BAY Griese (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE) Simms(8)TENNESSEE McNair (1,2,3,4,5,6,8), Volek (7)WASHINGTON Ramsey (1), Brunell (2,BYE,4,5,6,7,8)Secondly: My hypothesis is below. I'd add more, but 1) I don't have time right now, and 2) Last year's threads have been nuked !!I have been a strong proponent on this board of running 2QB leagues. I think it brings a necessary balance to drafts / auctions and a team's roster. It gives the QB some importance again. Seeing teams go RB-RB-RB in a draft, while Bulger and Green are left until the 6th or 7th is ridiculous. Yes, I love RBs and think they're the most exciting players in the game! But I see contemporary FFL leagues being SERIOUSLY flawed. Derrick Blaylock should NOT be getting drafted ahead of David Carr, regardless of your scoring system.One of the weak arguments against starting 2QBs is that "It's not real". This is a proposterous arguement, as it's FANTASY football. Make the game as fun as possible. Not to mention the fact that having 2 or sometimes three featured backs on a team is also not "Real".A better argument is that most leagues consist of 12-teams and there aren't enough QBs to go around. The position would be so scarce by playing 2QBs that the game would not be any fun. This is a good argument, and I won't lie that every season one or two teams usually plays one or two weeks without 2 QBs. I feel this situation is avoidable...and honestly love the challenge to make sure MY teams do not end up in this situation, but I digress.My statement is that current FFL is flawed, QBs are grossly under-valued and the most important position in the game should be at least on par with RBs / WRs in our "Game.". A simple starting roster adjustment can add a balance to the sport that I greatly desire. Championship teams can be built in a variety of ways, and games can be won with arms and hands...not just legs.With that said, I hope to supply ample data that will convince some 12-team leagues that there are enough QBs to go around. Obviously you'd need 36 QBs to ensure every team has 3 quality starters, but with proper waiver-wire action or trades those six teams that choose not to draft 3 starters can get it done.I plan to update this section every week, highlighting the QB turnover / uncertainty. I hope to prove that we will have WELL over 45 starters by the end of season and only inept GMs would ever get caught with their pants down.

Click to expand...

Here's a little more fuel for the fire. Below are all the running backs split into two groups:

Primary = ranked 1st on their team in rushing for a given year

Second = ranked 2nd on their team in rushing for a given year

Here are the averages per game of these two "types" of backs:

Primary

Decade RUSHA RUSHY RUSHTD

1970s.....14.6.....60.3.....0.39

1980s.....15.2.....63.2.....0.44

1990s.....15.8.....64.0.....0.42

00-04.....17.5.....73.4.....0.51

Secondary

Decade RUSHA RUSHY RUSHTD

1970s.....9.8.....37.8.....0.26

1980s.....7.8.....30.9.....0.25

1990s.....6.7.....26.0.....0.19

00-04.....6.5.....26.0.....0.18

The primary backs have increased their production in each successive decade (increased rushing attempts, yards and TDs per game), while the secondary backs' numbers have dwindled substantially with each decade.

The primary backs in the 1970s produced about 35% more than the secondary backs. But, in this current decade, primary backs are outproducing their secondary peers by more than 64% (an 85% increase since the '70s).

All this points to is how rare teams are utilizing the RBBC approach these days, particularly when compared to its heyday in the 1970s. I think it's a totally overblown component that's discussed in these here forums.

So, draft your studs in confidence. And, if you care to change the rules of your league to a 1-start RB to keep values in line with other positions (you remember there are QBs and WRs that play in the NFL don't you?), that would be a much-added bonus to fantasy football...and civilization as we know it. The justification for starting 2 RBs was probably never valid to begin with; but, it certainly doesn't make any more sense than starting 2 QBs nowadays.

Click to expand...

So, someone remind me why we're still starting 2 RBs in most of our leagues? Oh, that's right--most NFL teams start 2 RBs, so we should as well.

Well.

Indeed, I do remember a time when the 2-RB set was in vogue. But, teams are relying much more on the 1-back set or utilizing a fullback, at best. We aren't seeing two fantasy-producing RBs in the same backfield. Not anymore.

Even if you like the 2 RB setup in your fantasy leagues, this still may be interesting information. I've taken all running backs since 1970 and teased out everyone that scored 100 or more fantasy points each year (based on your typical 1/10, 6/TD scoring system). Then, I counted all the teams that had TWO running backs score 100+ points in the same year. The following results are summarized by (a) decade and (b) # of teams w/2+ RBs ] 100pts:

1970s 110

1980s 90

1990s 61

00-04 23

So, we've gone from 11 teams/year who had multiple producing RBs in the '70s to, now, less than 5 teams/year.

I did not control for injuries that required a NEW starter to come in and fill the primary RB role at some point in the season. But, just looking at the names from year-to-year, it's clear to me that the most recent teams who have had multiple backs scoring over 100pts was heavily determined by injuries; my guess is it's more heavily-weighted in that direction now than it was in the past.

We're talking about over a 50% reduction in teams utilizing a multiple-back set since the 1970s (far more if you factor in the number of teams playing now vs. back then).

Now, whether you like the 2RB setup in fantasy football or not, I don't think the argument holds anymore that it's done this way to emulate what's on the field in the NFL on any given Sunday. Those second backs...they ain't carrying the load...they're blocking for the primary ballcarrier.

But, it is this 2RB emphasis that has created the supply issue in most leagues--that, thus, dictates demand--and has totally diminished the values of other positions. As anyone who's ever read any of my posts on this topic, you know my bias and bewilderment over elite QBs getting passed over until the 2nd and 3rd rounds in favor of those mid-range RBs.

So, for those of you who are similarly frustrated that your drafts aren't even coming close to reflecting true talent value on the field, maybe you can take this data to your league commish and push for changes in the lineup structure that establish better equilibrium to your league's relative positional value.

Click to expand...