What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why do most leagues start ONE quarterback? (1 Viewer)

shader

shader

Footballguy
Can someone give me one good reason why most leagues only start one QB?

I, like everyone, started playing fantasy football in 1 QB leagues. I never even cared about who my QB was when I first started. I mean, unless you get the QB that has the magical season, it doesn't really matter.

It always frustrated me that the most important position in football was so worthless in fantasy football.

So as league manager of a highly competitive league, I made the decision about 4 years ago to go to a 2 QB league. At first, many owners didn't want to do that, and there was a little controversy.

However, now none of us would go back. And why would we? While the rest of the fantasy world concerns themselves with only 15-20 QB's, 2QB leagues keep up with all 32 situations. Also, it gives opponents another way to get an edge other than the blind luck of falling into an 07 Brady season.

Now if you are in a sissy league that starts 2 RB and 2 WR's or something of that nature, than I guess 2 QB's would completely upset the balance.

I find that 1 RB, 1 WR and 4 flex (10 team league) perfectly balances out the 2 QB league. I think it is the perfect way to setup a fantasy football roster.

Oh and td's should always count 6 points. The 4 point td is another ridiculous common practice that basically makes the QB position pretty meaningless.

If you're considering adding 2 QB's, do it. If you aren't considering it, consider it. If you refuse, you are missing out.

 
shader said:
Can someone give me one good reason why most leagues only start one QB? I, like everyone, started playing fantasy football in 1 QB leagues. I never even cared about who my QB was when I first started. I mean, unless you get the QB that has the magical season, it doesn't really matter.It always frustrated me that the most important position in football was so worthless in fantasy football.So as league manager of a highly competitive league, I made the decision about 4 years ago to go to a 2 QB league. At first, many owners didn't want to do that, and there was a little controversy.However, now none of us would go back. And why would we? While the rest of the fantasy world concerns themselves with only 15-20 QB's, 2QB leagues keep up with all 32 situations. Also, it gives opponents another way to get an edge other than the blind luck of falling into an 07 Brady season.Now if you are in a sissy league that starts 2 RB and 2 WR's or something of that nature, than I guess 2 QB's would completely upset the balance.I find that 1 RB, 1 WR and 4 flex (10 team league) perfectly balances out the 2 QB league. I think it is the perfect way to setup a fantasy football roster. Oh and td's should always count 6 points. The 4 point td is another ridiculous common practice that basically makes the QB position pretty meaningless.If you're considering adding 2 QB's, do it. If you aren't considering it, consider it. If you refuse, you are missing out.
Click to expand...
Are you in 10- or 12-team leagues? We've discussed this in my main 12-team league, but have determined that during the heavy bye weeks, there are barely 24 QBs even playing.
 
shader said:
Can someone give me one good reason why most leagues only start one QB? I, like everyone, started playing fantasy football in 1 QB leagues. I never even cared about who my QB was when I first started. I mean, unless you get the QB that has the magical season, it doesn't really matter.It always frustrated me that the most important position in football was so worthless in fantasy football.So as league manager of a highly competitive league, I made the decision about 4 years ago to go to a 2 QB league. At first, many owners didn't want to do that, and there was a little controversy.However, now none of us would go back. And why would we? While the rest of the fantasy world concerns themselves with only 15-20 QB's, 2QB leagues keep up with all 32 situations. Also, it gives opponents another way to get an edge other than the blind luck of falling into an 07 Brady season.Now if you are in a sissy league that starts 2 RB and 2 WR's or something of that nature, than I guess 2 QB's would completely upset the balance.I find that 1 RB, 1 WR and 4 flex (10 team league) perfectly balances out the 2 QB league. I think it is the perfect way to setup a fantasy football roster. Oh and td's should always count 6 points. The 4 point td is another ridiculous common practice that basically makes the QB position pretty meaningless.If you're considering adding 2 QB's, do it. If you aren't considering it, consider it. If you refuse, you are missing out.
Click to expand...
I was just thinking about adding a flex that includes a QB. :lol:
 
I love the 2 QB system, but I also like to start 2 RBs, 2 WR, 1 TE, and 4 flex.

Personal preference, as long as YOUR leaguemates like it, go with it. For all I care, you can just go with all flex.

 
shader said:
Can someone give me one good reason why most leagues only start one QB?
Click to expand...
I'll give the reasons. Whether they are good is up to the reader.1. Because their leagues they started playing in only have 1 QB and people are generally resistant to change.2. Because requiring 2 QBs starting can be problematic that there aren't enough NFL starting QBs for everyone to have a full starting lineup and have a backup. However this isn't an issue if leagues instead make the 2nd QB a flex position so non-QBs can start in it if a team isn't able to get one of the backups available.
 
fantasyplayer said:
Mystery Achiever said:
well, thank goodness someone from a highly competitve league came in and set us all straight.
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to set anyone straight. He asked for a reason, I tried to give one. Thanks for the value you've added to this thread!
Click to expand...
f.p.-My comment was not directed at you. it was to shader for starting a pejorative thread calling systems other than his/hers ridiculous. I'm happy to give my take to people who actually seem to want it. i don't think shader does. you, probably do, so i will share that i was in a 12 team league with a flex where most people used 2qbs and it turned out as you suspect. any time there was a qb injury, there was a race to the wire because of the short supply.and, in my opinion, it did not work well at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasyplayer said:
shader said:
Can someone give me one good reason why most leagues only start one QB? I, like everyone, started playing fantasy football in 1 QB leagues. I never even cared about who my QB was when I first started. I mean, unless you get the QB that has the magical season, it doesn't really matter.It always frustrated me that the most important position in football was so worthless in fantasy football.So as league manager of a highly competitive league, I made the decision about 4 years ago to go to a 2 QB league. At first, many owners didn't want to do that, and there was a little controversy.However, now none of us would go back. And why would we? While the rest of the fantasy world concerns themselves with only 15-20 QB's, 2QB leagues keep up with all 32 situations. Also, it gives opponents another way to get an edge other than the blind luck of falling into an 07 Brady season.Now if you are in a sissy league that starts 2 RB and 2 WR's or something of that nature, than I guess 2 QB's would completely upset the balance.I find that 1 RB, 1 WR and 4 flex (10 team league) perfectly balances out the 2 QB league. I think it is the perfect way to setup a fantasy football roster. Oh and td's should always count 6 points. The 4 point td is another ridiculous common practice that basically makes the QB position pretty meaningless.If you're considering adding 2 QB's, do it. If you aren't considering it, consider it. If you refuse, you are missing out.
Click to expand...
Are you in 10- or 12-team leagues? We've discussed this in my main 12-team league, but have determined that during the heavy bye weeks, there are barely 24 QBs even playing.
Click to expand...
There's always 24 QB's playing, and it encourages owners to stay active and to trade.EDIT** I didn't see that you were in a 12 team league. It would be much more problematic in that format. I still would look to incorporate it with the caveat that during byes, you can start a flex player
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Our league attempts to mimic the starting lineup possibilities of the NFL. Since NFL teams do not use two QBs on the field at once, our league chooses to follow suite.

 
bagger said:
shader said:
King of the Jungle said:
Our league attempts to mimic the starting lineup possibilities of the NFL. Since NFL teams do not use two QBs on the field at once, our league chooses to follow suite.
Click to expand...
Why did you choose to have 5 RB/WR's then?
Click to expand...
o.Ohow many skill positions are there on offense not including the QB?
Click to expand...
Starting? 4, and most teams have fullbacks. And only 1 RB starts. How fun would fantasy be if we could only start 1 RB.Anyway, he's free to do it any way he likes. But fantasy football isn't the same as real football and the point of my post is that it's extremely fun to play 2 QB's, especially in 10 team leagues, and I recommend it to all. It opens the QB position up quite a bit.
 
i can't believe i've been wasting my time in sissy, ridiculous leagues this whole time. what was i thinking? this thread is like my epiphany. from now on i'll only participate in leagues that meet the OP's high standards. thank god for the shark pool!!!!!

 
I like leagues that most closely resemble the actual game. So I dislike the 2 QB, or even the 3 or 4 starting RB options.

But I see why people enjoy them.

I will say that I disagree with the notion that QBs in a regular format are worthless. They don't have to be. All one has to do is tweak the scoring. A bigger negative for INTs, 6 pts per TD, bonus for 300 yard games.

I have seen a lot of teams go down because their QBBC didn't work out. I'd rather get my stud QB relatively early, and trust my ability to grab a sleeper at 3rd RB or 4th WR.

by the way, your original post is pretty obnoxious.

 
I think that in ten team leagues two QB's more then makes sense. In leagues of 12 or larger, there are obvious problems.

I've heard a lot of guys argue that it's good for the league because it forces guys to be active and forces them to trade.

I have to call BS on that though. It's one thing when your guy is injured and you have to make a waiver wire move. It's another when you know preseason you HAVE to trade in week five just to put in a valid lineup of active players. It's one thing to pick up a RB to play...there are dozens on the waiver wire who WILL have a few carries during the week in question. IN a league like this...how many QB's exist on the wire who you KNOW will throw a pass? None...that's how many.

OK...you're smart enough to forsee these problems. You set up your trades weeks in advance and have your starter covered. You're so smart you're in first place. Then your other QB gets hurt....and you have no prayer to get his backup on waivers (league roster limits really don't allow you to handcuff all your QB's). What then? Suddenly you're at the mercy of the team you just trounced by 30 points last week to give you a fair trade? The team you lead by 2 games in the standings?

To put it bluntly...there are just not enough QB's in the league who will play every week.

How many RB's play (note that I don't mean produce good stats, but actually log 2 or more touches in a game)? 60? 70? 80+? More then you think.

Forcing trades to happen may improve league activity, but it comes at an unfair cost that is quite simply unreasonable.

Again, I'm referring to larger leagues. I can see it in a 10 team league with a certain caveat. You draft TEAM QB's, and everyone is limited to 3 on their roster. Then, injury is no concern. Roster limitations will still encourage (but NEVER force) trades, and the QB position is still given a huge bump in importance.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mystery Achiever said:
fantasyplayer said:
Mystery Achiever said:
well, thank goodness someone from a highly competitve league came in and set us all straight.
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to set anyone straight. He asked for a reason, I tried to give one. Thanks for the value you've added to this thread!
Click to expand...
f.p.-My comment was not directed at you. it was to shader for starting a pejorative thread calling systems other than his/hers ridiculous. I'm happy to give my take to people who actually seem to want it. i don't think shader does. you, probably do, so i will share that i was in a 12 team league with a flex where most people used 2qbs and it turned out as you suspect. any time there was a qb injury, there was a race to the wire because of the short supply.and, in my opinion, it did not work well at all.
Click to expand...
My mistake. I thought your comment was directed at my post.It seems we agree on this one.
 
I am in a 2qb league and we love it. But I agree, it works in a ten team league or less. That's 3 qb's a team (1 for byes). It changes the dynamic of the draft so it's not dominated by rb's in the first rounds.

So having to studs at the qb position can be just as effective. i.e. Brees and Palmer.

But to each their own. Have fun!

 
I'm in two 2 QB leagues one 10 team and one 12 team.

In the 10 team league we start 2 QB, 2RB, 4WR, 1K, 3DL, 3LB and 3DB.

The two QBs equalizes the importance of RBs and QBs and 4WRs almost does the same for that position but they end up being valued a bit less than the other positions.

IMO this is the perfect amount of offensive players and evens things out the best I have seen.

In a 12 team league with 2 QBs every year for a week or two one team has to start only one QB because of bye. However, you can plan for this and draft accordingly. You will then miss out on a 2nd or 3rd WR but you cover yourself at QB. It's all about value and planning.

If I had a choice in either a 10 OR 12 team 2 QB league vs. a 10 or 12 team 1 QB league hands down I would take the two QB league every time.

 
joffer said:
i can't believe i've been wasting my time in sissy, ridiculous leagues this whole time. what was i thinking? this thread is like my epiphany. from now on i'll only participate in leagues that meet the OP's high standards. thank god for the shark pool!!!!!
Click to expand...
Yep, call me a sissy.
 
shader said:
bagger said:
shader said:
King of the Jungle said:
Our league attempts to mimic the starting lineup possibilities of the NFL. Since NFL teams do not use two QBs on the field at once, our league chooses to follow suite.
Click to expand...
Why did you choose to have 5 RB/WR's then?
Click to expand...
o.Ohow many skill positions are there on offense not including the QB?
Click to expand...
Starting? 4, and most teams have fullbacks. And only 1 RB starts. How fun would fantasy be if we could only start 1 RB.Anyway, he's free to do it any way he likes. But fantasy football isn't the same as real football and the point of my post is that it's extremely fun to play 2 QB's, especially in 10 team leagues, and I recommend it to all. It opens the QB position up quite a bit.
Click to expand...
I think the QB, 2RB, 3WR, TE, K and D mimic the NFL lineup pretty closely, especially if you modify it with a RB/WR/TE flex. Like Bagger, that is a major reason we stick with 1 QB.Pretty funny the OP is "strongly" touting a 2QB lineup in a 10 team league. 10 teams... aaaarrgh!
 
massraider said:
I like leagues that most closely resemble the actual game. So I dislike the 2 QB, or even the 3 or 4 starting RB options. But I see why people enjoy them. I will say that I disagree with the notion that QBs in a regular format are worthless. They don't have to be. All one has to do is tweak the scoring. A bigger negative for INTs, 6 pts per TD, bonus for 300 yard games.I have seen a lot of teams go down because their QBBC didn't work out. I'd rather get my stud QB relatively early, and trust my ability to grab a sleeper at 3rd RB or 4th WR. by the way, your original post is pretty obnoxious.
Click to expand...
It was meant to be. I'm pretty arrogant and obnoxious when it comes to fantasy football
 
BigSteelThrill said:
shader said:
Now if you are in a sissy league
Click to expand...
That includes every 10 and 12 team league out there. No exceptions.You want to avoid it - get into a 16 team league. And don't whine about your free agency and thin teams along the way, thanks.
Click to expand...
:lmao: 16 team leagues seperate the pretenders from the contenders.
 
crnerblitz said:
BigSteelThrill said:
shader said:
Now if you are in a sissy league
Click to expand...
That includes every 10 and 12 team league out there. No exceptions.You want to avoid it - get into a 16 team league. And don't whine about your free agency and thin teams along the way, thanks.
Click to expand...
;) 16 team leagues seperate the pretenders from the contenders.
Click to expand...
Any of you that want to start a 16 team dynasty man up, lets go. I don't lose often and apparently all my years of winning at 10 and 12 team leagues are null and void.
 
renesauz said:
I think that in ten team leagues two QB's more then makes sense. In leagues of 12 or larger, there are obvious problems.I've heard a lot of guys argue that it's good for the league because it forces guys to be active and forces them to trade.I have to call BS on that though. It's one thing when your guy is injured and you have to make a waiver wire move. It's another when you know preseason you HAVE to trade in week five just to put in a valid lineup of active players. It's one thing to pick up a RB to play...there are dozens on the waiver wire who WILL have a few carries during the week in question. IN a league like this...how many QB's exist on the wire who you KNOW will throw a pass? None...that's how many.OK...you're smart enough to forsee these problems. You set up your trades weeks in advance and have your starter covered. You're so smart you're in first place. Then your other QB gets hurt....and you have no prayer to get his backup on waivers (league roster limits really don't allow you to handcuff all your QB's). What then? Suddenly you're at the mercy of the team you just trounced by 30 points last week to give you a fair trade? The team you lead by 2 games in the standings?To put it bluntly...there are just not enough QB's in the league who will play every week.How many RB's play (note that I don't mean produce good stats, but actually log 2 or more touches in a game)? 60? 70? 80+? More then you think. Forcing trades to happen may improve league activity, but it comes at an unfair cost that is quite simply unreasonable. Again, I'm referring to larger leagues. I can see it in a 10 team league with a certain caveat. You draft TEAM QB's, and everyone is limited to 3 on their roster. Then, injury is no concern. Roster limitations will still encourage (but NEVER force) trades, and the QB position is still given a huge bump in importance.
Click to expand...
;) I've never been in a start 2 QB league and probably the only way I'd want to do it is as a flex position - say start 1 QB, 1 RB, 1 WR and then 4 QB/RB/WR (max 2 QB). TD's would have to be 4 points though.
 
shader said:
massraider said:
I like leagues that most closely resemble the actual game. So I dislike the 2 QB, or even the 3 or 4 starting RB options. But I see why people enjoy them. I will say that I disagree with the notion that QBs in a regular format are worthless. They don't have to be. All one has to do is tweak the scoring. A bigger negative for INTs, 6 pts per TD, bonus for 300 yard games.I have seen a lot of teams go down because their QBBC didn't work out. I'd rather get my stud QB relatively early, and trust my ability to grab a sleeper at 3rd RB or 4th WR. by the way, your original post is pretty obnoxious.
Click to expand...
It was meant to be. I'm pretty arrogant and obnoxious when it comes to fantasy football
Click to expand...
;)
 
Big fan of giving Teams the option of starting more than one QB...

...the best option I've come up with in Commishing Leagues is the following (for a 12 Team League):

Base Lineup: 1QB / 1RB / 2WR / 1TE

Two Flex Positions - the twist is that you CANNOT 'double them up' on any one Position, so while you could start 2QB or 2TE, you can't start 3, neither can you start more than 2RB or 3 WR...

...of course all this is worthless if you don't have a Scoring System working hand-in-hand with your Starting Lineup Options that balances scoring across all 4 Positions...

...this format allows each Owner to really build their own Team to their own specs, without causing much issue in terms of 'economies of position'.

As an aside, I've always been intrigued by the thought of having each Team, sometime between the conclusion of the Draft, and the start of the Season, to have to pick a Lineup Option from the possible permutations, and have to stick with it through the Season. Would certainly have an interesting effect on the Trade Market and Waivers...

Another idea would be (if you played an even # of Regular Season Games), having the 'Home Team' have first choice of Starting Lineup Options, and whatever they choose, the 'Road Team' would either have to use the same one, or any Lineup Option except the one being employed by the 'Home Team'...

...whoops, hijack! Over...sorry.

 
TD5150 said:
The two QBs equalizes the importance of RBs and QBs and 4WRs almost does the same for that position but they end up being valued a bit less than the other positions.
Click to expand...
I think you guys who say QBs are undervalued are misunderstanding the idea of head-to-head fantasy football. The idea is not simply to score more points, but to score more points at each position than your opponent. Each position is independent of the other.If your scoring system gives your RB 500 points (exagerated, of course) and your opponent's RB 499 points, but 'only' gives your QB 10 points and your opponent's QB 5 points, who is more valuable? Guess. Its the QB.

And you can apply this thinking to the 2QB system. If your 2 QBs score 100 points and his score 99 points while your RB score 50 and his scores 20, then your QBs are still not as valuable than RBs, even tough you have more of them.

So its basically your scoring system, not the lineup requirements. Instead of adding a second QB, simply adjust the scoring system to make each position equally 'valuable'.

...and to the OP, stop insulting other leagues because you they don't conform to your way of thinking.

 
Man, I hate 2-QB leagues. That said, I can't really tell why I feel that way. I guess I just agree with whoever said above that there are barely 24 QBs in the league worth starting.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't like playing 2 QB's. I play in larger leagues (14 tms), and if one of your QB's goes down your season is basically over due to the fact that they score so much.. Too much luck involved in this situation.

 
3nOut said:
TD5150 said:
The two QBs equalizes the importance of RBs and QBs and 4WRs almost does the same for that position but they end up being valued a bit less than the other positions.
Click to expand...
I think you guys who say QBs are undervalued are misunderstanding the idea of head-to-head fantasy football. The idea is not simply to score more points, but to score more points at each position than your opponent. Each position is independent of the other.If your scoring system gives your RB 500 points (exagerated, of course) and your opponent's RB 499 points, but 'only' gives your QB 10 points and your opponent's QB 5 points, who is more valuable? Guess. Its the QB.

And you can apply this thinking to the 2QB system. If your 2 QBs score 100 points and his score 99 points while your RB score 50 and his scores 20, then your QBs are still not as valuable than RBs, even tough you have more of them.

So its basically your scoring system, not the lineup requirements. Instead of adding a second QB, simply adjust the scoring system to make each position equally 'valuable'.

...and to the OP, stop insulting other leagues because you they don't conform to your way of thinking.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Contrary to my logic, but interesting. The point of FF is not to score more points at each position, it's team vs. team. You can outscore me by 5 points at every position except QB, and if my QB outscores your QB by 50 points, I win (assuming less than 10 starters).

The reason lineups are every bit as important as scoring systems can be seen when you're starting 24 QBs. The difference between having 2 top 10 QBs and 2 between 10-20 becomes big. Not to mention if I can't fill the position. It's too easy to find 12 quality QBs to start, but when you're starting 24, there's at least 6 QBs starting that I wouldn't want to rely on.

 
We've used 2 QBs for all of our 17 years.

We also start 3 RBs and 4 WR/TEs.

My feeling is that any fool can pick a couple good RBs or WRs, but picking the 3rd RB or 3rd/4th WR takes some managing and knowledge.

We also use Total Points - I hate Head to Head.

 
3nOut said:
TD5150 said:
The two QBs equalizes the importance of RBs and QBs and 4WRs almost does the same for that position but they end up being valued a bit less than the other positions.
Click to expand...
I think you guys who say QBs are undervalued are misunderstanding the idea of head-to-head fantasy football. The idea is not simply to score more points, but to score more points at each position than your opponent. Each position is independent of the other.If your scoring system gives your RB 500 points (exagerated, of course) and your opponent's RB 499 points, but 'only' gives your QB 10 points and your opponent's QB 5 points, who is more valuable? Guess. Its the QB.

And you can apply this thinking to the 2QB system. If your 2 QBs score 100 points and his score 99 points while your RB score 50 and his scores 20, then your QBs are still not as valuable than RBs, even tough you have more of them.

So its basically your scoring system, not the lineup requirements. Instead of adding a second QB, simply adjust the scoring system to make each position equally 'valuable'.

...and to the OP, stop insulting other leagues because you they don't conform to your way of thinking.
Click to expand...
You have more or less stated the general concept right of how to compare the value of players at different positions. But the numbers you are pulling out of the air are showing the opposite of the effect that actually happens from adding a 2nd QB.By adding another slot at a position (QB) you are adding worse players to the group who start. The best QBs become more valuable because the possible alternatives you end up with if you don't have the best ones have now worsened. When comparing the best QBs (who increased number of starters) to the best players at a position that didn't have the number of starters change, like RB, the best QBs have gained in comparative value.

To illustrate it at it's simplest level, go back to something like Joe Bryant's example in the original VBD article of a two team league and use some sample values. But use the same values when you add the 2nd QB, don't go completely changing the numbers so the two situations don't relate.

Take first a 1 QB, 2 RB league with the following player pool.

QB1: 100

QB2: 80

RB1: 110

RB2: 80

RB3: 50

RB4: 40

As you indicated in your post, the most important player to take is RB1, he's going to outscore any other RB by 30, 60, or 70 (an average of 53 points), while QB1 will only outscore the next QB by 20 (an average of 20 points). The 2nd most important player is RB2. He will outscore the other RBs that would be available by 30 and 40 (an average gain of 35), still more than QB1's value. If both owners make their wisest choices these are what the teams end up:

Team 1: RB1, QB1, RB4 for 250 points.

Team 2: RB2, RB3, and QB2 for 210 points.

Now let's add a second QB slot and add our 2 additional QBs. We'll make the new QBs equivalent inscoring to the RBs of the same rank so that any change in the value of the players is due to the extra slot and not due to large differences in the player pool at each position.

QB1: 100

QB2: 80

QB3: 50

QB4: 40

RB1: 110

RB2: 80

RB3: 50

RB4: 40

RB1 is still the most valuable with an average improvement of 53. RB2 still has an average improvement of 35. But with the additional QBs, QB1 is now an improvement of 20, 50, or 60 points for an average of 43 points of improvement over the other QBs. By adding the additional QBs, QB1 has become the 2nd most valuable player and should be taken as Team 2's first pick, ahead of RB2.

How much QB1 gained in value depends on what QB3 and QB4 score. In this example he gained enough to pass RB2, with other numbers he might not. But regardless of the numbers, QB1 is going to make up ground even if he doesn't catch RB2, which is why he gained value compared to RBs.

Here are the teams if Team 2 incorrectly treated RB2 as still being the 2nd most valuable:

Team 1: RB1, QB1, QB3, RB4 for 300 points.

Team 2: RB2, QB2, RB3, QB4 for 250 points.

But if Team 2 correctly identifies that QB1 has now increased in value when the extra QBs were added, they would draft as follows and the gap between the teams would be a lot less, with that gap being made up because of QB1's extra value compared to the value RB2 had.

Team 1: RB1, RB2, QB3, QB4 for 280 points

Team 2: QB1, QB2, RB3, RB4 for 270 points

That's what is going on when you add more starting players at a position. Since you are adding worse players than were there before, the best players at the position are now that much more of an improvement to have, increasing their value relative to other positions that didn't get extra starters.

That's what people mean when they say adding a 2nd QB equalizes the importance of QBs to RBs. The best QBs start to have similar values to the best RBs.

 
If all the owners in a league are happy, then the league is fine. I don't care if they award FG points by the yard. The rules are the same for all the teams in the league. If you don't like the rules of a league, don't join it. BTW, I play in multiple leagues with all different sorts of starting requirements and scoring rules. Each is its own league, and I enjoy them all.

 
3nOut said:
TD5150 said:
The two QBs equalizes the importance of RBs and QBs and 4WRs almost does the same for that position but they end up being valued a bit less than the other positions.
Click to expand...
I think you guys who say QBs are undervalued are misunderstanding the idea of head-to-head fantasy football. The idea is not simply to score more points, but to score more points at each position than your opponent. Each position is independent of the other.If your scoring system gives your RB 500 points (exagerated, of course) and your opponent's RB 499 points, but 'only' gives your QB 10 points and your opponent's QB 5 points, who is more valuable? Guess. Its the QB.

And you can apply this thinking to the 2QB system. If your 2 QBs score 100 points and his score 99 points while your RB score 50 and his scores 20, then your QBs are still not as valuable than RBs, even tough you have more of them.

So its basically your scoring system, not the lineup requirements. Instead of adding a second QB, simply adjust the scoring system to make each position equally 'valuable'.

...and to the OP, stop insulting other leagues because you they don't conform to your way of thinking.
Click to expand...
Incorrect sir. Scoring is of course a factor (that is why 1 rushing or receiving yard should not = the same number of points as 1 passing yard) but so is the number of positions you start. The best leagues are the leagues that come closest to the following value for each position on each team’s roster: team RB value = team QB value = team WR value.

since 1RB does not = 1QB which does not = 1WR you need to adjust the number to bring value of each position closer, hence the 2QB=2RB=4WRs.

The reason being is so you never get 13 RBs picked with the first 13 picks in the draft (like as I'm sure you know happens all the time in a 1QB league). If you know you need to start 4 WRs and 2 QBs and your pick is up and you need to choose from C. Johnson, M. Bulger or E. James you take CJ or M. Bulger. BUT if you only have to start two WRs and/or 1 QB then you probably pass on CJ and M. Bulger for James because many other WRs and QBs will be available later in the draft. (because everybody else needs RBs as well and takes them early and often)

I have played FF for about 12 years and have been in leagues that start 1 QB 2 RBs and 2 WRs. These pale in comparison to leagues that start 2QB, 2RB and 4WR.

Obviously, everybody has an opinion. Mine is just the right one! :wub:

 
ceo3west said:
I don't like playing 2 QB's. I play in larger leagues (14 tms), and if one of your QB's goes down your season is basically over due to the fact that they score so much.. Too much luck involved in this situation.
Click to expand...
If I was playing in 14 team leagues, I'd agree. It wouldn't work well in that format.
 
Mr. Mojo said:
We've used 2 QBs for all of our 17 years.We also start 3 RBs and 4 WR/TEs.My feeling is that any fool can pick a couple good RBs or WRs, but picking the 3rd RB or 3rd/4th WR takes some managing and knowledge.We also use Total Points - I hate Head to Head.
Click to expand...
:wub: = First three parts :lmao: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: = Total points.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
shader said:
Can someone give me one good reason why most leagues only start one QB?

I, like everyone, started playing fantasy football in 1 QB leagues. I never even cared about who my QB was when I first started. I mean, unless you get the QB that has the magical season, it doesn't really matter.

It always frustrated me that the most important position in football was so worthless in fantasy football.

So as league manager of a highly competitive league, I made the decision about 4 years ago to go to a 2 QB league. At first, many owners didn't want to do that, and there was a little controversy.

However, now none of us would go back. And why would we? While the rest of the fantasy world concerns themselves with only 15-20 QB's, 2QB leagues keep up with all 32 situations. Also, it gives opponents another way to get an edge other than the blind luck of falling into an 07 Brady season.

Now if you are in a sissy league that starts 2 RB and 2 WR's or something of that nature, than I guess 2 QB's would completely upset the balance.

I find that 1 RB, 1 WR and 4 flex (10 team league) perfectly balances out the 2 QB league. I think it is the perfect way to setup a fantasy football roster.

Oh and td's should always count 6 points. The 4 point td is another ridiculous common practice that basically makes the QB position pretty meaningless.

If you're considering adding 2 QB's, do it. If you aren't considering it, consider it. If you refuse, you are missing out.
Click to expand...
Because most leagues aren't filled with super-obsessed fantasy nerds, but casual players instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
2QB Draft Strategy
Replies
7
Views
3K
Chaka
Chaka
Dez
FSGA draft week is here once again for 2025
Replies
7
Views
425
Bri
B
F
Shark Pool Home League #4 (FBG Home Leagues)
2 3
Replies
149
Views
3K
OldMilwaukee
OldMilwaukee

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top