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!
Taking a QB in the first round (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Go deep
- Start date
Chargers86
Footballguy
In my dynasty startup draft last year we had the first 3 picks go QB. Guess what? Not one of those guys made it to the Superbowl. The 2 people that were in the Superbowl picked in the 7th and 8th spot.GreatLakesMike
Footballguy
It would depend on your starting requirements, scoring, etc.., but in my leagues where we only start 1 QB and the scoring is 4 points per passing TD, 20 yards per point, then no.
No Way Jose
Footballguy
Rodgers was the leading scorer in all of the formats I played in last year.....he is still young....there is no real reason to think he won't continue to have success. Don't have to worry about qb the rest of the draft. I don't have a problem taking him in the first. This could also backfire on you if the other qb's don't start coming off the board untill the 3rd however.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Once the top 4 RB's and top 3 WR's are gone I'd dial up Rodgers and Brees, this isn't like the past when both RB and WR player pools dried up in a hurry and there was a clear drop off at both positions after the top 10-15. You can still build a solid RB and WR corps in rounds 2-7 by going QB round 1, the one position you must sacrifice though is TE, which outside of unusual scoring systems the value really isn't there until round 6 or 7 anyway and the top guys are usually long gone by then.
Instinctive
Footballguy
I would probably consider Rodgers, just because he's really young, but then i'd rather wait a while to get ym guy. Maybe Kolb/Favre much later to get one for this year and hope for the future.
Eli's a good dynasty guy right nwo too, IMO
Eli's a good dynasty guy right nwo too, IMO
firstseason1988
Footballguy
I took Tom Brady in the first round of my dynasty startup 2 years ago. He broke his leg in the first game and was out for the season. I lost in the semis by one point to the eventual champ and I would have won the super bowl with my point total.
Deangelo was huge for me.
Deangelo was huge for me.
No Way Jose
Footballguy
So what is the moral to this story?
sholditch
Footballguy
Considering the lifetime of a franchise QB vs a franchise RB I think it makes good sense to value the top QBs right along with the top RBs and WRs. You just have to hit the next big thing at RB in round 2-3. You have to adjust for scoring but still the longevity argument can't be denied.
Yeah, but you can land a Matt Ryan, Eli Manning, Matt Stafford, etc. in rounds 6-10. What kind of RB or even WR are you going to get there?Would you rather have Frank Gore and Eli Manning or Aaron Rodgers and Brandon Jacobs?
MAC_32
Footballguy
Right now - Gore and Eli.Two years from now - Rodgers and Jacobs.
sholditch
Footballguy
Think about it from a long-term value perspective. Getting a guy like Rodgers or Rivers, who is just nearing his prime, means you could be able to significantly outscore most of your opponents at that position in the league for the next 7-8 years. With a RB age 22 you've got that max and they're much more likely to get injured and have to share work. I'm not saying I'd take Rodgers over CJ or Rice but I would consider it after the big 4 RBs ahead of Andre Johnson. Surefire RBs come around every draft but tuly elite QBs do not. Name a guy drafted in the past four years that's elite.
Zoomanji
Footballguy
3 years ago in a 12 team, IDP league I took P. Manning at 1.12 (4 pts per TD) and followed that up with Rudi Johnson instead of AP (his rookie year) at 2.1
I won 3 straight championships and not in some sort of free league set-up either. Granted I wasn't winning totally with my team's offense, I did grab AJ at 3.12 but my defense carries the team for the most part (along with working the WW very heavily and trading most of my future 1st and 2nd round picks during the season each year).
Even with that I doubt I'd go QB again in a start-up. WR may be the way to go. Too much turn-over at RB and QBs are fairly deep
I won 3 straight championships and not in some sort of free league set-up either. Granted I wasn't winning totally with my team's offense, I did grab AJ at 3.12 but my defense carries the team for the most part (along with working the WW very heavily and trading most of my future 1st and 2nd round picks during the season each year).
Even with that I doubt I'd go QB again in a start-up. WR may be the way to go. Too much turn-over at RB and QBs are fairly deep
Black
Footballguy
It's Dynasty, so pick who you want.
I understand in shallower leagues that QB is easier to scrape up, so it's not necessary grab a QB early in a 10-teamer. However, QBs have the most longevity, so unless you want to play roulette with Kolb, M.Moore, Ch Henne each year, go get Rodgers, Romo, Rivers and do it in the round you think you need to.
I personally would (did?) hesitate to go nuts on RBs and grab C.Johnson or ADP even, since RBs have a shorter shelf life. However, teams with those guys will be strong for 2-3 years for sure. In my Dynasty Auction (resulting team below from 2009), I went heavy on WR and scraped by with scrub RBs (it's a PPR league though, so does depend on scoring system). I'd do it again tho.
The only things you will be sorry for in inaugural Dynasty auction/draft is 1) overspending on an older player (Brady (me), Portis, Westbrook like some did last year) 2) NOT getting a player you covet.
I understand in shallower leagues that QB is easier to scrape up, so it's not necessary grab a QB early in a 10-teamer. However, QBs have the most longevity, so unless you want to play roulette with Kolb, M.Moore, Ch Henne each year, go get Rodgers, Romo, Rivers and do it in the round you think you need to.
I personally would (did?) hesitate to go nuts on RBs and grab C.Johnson or ADP even, since RBs have a shorter shelf life. However, teams with those guys will be strong for 2-3 years for sure. In my Dynasty Auction (resulting team below from 2009), I went heavy on WR and scraped by with scrub RBs (it's a PPR league though, so does depend on scoring system). I'd do it again tho.
The only things you will be sorry for in inaugural Dynasty auction/draft is 1) overspending on an older player (Brady (me), Portis, Westbrook like some did last year) 2) NOT getting a player you covet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Iwannabeacowboybaby!
Footballguy
No, stockpile your RB's and WR's and take an old veteran like a Brett Farve or McNabb deep in the initial dynasty draft and you'll be fine. In the following years, rookie QB's don't even go in the top 5 picks usually. Bradford went towards the end of the 1st round this year so you can get young Qb's without having to use your first pick on it.
Once the top 4 RBs are off the board, I would take Aaron Rodgers in a second. Like others have said, the uncertainty at the RB position and the growing appeal of NFL teams going RBBC means that the days of the stud RB are over. A QB like Rodgers can maintain a strong level of play for 6-8 years, you won't get that kind of consistency with a RB. Rodgers was one of, if not the highest scoring player in all of the leagues I was in last year and last time I checked, the only thing that mattered in fantasy was points, it doesn't matter which position you get them from. Considering his age, talent and consistency, Rodgers would be a dynasty gem anywhere from the middle to the end of the 1st round.
This.
This seems like absolute CRAZY talk to me. Total redraft mentality. You would take 12-15 RBs before Aaron Rodgers? That's essentially like saying you'd rather have guys like Knowshon Moreno or Shonn Greene than Aaron Rodgers. That's MADNESS. In years past, it'd be the equivalent of taking guys like Kevin Smith, Brandon Jacobs, or Marshawn Lynch over Peyton Manning. Yeah, how'd that wind up working out in hindsight?You further compound the craziness by saying you value the 15th RB about the same as the 3rd WR, or that you'd rather have the Knowshon Morenos of the world than the Miles Austins or Roddy Whites. To be perfectly honest, I can't imagine how successful such an RB-centric (and, most especially such a mediocre-talent-centric) philosophy could really be over the long term in dynasty. Guys who overspend for mediocre RB talents in round 2 of a dynasty startup are the guys who are most setting themselves up for a hurting in year 3.In redraft leagues, RBs > WRs > QBs. In Dynasty, though, the QB's career is longer than the WR's, whose career is in turn longer than the RB's. That does a ton to equalize the value of the positions. Generally, especially in startup dynasty drafts, I care far less about what position a player plays and far more about how talented the player in question really is.
This really should be the best criteria for dynasty drafting and one that I sadly didn't embrace until a few years ago. Talent should always trump situation or position because over the course of a career, the most talented guys are usually the ones who will command the spotlight eventually even if the short term value isn't there. The people who took Larry Johnson and patiently waited for Priest to move on were rewarded as opposed to those who took somebody like Charles Rogers.
FUBAR
Footballguy
FWIW in a recent start-up, I didn't take a QB in the first but someone else did. I took Gore in the 2nd (great value of course) and ended up trading Gore for Rodgers later. Would have been nice to have made that deal before I took Romo, but the guy who did it was sorry he did and I got what I consider to be a cornerstone QB to build around.
That's the thing, you don't take a QB in the first round expecting to be in the Super Bowl in year one. You do it to build for the long haul. So Peyton isn't the guy to do it with. Brees could be. I'd be perfectly happy to take Rodgers in the first this year and completely suck year one, just don't trade away your 2011 1st.In my dynasty startup draft last year we had the first 3 picks go QB. Guess what? Not one of those guys made it to the Superbowl. The 2 people that were in the Superbowl picked in the 7th and 8th spot.
Who will you be starting at RB if you draft Rodgers in the first round? You will eventually have to draft a Knowshon Moreno or Shonn Greene. I can land a good QB in round 6 or 7, what kind of RB are you going to get there? Im not even suggesting reaching for RB's, i think you have to take a RB in round one, but after that, WR's and value at RB's is the way to go. Just because QB's score more points that doesnt make them more valuable. The difference between QB1 and QB12 was around 100 points last year. the difference between RB1 and RB24 was around 200 points. Most leagues require at least 2 starting RB's, and 1 QB. There difference between the QB you get in the first round and the one i get in round 7 will not be nearly as large as the RB i get in round 1 and you get in round 7.Its a matter of supply and demand, which i thought by now most people had a good grasp on. Again, i would rather have Gore and Eli then Rodgers and Jacobs....and thats being generous by assuming you could get Jacobs, or a RB of his caliber in the 7th round.
FUBAR
Footballguy
Sure, in the short term. But consider if you had taken Peyton Manning after his 2nd season. You'd have locked up that position for the last decade instead of taking Eddie George or Terrell Owens.
Who here is advocating taking a RB in Round 7? You make it seem like taking a QB in the 1st means that you won't draft a RB until Round 7. If I take a QB in the 1st, then I'm definitely grabbing a RB in the 2nd. I would rather get the best QB than the sixth or seventh best RB at that point in the draft especially when you factor in that your 1st round pick will be on your team producing for you for 8 years instead of 4 or 5.
Last edited by a moderator:
Or i could have taken Tom Brady over Chris Johnson last year.
Youre definitely taking a RB in round two? Who are you getting there? When will you be taking your 2nd RB? How about WR's, when will you start taking them? Taking a QB in the first puts you in a tough position. You have to take 5 RB's/WR's just to fill your lineup, and most of the good ones are gone by the end of round 5. edit for spelling
Last edited by a moderator:
Guys I have as targets are Mendy, Charles, DeAngelo, Beanie, Greene, Grant, Mathews, etc. In Round 3 I'm looking at somebody like Addai, Moreno, StewartI realize that taking a QB in the 1st is tricky since it's not as common, but you can still find value at WR in the middle rounds. I disagree that the good ones are gone by Round 5. Most of the big names are gone by then obviously but there's always sleeper WRs that emerge every year that are taken much later. You can usually still get good starters at WR in Rounds 4 and 5 (Crabtree, Nicks, Smith North etc.) and then look for young guys with upside later on, (Maclin, Wallace come to mind).The thing with taking a QB early is that it allows you to virtually ignore the position (unless you get freakishly good value later on) while you address the rest of your lineup with your next 6 or 7 picks. It's entirely possible to end up with a lineup consisting of:QB - RodgersRB - Charles, Moreno, BestWR - Crabtree, Nicks, MaclinAfter 7 rounds, that's a pretty good looking dynasty team that is both young and competitive with upside.Youre definitely taking a RB in round two? Who are you getting there? When will you be taking your 2nd RB? How about WR's, when will you start taking them? Taking a QB in the first puts you in a tough position. You have to take 5 RB's/WR's just to fill your lineup, and most of the good ones are gone by the end of round 5. edit for spelling
No way are you able to get most of those players. Which of Crabtree or Best is falling into the 5th round? I dont think either of those two makes it to the 4th. Nicks or Maclin in the 7th, that would be like winning the lottery....or drating with people of lower intelligence.Guys I have as targets are Mendy, Charles, DeAngelo, Beanie, Greene, Grant, Mathews, etc. In Round 3 I'm looking at somebody like Addai, Moreno, StewartI realize that taking a QB in the 1st is tricky since it's not as common, but you can still find value at WR in the middle rounds. I disagree that the good ones are gone by Round 5. Most of the big names are gone by then obviously but there's always sleeper WRs that emerge every year that are taken much later. You can usually still get good starters at WR in Rounds 4 and 5 (Crabtree, Nicks, Smith North etc.) and then look for young guys with upside later on, (Maclin, Wallace come to mind).The thing with taking a QB early is that it allows you to virtually ignore the position (unless you get freakishly good value later on) while you address the rest of your lineup with your next 6 or 7 picks. It's entirely possible to end up with a lineup consisting of:QB - RodgersRB - Charles, Moreno, BestWR - Crabtree, Nicks, MaclinAfter 7 rounds, that's a pretty good looking dynasty team that is both young and competitive with upside.Youre definitely taking a RB in round two? Who are you getting there? When will you be taking your 2nd RB? How about WR's, when will you start taking them? Taking a QB in the first puts you in a tough position. You have to take 5 RB's/WR's just to fill your lineup, and most of the good ones are gone by the end of round 5. edit for spelling
I was merely using those names as an example. Crabtree can be had in the 4th, Best and Nicks should both be there in the 5th, pick your favorite and go for somebody like Spiller in the 6th if you opt for Nicks. Maclin and Wallace's ADP are both in the 7th. It's not an exact science but you can get similar players if you do your research. (btw, I'm not saying you don't just meant "you" in a general sense, so there's no offence intended).No way are you able to get most of those players. Which of Crabtree or Best is falling into the 5th round? I dont think either of those two makes it to the 4th. Nicks or Maclin in the 7th, that would be like winning the lottery....or drating with people of lower intelligence.Guys I have as targets are Mendy, Charles, DeAngelo, Beanie, Greene, Grant, Mathews, etc. In Round 3 I'm looking at somebody like Addai, Moreno, StewartI realize that taking a QB in the 1st is tricky since it's not as common, but you can still find value at WR in the middle rounds. I disagree that the good ones are gone by Round 5. Most of the big names are gone by then obviously but there's always sleeper WRs that emerge every year that are taken much later. You can usually still get good starters at WR in Rounds 4 and 5 (Crabtree, Nicks, Smith North etc.) and then look for young guys with upside later on, (Maclin, Wallace come to mind).The thing with taking a QB early is that it allows you to virtually ignore the position (unless you get freakishly good value later on) while you address the rest of your lineup with your next 6 or 7 picks. It's entirely possible to end up with a lineup consisting of:QB - RodgersRB - Charles, Moreno, BestWR - Crabtree, Nicks, MaclinAfter 7 rounds, that's a pretty good looking dynasty team that is both young and competitive with upside.Youre definitely taking a RB in round two? Who are you getting there? When will you be taking your 2nd RB? How about WR's, when will you start taking them? Taking a QB in the first puts you in a tough position. You have to take 5 RB's/WR's just to fill your lineup, and most of the good ones are gone by the end of round 5. edit for spelling
Again, this looks like redraft mentality. Drafting Aaron Rodgers in the 1st will possibly hurt my ability to compete for a title THIS YEAR (not really, though- Aaron Rodgers has ranked 7th and 3rd in VBD over the last two seasons. Last year, in particular, he was more valuable than MJD or Ray Rice). So what? Dynasty is a long-haul game. If I take Aaron Rodgers, my QB position is locked down for the next 10 years, and I can spend all of my resources for the next TEN YEARS on RBs, WRs, and TEs filling out the rest of my roster. If I take, on the other hand, a Frank Gore in the 1st... then 3 years from now I'm going to have to spend some premium resources replacing Gore. And 3 years after that I'm going to have to spend some premium resources replacing my replacement for Gore. And 3 years after that, I'm spending more resources replacing that replacement. Those resources would be a lot easier to spare if I had a franchise cornerstone like Aaron Rodgers anchoring one of my starting positions.You say that you have to take an RB in round 1. Personally, there are only 4 RBs that I would feel happy taking in the 1st round. There are three more that I'd take in the early 2nd (Gore, Stewart, Charles, not necessarily in that order). Outside of that, I would just gleefully load up on WRs. If I walked out of a draft with Rodgers, Roddy White, Miles Austin, Michael Crabtree, and Vernon Davis with my first 5 draft picks, I would be ecstatic. Sure, I'd probably suck in year 1 with that lineup... but all that means is that I get a very high rookie pick in year 2. And with my QB, WR, and TE positions all secured for the next 5 years, I could devote all of my resources to finding competent RBs. I could load the end of my roster up with sleepers and longshots. I could spend every rookie draft pick on RBs. If I had another QB, WR, or TE come on strong, I could trade it for an RB since it'd be expendable depth. My goal is "find an RB to complement your studs everywhere else and you'll dominate", whereas someone else might be trying to find a lot of studs everywhere else to complement is RBs. Since RBs have the shortest shelf life, there's the most turnover at the position and it's easiest to acquire quality pieces. Rookies contribute immediately at the position, and there are always guys like Charles and Harrison coming on late in the season.Teams that go heavy on RB are built to compete in the short term. Teams that go heavy on WR and QB are built to compete in the long term. I'd much rather compete in the long term than compete in the short term, only to find my entire core falling apart at the same time with limited resources to rebuild.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
Obviously a major difference between dynasty and redraft is that the length of career has an effect on the value of the player. In a dynasty, one way to view the value of a player is points above the baseline over his career. I'm not going to crunch the numbers on this, but I'm willing to bet that, if you were doing a dynasty start-up in Y2K, the #1 player by that measure would be Peyton Manning. Manning has 909 points above baseline in that 10-year span; the closest RB I could find was Tiki Barber with 642. It looks like Gonzo has more points above baseline than any of the RBs, and it looks like Randy Moss is second to Manning overall.The point being that getting a franchise QB who's entering his third year starting (as Rodgers is) can produce a consistent advantage for you for a long time. "I can get Matt Stafford in the sixth" is not a response to having a true fantasy franchise QB; in 2000, those guys might have been Mark Brunell, Kerry Collins, or Brian Griese. Unless you happened to pick Tiki, none of the RBs available later in the first round, paired with Mark Brunell, would have worked out nearly as well as Manning paired with a later-round running back.
Very nice analysis.And, again, this doesn't look at resources expended. If you'd gotten Peyton Manning in 2000, you would not have spent a single extra resource on QB for the last 10 years. You wouldn't have had to use or trade a draft pick for any QBs for 10 years. You wouldn't have had to burn precious bench positions cultivating up-and-coming QBs, hoping that they turned out more like Matt Schaub and less like Brian Brohm. And if you had happened to acquire some more QBs, those QBs would have become expendable the second they had value. You could use your QB depth as a sort of farm system, trading away all of your prospects there for proven veterans. Dynasty is all about using limited resources to create the best team possible, and getting young studs that will be around for a decade is one of the most resource-efficient moves you can possibly make. You only have so many draft picks, you only have so many bench spots, you only have so many trading chips or blind bidding dollars. Even if you had gotten lucky and grabbed Tiki Barber in 2000, you would have had to spend serious resources securing his replacement over the last 3 seasons.
Poor analysis in bold. No one was comparing QB1 with RB1. You were comparing the RB12-15 with the QB1. Difference between QB1 and QB12 = 114 points. Difference between RB 12 and RB 24 = 38 points.
They may only be examples, but they are so far off that the concept you are arguing for appears to be questionable at best. Crabtree is being taken in the 2nd in most dynasty startups (you are talking dynasty right, because if redraft, then the rounds you are quoting are about right). Best and Nicks in the 5th? Best has made it into the 2nd in a number of recent startups, Nicks usually in the 4th (sometimes the third) in recent drafts. Maclin usually taken in the 5th. The research you suggest for a 7th round WR is basically taking a shot at receivers that eventually might have the value of Nicks, Crabtree, Maclin, etc., but currently do not. That said, you take out Moreno and Best, and you could end up with Rodgers in the 1st, Crabtree in the 2nd, Charles in the 3rd, Nicks in the 4th, Maclin in the 5th. Not a bad looking top 5.I was merely using those names as an example. Crabtree can be had in the 4th, Best and Nicks should both be there in the 5th, pick your favorite and go for somebody like Spiller in the 6th if you opt for Nicks. Maclin and Wallace's ADP are both in the 7th. It's not an exact science but you can get similar players if you do your research. (btw, I'm not saying you don't just meant "you" in a general sense, so there's no offence intended).No way are you able to get most of those players. Which of Crabtree or Best is falling into the 5th round? I dont think either of those two makes it to the 4th. Nicks or Maclin in the 7th, that would be like winning the lottery....or drating with people of lower intelligence.Guys I have as targets are Mendy, Charles, DeAngelo, Beanie, Greene, Grant, Mathews, etc. In Round 3 I'm looking at somebody like Addai, Moreno, StewartI realize that taking a QB in the 1st is tricky since it's not as common, but you can still find value at WR in the middle rounds. I disagree that the good ones are gone by Round 5. Most of the big names are gone by then obviously but there's always sleeper WRs that emerge every year that are taken much later. You can usually still get good starters at WR in Rounds 4 and 5 (Crabtree, Nicks, Smith North etc.) and then look for young guys with upside later on, (Maclin, Wallace come to mind).The thing with taking a QB early is that it allows you to virtually ignore the position (unless you get freakishly good value later on) while you address the rest of your lineup with your next 6 or 7 picks. It's entirely possible to end up with a lineup consisting of:QB - RodgersRB - Charles, Moreno, BestWR - Crabtree, Nicks, MaclinAfter 7 rounds, that's a pretty good looking dynasty team that is both young and competitive with upside.Youre definitely taking a RB in round two? Who are you getting there? When will you be taking your 2nd RB? How about WR's, when will you start taking them? Taking a QB in the first puts you in a tough position. You have to take 5 RB's/WR's just to fill your lineup, and most of the good ones are gone by the end of round 5. edit for spelling
Where are you finding those stats from? I was going off of FBG's list and assumed (wrong by the looks of it) that it was for dynasty. Thanks for correcting me. Either way, my argument still stands that your team isn't doomed if you go QB in Round 1.They may only be examples, but they are so far off that the concept you are arguing for appears to be questionable at best. Crabtree is being taken in the 2nd in most dynasty startups (you are talking dynasty right, because if redraft, then the rounds you are quoting are about right). Best and Nicks in the 5th? Best has made it into the 2nd in a number of recent startups, Nicks usually in the 4th (sometimes the third) in recent drafts. Maclin usually taken in the 5th. The research you suggest for a 7th round WR is basically taking a shot at receivers that eventually might have the value of Nicks, Crabtree, Maclin, etc., but currently do not. That said, you take out Moreno and Best, and you could end up with Rodgers in the 1st, Crabtree in the 2nd, Charles in the 3rd, Nicks in the 4th, Maclin in the 5th. Not a bad looking top 5.I was merely using those names as an example. Crabtree can be had in the 4th, Best and Nicks should both be there in the 5th, pick your favorite and go for somebody like Spiller in the 6th if you opt for Nicks. Maclin and Wallace's ADP are both in the 7th. It's not an exact science but you can get similar players if you do your research. (btw, I'm not saying you don't just meant "you" in a general sense, so there's no offence intended).No way are you able to get most of those players. Which of Crabtree or Best is falling into the 5th round? I dont think either of those two makes it to the 4th. Nicks or Maclin in the 7th, that would be like winning the lottery....or drating with people of lower intelligence.Guys I have as targets are Mendy, Charles, DeAngelo, Beanie, Greene, Grant, Mathews, etc. In Round 3 I'm looking at somebody like Addai, Moreno, StewartI realize that taking a QB in the 1st is tricky since it's not as common, but you can still find value at WR in the middle rounds. I disagree that the good ones are gone by Round 5. Most of the big names are gone by then obviously but there's always sleeper WRs that emerge every year that are taken much later. You can usually still get good starters at WR in Rounds 4 and 5 (Crabtree, Nicks, Smith North etc.) and then look for young guys with upside later on, (Maclin, Wallace come to mind).The thing with taking a QB early is that it allows you to virtually ignore the position (unless you get freakishly good value later on) while you address the rest of your lineup with your next 6 or 7 picks. It's entirely possible to end up with a lineup consisting of:QB - RodgersRB - Charles, Moreno, BestWR - Crabtree, Nicks, MaclinAfter 7 rounds, that's a pretty good looking dynasty team that is both young and competitive with upside.Youre definitely taking a RB in round two? Who are you getting there? When will you be taking your 2nd RB? How about WR's, when will you start taking them? Taking a QB in the first puts you in a tough position. You have to take 5 RB's/WR's just to fill your lineup, and most of the good ones are gone by the end of round 5. edit for spelling
Donsmith753
Footballguy
I'm in the middle of a dynasty startup at the moment. Drafting 7th in a 16 team league. I took Aaron Rodgers with my first round pick.
I did this because I hopefully don't need to worry about the position for a number of years. With my next 4 picks I took Matthews, Wells, Nicks and Dez Bryant. I'm okay with missing out on a Michael Turner/Andre Johnson for the comfort I have at QB.
I can always use my 2011 1st on one of the many "Sure thing" receivers I keep hearing about.
I did this because I hopefully don't need to worry about the position for a number of years. With my next 4 picks I took Matthews, Wells, Nicks and Dez Bryant. I'm okay with missing out on a Michael Turner/Andre Johnson for the comfort I have at QB.
I can always use my 2011 1st on one of the many "Sure thing" receivers I keep hearing about.
FUBAR
Footballguy
Sure, although I'm talking about taking a young stud QB after the young stud RBs are gone, towards the end of the 1st instead of 27+ year old backs.
Last edited by a moderator:
No Way Jose
Footballguy
I did this startup right after the draft, and I had never taken a qb in the first round. I had no idea how it would play out, and still don't know if I would do it again. I was picking 6th.
1st A. Rodgers
2nd V. Jackson---this seemed like a good pick at the time
3rd M. Turner
4th V. Davis
5th F. Jones
6th Julio Jones---dev player
7th S. Holmes
This team doesn't look that great this year but should improve next year with most of these guys in equal or better opportunities.
Wr's flew off the board in this league and Qb's stayed on it. If I woulda known that I coulda got Brees in the 3rd I def would not have done it.
However, it is nice to know that I am set at qb for the forseable future and can concentrate on strenghtening the rest of my roster from here on out.
1st A. Rodgers
2nd V. Jackson---this seemed like a good pick at the time
3rd M. Turner
4th V. Davis
5th F. Jones
6th Julio Jones---dev player
7th S. Holmes
This team doesn't look that great this year but should improve next year with most of these guys in equal or better opportunities.
Wr's flew off the board in this league and Qb's stayed on it. If I woulda known that I coulda got Brees in the 3rd I def would not have done it.
However, it is nice to know that I am set at qb for the forseable future and can concentrate on strenghtening the rest of my roster from here on out.
Heep
Footballguy
I bet the guy who drafted Rivers has a considerably better team because he was able to get an RB/WR in the 1st round...And Rivers isn't that far off from Rodgers imo
No Way Jose
Footballguy
With the way this draft went(mostly WR's going in the late first and second). It hurt me in the wr department. I think if some of the other top qb's went off the board earlier there woulda been better value for me in the 2nd and 3rd.The team with rivers took A. Johnson 1st and S. Rice 2nd with Rivers 3rd. However his best RB is J. Best(in the 4th). So I don't know that his team is "considerably" better than mine. If I had it to do over I doubt I would take qb 1st round but I don't think you are doomed if you do.
Donsmith753
Footballguy
This is the important part to consider. You need to know the habits of your league mates. I'm in the middle of a dynasty startup where 8qb's went in the first round (16 team league, 6pts per td) http://football23.myfantasyleague.com/2010...=54832&O=17A lot of these guys are FF newbie's so that goes some way to explaining it but that made my pick of Rodgers even more sensible.
You can never account for what league mates will do. At the end of the day if you like a guy go and get him.
You keep talking about not having to worry about the QB position if you draft one in the first round. I have never drafted a QB anywhere in the first 5 rounds of any start-up dynasty draft, and i never had to worry about the QB position. I can draft Eli Manning in the 6th round, and not have to worry about the QB position for 5+years. I can add Flacco in round 8, and Bradford in round 11, and my QB's are set for a long time. You also say that you can just get RB's later, but when? Especially if you dont take one for the first 4 rounds? So you plan to suck the first year, and then take a rookie RB with your 1st round rookie pick? What happens if that rookie RB turns into any number of rookie RB's that dont pan out. Youre team will then what, still suck in year two? So do you plan on just sucking until you finally hit on a RB in the rookie draft?Your philosophy puzzles me. Take a QB in the first, so you dont have to worry about the easiest position to fix for the next 6-8 years. However, neglect the position where acquiring good players is almost impossible to do, because why, the have more turnover?I doubt you will find anyone who drafts for the future more than I, so the redraft talk is silly. If anything, drafting a QB in the first is probably smarter in redraft than dynasty. If it doesnt work out, you only have to suffer for a year.SSOG said:
Not true. By taking a QB in the first, not only are you getting your RB1 after everyone else, you are also getting your RB2 after everyone else. Actually, if i dont take Eli Manning until round 7, and you take Rodgers in round one, I am picking all my RB's and WR's one round ahead of you, until round 7.Ernol said:
I agree with the longevity issue, but not with the "I don't have to worry about" stuff.
What I think is being undervalued is how easy it is to draft rookie QBs relatively late and hold onto them. When did Ryan and Flacco go in dynasty rookie drafts? Stafford? Henne? Even better, Freemen was there in the late 3rd last year.
I find most dynasty leagues are deep enough I can harvest future starting QBs and stash them when all the good RB and WR prospects are off the board and other owners are taking players that odds are will never start.
This makes taking a McNabb type late in the start-up draft very competitive with the QB late in the first strategy.
I think they work out to be equally strong plays.
What I think is being undervalued is how easy it is to draft rookie QBs relatively late and hold onto them. When did Ryan and Flacco go in dynasty rookie drafts? Stafford? Henne? Even better, Freemen was there in the late 3rd last year.
I find most dynasty leagues are deep enough I can harvest future starting QBs and stash them when all the good RB and WR prospects are off the board and other owners are taking players that odds are will never start.
This makes taking a McNabb type late in the start-up draft very competitive with the QB late in the first strategy.
I think they work out to be equally strong plays.
Chargers86
Footballguy
I am still not convinced a first round QB is the best move. Unless QB's get special scoring points, why would you care about a single starting position points when most people have to start 2 RB's and 2 WR's? Whenever I draft I NEVER follow the herd mentality. I always do my best in leagues where I follow my own system regardless of what everyone else does. I figure if 6 people take QB's before I pick in the 2nd round, why would I settle for the 7th best QB that early when I can still grab the top 3 WR?
sholditch
Footballguy
This year is a good year to do it because when we're talking young surfire studs there are really only 4: Rodgers, Romo, Rivers, and maybe Schaub.
Manning and Brady are too old to be considered in the first round of a dynasty if there is only one starting QB. Here's how I think the first two rounds of a dynasty startup should look something similar this year (obviously difference of opinion will abound but this might better illustrate what I meant when saying the top QBs should go along with the top RBs and WRs):
1.1 CJ
1.2 ADP
1.3 MJD
1.4 Rice
1.5 Rodgers
1.6 Andre Johnson
1.7 Fitz
1.8 Rivers
1.9 Austin
1.10 Romo
1.11 DeAngelo Williams
1.12 Gore
2.1 Turner
2.2 Peyton
2.3 Brees
2.4 Calvin Johnson
2.5 Mendenhall
2.6 Jonathan Stewart
2.7 Schaub
2.8 Brady
2.9 DeSean Jackson
2.10 Roddy White
2.11 Jamal Charles
2.12 Brandon Marshall
So if you have the mindset that you are going to get your first RB and WR before taking a QB, you miss out on the top dynasty prospects. Now, you could grab a guy like Cutler and hope for a return to the elite, or Kolb or Stafford and take even more of a gamble, but locking up one of the guys listed in the first two rounds means you are locked and loaded at QB for years and years to come, and can wait forever before taking a backup. Not saying you have to take one in round 1 or that you won't come out as well (or just about) taking one in round 2. But you have to consider the elite talent at all positions in dynasty, and factor how long you think that person will stay elite. Even CJ, with his size, probably won't be elite but for another 4-5 years at best. Rodgers could still be elite at 35 (2018) or even 38 (2021).
Manning and Brady are too old to be considered in the first round of a dynasty if there is only one starting QB. Here's how I think the first two rounds of a dynasty startup should look something similar this year (obviously difference of opinion will abound but this might better illustrate what I meant when saying the top QBs should go along with the top RBs and WRs):
1.1 CJ
1.2 ADP
1.3 MJD
1.4 Rice
1.5 Rodgers
1.6 Andre Johnson
1.7 Fitz
1.8 Rivers
1.9 Austin
1.10 Romo
1.11 DeAngelo Williams
1.12 Gore
2.1 Turner
2.2 Peyton
2.3 Brees
2.4 Calvin Johnson
2.5 Mendenhall
2.6 Jonathan Stewart
2.7 Schaub
2.8 Brady
2.9 DeSean Jackson
2.10 Roddy White
2.11 Jamal Charles
2.12 Brandon Marshall
So if you have the mindset that you are going to get your first RB and WR before taking a QB, you miss out on the top dynasty prospects. Now, you could grab a guy like Cutler and hope for a return to the elite, or Kolb or Stafford and take even more of a gamble, but locking up one of the guys listed in the first two rounds means you are locked and loaded at QB for years and years to come, and can wait forever before taking a backup. Not saying you have to take one in round 1 or that you won't come out as well (or just about) taking one in round 2. But you have to consider the elite talent at all positions in dynasty, and factor how long you think that person will stay elite. Even CJ, with his size, probably won't be elite but for another 4-5 years at best. Rodgers could still be elite at 35 (2018) or even 38 (2021).
I must be misunderstanding your numbers, the only RB1 that I know of that outscored the RB24 by 200 points is Chris Johnson. You said RB1 outscored RB24 by 200 points. What "RB1" vs "RB24" were you referring to?
Donsmith753
Footballguy
Presume you meant to include Brees as you have him going higher than Schaub.
Last years #1 RB(Chris Johnson), outscored the #24 RB(Kevin Smith) by 200 points, and that is non-PPR.
Similar threads
