Jump to content


Photo

Why don't more fantasy leagues start 2 QB's?


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#1 TS Garp

TS Garp

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined 28-July 03

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:38 AM

I've been in the same league for 20 years and it features some pretty antiquated rules, but one that I've always liked is that we start 2 QB's. I've joined other leagues over the years that feature the much more typical 1 qb/2 rb/3 wr set-up and they leave a lot to be desired for me. It just doesn't make sense that QB is the most important position on the field, yet they're significantly less valuable than RB's and WR's in fantasy football. Not only does starting 2 qb's add a lot more strategy to drafts and make them far less predictable, but it insures that almost every NFL starting QB has some value, as it should be. Is the 1 QB rule something people believe in because there's only 1 QB in a real NFL game? I just don't buy that line of reasoning. We're playing fantasy football, after all. I think we're all capable of making the necessary leaps. Would love to hear the arguments here. It's just never made sense to me and after trying both, I find a 2 QB much more challenging and interesting. I started a thread on this a long time ago but it never got off the ground. Hoping to hear more responses given that it's the off-season.



#2 Touchdown There

Touchdown There

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2,088 posts
  • Joined 28-March 10
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:42 AM

QB guys like 2 QB leagues. RB/WR guys like one QB leagues.

#3 SpineDoc

SpineDoc

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 374 posts
  • Joined 30-September 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DFW

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:46 AM

I agree about a start 2 QB league being a challenge. A real challenge in 12 team leagues. I like it personally. My start 2 QB league is also a dynasty which makes the rookie drafts much more challenging and interesting. Luck and RG3 will go in the top 3 for sure and Tannehill will definitely go in the first round.

10 Team Dynasty PPR Superflex- HDFL
QB- Brady, E. Manning, Cutler, Locker
RB- McCoyR. Rice, CJ2K, Stewart, L. Miller, S. Vareen, Ellington, C. Michael
WR- Calvin, Fitzgerald, Nicks, AJ Green, Cobb, VJax, Crabtree, A. Brown, G. Little, Boyce, T. Williams
TE- J. Graham, J. Cook, D. Allen, Kelce
K- Graham
Def- Ravens, Packers

10 Team Dynasty PPR- DLeague
QB- Stafford, P. Manning, Ponder
RB- CJ2K, J. Charles, McGahee, D. Wilson, L. Miller, P. Thomas, B. Tate, Goodson, Vareen
WR- Jennings, S. Johnson, J. Nelson, Crabtree, E. Sanders, Shorts, V. Brown, T. Smith, S. Hill, G. Little
TE- Gronkowski, A. Hernandez, Allen, Myers
K- Rackers
Def- Texans, Rams


#4 NJDawgPound

NJDawgPound

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2,353 posts
  • Joined 24-February 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middletown, NJ

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:48 AM

I have an open mind, but I think that leagues that start 2 QBs and leagues where you play more than one opponent in a week should be illegal and commissioners should be arrested without bail.

#5 Max Power

Max Power

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6,728 posts
  • Joined 03-September 07
  • Location:NC

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:49 AM

Tired it once in a redraft league with 12 teams. Bye weeks become way too big of an issue for my tastes. QB hording screws teams over. I'd consider playing again in a 10 team league, but 12 doesn't do anything for me.

#6 chidoy

chidoy

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 419 posts
  • Joined 03-August 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Da Nati

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:50 AM

I run a 10 team - 2 QB league and everyone in the league loves it. I think it only works with 10 or less teams though. The reason we started going 2 QB's is due to the fact that there are 22 other potential point scorers that can help your team just rotting on the ww or on someones bench. Our league basically just added a QB and took away the Kicker position (kickers suck anyways and hey... its FANTASY). Would love to hear other arguments for or against as well.

#7 TS Garp

TS Garp

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined 28-July 03

Posted 30 April 2012 - 10:52 AM

How about rather than start 2 QB's, you do a FLEX that has the option of being a QB? I still don't think the bye weeks totally screw you in a 12 team league. It's never been an issue in my league. In my experience, no one really hoards that many qb's on their bench.

#8 Clifford

Clifford

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10,167 posts
  • Joined 30-July 10

Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:06 AM

My favorite two leagues both have 2QBs, though in one it is a flex option. I love them.

Like most things I don't understand I wanted to punch its face.
-Binky the Doormat

Your constant hyperbole is ridiculous. You're to the FFA what Hitler was to Europe.
-Dr. Awesome

Some people learn by words, some people learn by consequences, some people can’t learn.
-Nick Saban

 

No one here seems to get its okay to be racist against white people

-johnjohn


#9 Greg Russell

Greg Russell

    Footballguy

  • Staff
  • Pip
  • 6,176 posts
  • Joined 11-April 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:06 AM

I think there are probably two main reasons more leagues don't go to 2 QB. First is the bye week issue. As you just mentioned, that issue is pretty much completely negated by making the 2nd QB position a flex position where starting a second QB is the right move the overwhelming majority of time. The other reason then is that it just lacks symmetry with how the NFL does it. There's no right answer when it comes to that, it's just personal preference. I think the strategy and necessary skill of FF goes way up with a 2nd QB... and that makes the game far more enjoyable for me than not matching the NFL detracts. But that's a personal opinion and nothing wrong with others feeling differently.

"When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is." - Oscar Wilde

Click to follow me on Twitter.

 


#10 chidoy

chidoy

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 419 posts
  • Joined 03-August 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Da Nati

Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:07 AM

A flex would sound like it would work and be the best option. That way people aren't FORCED to play a 2nd QB. However, I would say that 90% of the league would play a QB there anyways since they generally score more than the other position players (regardless of scoring).

#11 cstu

cstu

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 46,425 posts
  • Joined 20-August 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:4052666

Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:19 AM

I haven't played in one but it's seems like your fortune completely rises and falls with your QB's.

 

Threatening an atheist with hell is like a hippie threatening to punch you in your aura.

 


#12 Greg Russell

Greg Russell

    Footballguy

  • Staff
  • Pip
  • 6,176 posts
  • Joined 11-April 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2012 - 11:31 AM

I haven't played in one but it's seems like your fortune completely rises and falls with your QB's.

It hasn't really been that way in the past. QBs do score more overall, and so yes their variation will have a bigger impact than the variation at other positions. But I haven't found it to dominate results. The difference between the top and bottom QBs was still the same range as the difference between the top RBs and bottom RBs for example, and that helps keep them of similar value and keeps your weekly results from mirroring just the QBs. Now that said, last year was very different with the through-the-roof passing numbers. QB value skyrocketed, with the top QBs being worth about 50% more in a VBD sense than the top QBs have normally been worth. It might be an issue going forward, but I'll wait to see how much of a trend it becomes.

"When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is." - Oscar Wilde

Click to follow me on Twitter.

 


#13 Acrobat7

Acrobat7

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 610 posts
  • Joined 28-March 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamburg, Germany

Posted 30 April 2012 - 12:13 PM

Luck and RG3 will go in the top 3 for sure and Tannehill will definitely go in the first round.

yep, i expect to be looking at Tannehill with my 1.07 pick if everything goes as i expect... :unsure:

#14 Sweet Love

Sweet Love

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7,307 posts
  • Joined 03-September 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Raleigh, NC
  • Interests:Voodoo women named Phyllis

Posted 30 April 2012 - 12:48 PM

I haven't played in one but it's seems like your fortune completely rises and falls with your QB's.

It hasn't really been that way in the past. QBs do score more overall, and so yes their variation will have a bigger impact than the variation at other positions. But I haven't found it to dominate results. The difference between the top and bottom QBs was still the same range as the difference between the top RBs and bottom RBs for example, and that helps keep them of similar value and keeps your weekly results from mirroring just the QBs. Now that said, last year was very different with the through-the-roof passing numbers. QB value skyrocketed, with the top QBs being worth about 50% more in a VBD sense than the top QBs have normally been worth. It might be an issue going forward, but I'll wait to see how much of a trend it becomes.

I see what you are saying, but unless you hamper overall QB points (every league I am in, 12 of the top 20 scorers are QBs (and that is an "at least")), people can run wild with 2-3 good QBs. If one of my leagues went 2QB start, I would go QB in rounds 1-3 w/o fail...and I have never in 16 years of FF taken a QB earlier than round 5. That is fine, but the guy at the turn has a massive advantage, unless you alter scoring, and my guess is that most leagues do not do that.

#15 SpineDoc

SpineDoc

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 374 posts
  • Joined 30-September 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:DFW

Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:09 PM

Luck and RG3 will go in the top 3 for sure and Tannehill will definitely go in the first round.

yep, i expect to be looking at Tannehill with my 1.07 pick if everything goes as i expect... :unsure:

To clarify, the start 2 QB league that I am in does have the second QB spot as a flex. It is beneficial to start 2 QBs every week but allows the flexibility for bye weeks. I am holding the 1.09 and 3 QBs will likely be gone at that point but allows me to go best RB/WR and still get a good one.

10 Team Dynasty PPR Superflex- HDFL
QB- Brady, E. Manning, Cutler, Locker
RB- McCoyR. Rice, CJ2K, Stewart, L. Miller, S. Vareen, Ellington, C. Michael
WR- Calvin, Fitzgerald, Nicks, AJ Green, Cobb, VJax, Crabtree, A. Brown, G. Little, Boyce, T. Williams
TE- J. Graham, J. Cook, D. Allen, Kelce
K- Graham
Def- Ravens, Packers

10 Team Dynasty PPR- DLeague
QB- Stafford, P. Manning, Ponder
RB- CJ2K, J. Charles, McGahee, D. Wilson, L. Miller, P. Thomas, B. Tate, Goodson, Vareen
WR- Jennings, S. Johnson, J. Nelson, Crabtree, E. Sanders, Shorts, V. Brown, T. Smith, S. Hill, G. Little
TE- Gronkowski, A. Hernandez, Allen, Myers
K- Rackers
Def- Texans, Rams


#16 Clifford

Clifford

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10,167 posts
  • Joined 30-July 10

Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:41 PM

Actually you just have to adjust scoring to make it even out. Adding in aggressive bonus scoring that decent players at other positions will hit with regularity works, but doesn't reward mediocre performances either.

Like most things I don't understand I wanted to punch its face.
-Binky the Doormat

Your constant hyperbole is ridiculous. You're to the FFA what Hitler was to Europe.
-Dr. Awesome

Some people learn by words, some people learn by consequences, some people can’t learn.
-Nick Saban

 

No one here seems to get its okay to be racist against white people

-johnjohn


#17 steelerfan1

steelerfan1

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2,561 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03

Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:52 PM

A flex would sound like it would work and be the best option. That way people aren't FORCED to play a 2nd QB. However, I would say that 90% of the league would play a QB there anyways since they generally score more than the other position players (regardless of scoring).

we have done this for a few years now and by far is my favotite lineup with a "Super Flex". we start 1,2,3,1,1,1, with the super flex of any position. adds a fun dimension to the draft to see all of the gameplans play out.
God is great, Beer is good, and people are crazy....

"So what did we learn from this experience? Drunken grappling is not technical. If you're going to wear a yellow Tapout shirt and talk trash, you should probably wear underwear."

#18 eNdblu

eNdblu

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 339 posts
  • Joined 14-November 11
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:03 PM

Every season, I try and convince my seasonal 10 team re-draft league to go to a 2QB format as opposed to 1QB, but never with any luck. I find that in 10 team redrafts, the QB position is so incredibly de-valued, it's ridiculous. On any given week, there will be 10+ QBs sitting on the waiver wire, and startable QBs sitting on the bench collecting dust.

#19 backno

backno

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 458 posts
  • Joined 09-October 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indianapolis, IN

Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:57 PM

I personally think in a 10 team or less league you should have a mandatory 2nd QB position. In a league thatt small QBs are basically worthless since you can grab guys off the WW with ease. In a 12 team league they are doable if you make it a super flex position. Any thing bigger then a 12 team league and it basically turns into if you don't have a top 4 or 5 QB you are are a whole boat load of trouble.

#20 djmich

djmich

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1,740 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03

Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:58 PM

I haven't played in one but it's seems like your fortune completely rises and falls with your QB's.

I find that in 10 team redrafts, the QB position is so incredibly de-valued, it's ridiculous.

About sums up the pro's and con's for me. Even in a 10 teamer the QB hoarding gets crazy and the reverse of de-valued happens....they are completely overvalued. I can see the argument for, but prefer the sanity of without.

Edited by djmich, 30 April 2012 - 02:58 PM.


#21 SelenaCat

SelenaCat

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 373 posts
  • Joined 31-May 04

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:06 PM

We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot. Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's. Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :) (Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Edited by SelenaCat, 30 April 2012 - 03:07 PM.


#22 Dragon1952

Dragon1952

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1,653 posts
  • Joined 29-August 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon Coast

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:07 PM

Tired it once in a redraft league with 12 teams. Bye weeks become way too big of an issue for my tastes. QB hording screws teams over. I'd consider playing again in a 10 team league, but 12 doesn't do anything for me.

I think you need to limit # of QB's per roster in this format.

#23 cobalt_27

cobalt_27

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15,128 posts
  • Joined 11-April 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:15 PM

We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot. Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's. Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :) (Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Done the flex option for 16 team league for almost 20 years now. No issue. Guys win with all sorts of permutations.

take a gander to the left at my member number


#24 Dippa

Dippa

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 271 posts
  • Joined 25-August 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:37 PM

We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.

Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.

Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)

(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Honest question...why do you prefer a league where a below average QB can score better than a top 5 running back at flex? It is personal preference obviously, but I'm just curious...

To me, it just really doesn't seem like "fantasy" football if quarterbacks that are awful are the preferred flex options over top running backs. I couldn't imagine debating whether or not to play Gabbert over MJD this year, for instance.

#25 rizzler

rizzler

    Footballguy

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 3,076 posts
  • Joined 14-May 10

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:43 PM

It STINKS (jay sherman)
Walk don't run, because running hurt's me too much.
Houston I think we have a problem.

#26 pyite76

pyite76

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 744 posts
  • Joined 27-July 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:IL

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:48 PM


We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.

Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.

Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)

(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Honest question...why do you prefer a league where a below average QB can score better than a top 5 running back at flex? It is personal preference obviously, but I'm just curious...

To me, it just really doesn't seem like "fantasy" football if quarterbacks that are awful are the preferred flex options over top running backs. I couldn't imagine debating whether or not to play Gabbert over MJD this year, for instance.

This would never be a problem.

#27 sbonomo

sbonomo

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3,074 posts
  • Joined 17-July 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pasadena, CA

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:48 PM

I remember a few years back playing in a 2 qb league....drafted Payton and Culpepper in round 1/2...lucked out with LT and Mcallister at my 3/4 picks...won the league by a landslide. I would play in a 2 QB league again.

#28 TS Garp

TS Garp

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined 28-July 03

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:53 PM

I think some of these reactions are based purely on habit and "the way things have always been." If 2 qb's (or a flex that allows QB) had always been the norm, you may have people complaining that very good starting NFL qb's have less value than the WR3 or RB3 of certain teams. It all depends on how you look at it. Personally, I think it's odd that for all the hype they're getting, there's a good chance that guys like Luck and RG3 will not have a ton of value in redraft leagues this coming season (debatable, but certainly possible). As someone who has been playing in these sorts of leagues for a long time, I've never seen people hoarding qb's or qb's having disproportionate value to other players. And, even so, isn't that something that makes the draft more fun? I actually tend to wait on qb's, and I was able to end up with Calvin Johnson/Fitzgerald/Marshall at WR this past season as a result, and I generally do very well in the league. You'll get to see a lot more strategies unfold and I just think it's generally makes things a lot more interesting and becomes much more a game of skill.

#29 SelenaCat

SelenaCat

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 373 posts
  • Joined 31-May 04

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:54 PM


We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.

Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.

Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)

(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Honest question...why do you prefer a league where a below average QB can score better than a top 5 running back at flex? It is personal preference obviously, but I'm just curious...

To me, it just really doesn't seem like "fantasy" football if quarterbacks that are awful are the preferred flex options over top running backs. I couldn't imagine debating whether or not to play Gabbert over MJD this year, for instance.

It's essentially a 2QB league, but it gives you the option of starting another position if you get hurt by byes or injuries (and it's not like you're going to get killed if you're not starting a 2nd QB. After looking at last year's numbers, our QB24 only scored 2 more points per game more than WR36 -- it's a 2WR league -- and 4 more points than RB36, so you can see the point differential isn't *that* great if you're not starting a QB). And there was one year that a player had the 1st, 2nd and 4th best RB's of the year, so other options are certainly possible.

Also, you wouldn't really be considering starting Gabbert over MJD because it's pretty unlikely that MJD is your third best RB. Yes, that one player had that happen, but unless you specifically draft for it (or auction, in our case), you're probably going to plan on playing 2 QB's. Instead, think of it as choosing Gabbert over, say, C.J. Spiller, Shonn Greene, or Pierre Garcon.

Edited by SelenaCat, 30 April 2012 - 03:59 PM.


#30 Dippa

Dippa

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 271 posts
  • Joined 25-August 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:01 PM



We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.

Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.

Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)

(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Honest question...why do you prefer a league where a below average QB can score better than a top 5 running back at flex? It is personal preference obviously, but I'm just curious...

To me, it just really doesn't seem like "fantasy" football if quarterbacks that are awful are the preferred flex options over top running backs. I couldn't imagine debating whether or not to play Gabbert over MJD this year, for instance.

It's essentially a 2QB league, but it gives you the option of starting another position if you get killed by byes or injuries (and it's not like you're going to get killed if you're not starting a 2nd QB. After looking at last year's numbers, our QB24 averaged 11 PPG, which is the same as the RB15 or WR22, so you can see the point differential isn't *that* great). And there was one year that a player had the 1st, 2nd and 4th best RB's of the year, so other options are certainly possible.

Also, you wouldn't really be considering starting Gabbert over MJD because it's pretty unlikely that MJD is your third best RB. Yes, that one player had that happen, but unless you specifically draft for it, you're probably going to plan on playing 2 QB's. Instead, think of it as choosing Gabbert over, say, C.J. Spiller, Shonn Greene, or Pierre Garcon.

Good post, I understand better where you're coming from...thanks for your opinion on it. I was genuinely curious rather than trying to be argumentative. MJD and Gabbert probably wasn't a good example but it just came to mind.

#31 Greg Russell

Greg Russell

    Footballguy

  • Staff
  • Pip
  • 6,176 posts
  • Joined 11-April 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:04 PM


We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.

Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.

Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)

(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Honest question...why do you prefer a league where a below average QB can score better than a top 5 running back at flex? It is personal preference obviously, but I'm just curious...

To me, it just really doesn't seem like "fantasy" football if quarterbacks that are awful are the preferred flex options over top running backs. I couldn't imagine debating whether or not to play Gabbert over MJD this year, for instance.

Why prefer a league where an average RB can score better than the #1 TE, which happens many years in normal setups.

One can argue that normal setups are hideously out of touch with NFL reality when it comes to the value of the RB position. A 2nd QB via flex brings fantasy football closer in line with the NFL in that respect.

"When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is." - Oscar Wilde

Click to follow me on Twitter.

 


#32 cstu

cstu

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 46,425 posts
  • Joined 20-August 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:4052666

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:04 PM

The following QBs were in the top 30 overall in points from week 11-17: Palmer Tebow Sanchez Grossman Fitzpatrick Moore Freeman

 

Threatening an atheist with hell is like a hippie threatening to punch you in your aura.

 


#33 steelerfan1

steelerfan1

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2,561 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:31 PM

i know to go along with the super flex of any position we also have the 1 qb, 2 rb, 3 wr, 1 te, 1 d, 1 k and have 1 PPR for rb, 1.5 PPR for wr and 2 PPR for te. again, having the above really creates an interesting draft and levels all positions out pretty even.
God is great, Beer is good, and people are crazy....

"So what did we learn from this experience? Drunken grappling is not technical. If you're going to wear a yellow Tapout shirt and talk trash, you should probably wear underwear."

#34 Dippa

Dippa

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 271 posts
  • Joined 25-August 11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:43 PM



We've played with a Superflex position for 10 years now and there's no way that I'd go back to a non-flex league. Even with passing TD's reduced to 4 points each, QB's are far and away the best scorers for the flex position as the QB24 often scores as many points per week as the RB5. However, since it's an auction keeper league we have had non-2QB lineups (have seen a 3 RB team make it to the Superbowl and a 3 WR team at least do decently despite having butkiss for QB's), and it gives you a lot more flexibility when dealing with bye weeks if you're in a really bad spot.

Yes, you do have a lot more scarcity with QB's, but this year was actually the first year (again, out of 10 years) that we had any team who couldn't field a starting QB, and that was the team who drafted Manning and cheap QB's who were injuried/not playing by the time of their remaining QB's bye. In general, however, I think it simply makes the QB position much more interesting and not really any more of a problem than RB's.

Now if I could just convince the league to move up to a 3 WR starting lineup to make WR's equally as important. :)

(Edit: Forgot to mention that it's a 12-team league. I'd never suggest 2QB or QB+Superflex for 14+ teams, however).

Honest question...why do you prefer a league where a below average QB can score better than a top 5 running back at flex? It is personal preference obviously, but I'm just curious...

To me, it just really doesn't seem like "fantasy" football if quarterbacks that are awful are the preferred flex options over top running backs. I couldn't imagine debating whether or not to play Gabbert over MJD this year, for instance.

Why prefer a league where an average RB can score better than the #1 TE, which happens many years in normal setups.

One can argue that normal setups are hideously out of touch with NFL reality when it comes to the value of the RB position. A 2nd QB via flex brings fantasy football closer in line with the NFL in that respect.

I don't prefer normal setups. You could argue that they're out of touch and I'd agree with you. I prefer a league format that fairly evaluates a player's impact to a game based on what is expected from the position. For me, that's a .5 PPR format with some scoring nuances, but again, it is personal preference.

#35 renesauz

renesauz

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12,073 posts
  • Joined 13-August 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth, Virginia
  • Interests:Rule #1 in my house: The TV belongs to everybody else UNLESS NFL Football or the World Cup Soccer is on..then it's mine, period.

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:47 PM

Position scarcity is just a little too tight for a 12 team league for my tastes. HOWEVER...I love the super-flex option, which allows a QB to be used as a flex. Since an average QB will outscore the average RB3/WR4/TE2...it ends up being a 2 QB league where you can sub in a RB or WR on a bye week. See the MOX leagues.
2007 BDSL Champ

#36 SelenaCat

SelenaCat

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 373 posts
  • Joined 31-May 04

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:49 PM

i know to go along with the super flex of any position we also have the 1 qb, 2 rb, 3 wr, 1 te, 1 d, 1 k and have 1 PPR for rb, 1.5 PPR for wr and 2 PPR for te. again, having the above really creates an interesting draft and levels all positions out pretty even.

Ah, yes, I suppose I should add that we have 1 point per receiving first down (on average, this works out to about 1/3 PPR for RB's, 1/2 PPR for TE's and 2/3 PPR for WR's, based on historical data). That does help the positions achieve a bit more parity.

#37 Gandalf

Gandalf

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1,858 posts
  • Joined 24-June 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:53 PM

To me 2 QBs seems unnatural. I play in a12 team league. That would mean 24 starting QBs. That means guess wrong with you QB2 or incur an injury and you are dead. You won't be able to find a backup.

#38 BigSteelThrill

BigSteelThrill

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15,246 posts
  • Joined 29-June 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:57 PM

16 teamer... every position is a priority already.

(Elizabeth Warren) "Paul Ryan says don't blame Wall Street: the guys who made billions of dollars cheating American families; don't blame decades of deregulation that took the cops off the beat while the big banks looted the American economy. Don't blame the Republican Secretary of the Treasury, and the Republican president who set in motion a no-strings-attached bailout for the biggest banks. Nope. Paul Ryan says keep the monies flowing to the powerful corporations, keep their huge tax breaks, keep the special deals for the too-big-to-fail banks and put the blame on hardworking, play-by-the-rules Americans who lost their jobs."

 

 

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward.

 

~Franklin D Roosevelt~


#39 JOBOOZOSO

JOBOOZOSO

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 748 posts
  • Joined 03-July 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northwest Jersey
  • Interests:FantasyLeagueGM.com is the ultimate free resource for Player News & Fantasy Articles/Advice.

    https://twitter.com/JOBOOZOSO

Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:02 PM

I've been in the same league for 20 years and it features some pretty antiquated rules, but one that I've always liked is that we start 2 QB's. I've joined other leagues over the years that feature the much more typical 1 qb/2 rb/3 wr set-up and they leave a lot to be desired for me. It just doesn't make sense that QB is the most important position on the field, yet they're significantly less valuable than RB's and WR's in fantasy football. Not only does starting 2 qb's add a lot more strategy to drafts and make them far less predictable, but it insures that almost every NFL starting QB has some value, as it should be. Is the 1 QB rule something people believe in because there's only 1 QB in a real NFL game? I just don't buy that line of reasoning. We're playing fantasy football, after all. I think we're all capable of making the necessary leaps. Would love to hear the arguments here. It's just never made sense to me and after trying both, I find a 2 QB much more challenging and interesting. I started a thread on this a long time ago but it never got off the ground. Hoping to hear more responses given that it's the off-season.

I like your logic - never looked at it that way. However, have you thought about 16-team league, 1 starting QB? That's what I've done for years. You'll find that if you don't own a strong QB (and a reliable backup) in 16-team league, you're dead meat.



 
Free Fantasy Football and Baseball Aggregator for Player News, Articles, Strategies, Advice, Sleepers, Rankings, Prospects, and Twitter

 

Follow the fantasy action at http://www.FantasyLeagueGM.com


#40 Agent575

Agent575

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 218 posts
  • Joined 22-August 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:15 PM

Our league went to a lot of trouble to have all the positions equal in the sense of scoring potential. We then have a ton of flexibility when it comes to rosters and lineups. For the QB position, it is 1-2 starting per week. In many leagues though, the QBs either far outweigh other positions or the opposite and that ruins this flex concept since if you understand math you would either have to start 2 or never start 2 depending which version we are talking. Oh, and IDP is the only way to play.
Always looking for very serious fantasy owners.
Roster Wars

Looking for custom graphics and/or custom MFL leagues?
myfantasygraphics.com

#41 sweetness34

sweetness34

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 321 posts
  • Joined 19-July 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:40 PM

I have an open mind, but I think that leagues that start 2 QBs and leagues where you play more than one opponent in a week should be illegal and commissioners should be arrested without bail.

Dang, I guess I'm headed for the clink. I commish our league and we have 2 flex positions (super-flex included) and we play D/H's every week. League loves it. :yes:

#42 hostile

hostile

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 681 posts
  • Joined 18-July 08

Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:35 PM

I play in a superflex dynasty. It's a shorter bench league (25 roster spots only), 12 team, PPR, start 1qb, 2rb, 3wr, 1te, 1qb/rb/wr/te, 1k, 1dst B/c of the shorter benches, its nearly impossible to hoard QBs b/c of the 3WR starting requirement. You *can* hoard them if you want, but it will hurt everywhere else. I usually carry 4QBs, maybe a 5th for a time, but usually 4. I carried 3 last year, and it was just too shallow once injuries started factoring in QB scoring is not adjusted down (standardish 4pt/TD, 1pt/25yrds). It makes things challenging to be sure, although its pretty funny that there are some guys who will constantly draft RBs and WRs as a priority all the time - that's just stupidity, imnsho. The team with 1.1 has no one at QB, and I'll put money down that TRich goes #1 overall, (1.1 has Matt Cassell and Caleb Hanie for QBs...) even though he has Foster, Mathews, and Charles...

#43 Greg Russell

Greg Russell

    Footballguy

  • Staff
  • Pip
  • 6,176 posts
  • Joined 11-April 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2012 - 08:49 PM

On the subject of hoarding... Hoarding is only a successful strategy when other owners in the league are not valuing a position properly. It doesn't matter position, it's the same for QB as it is for RB. Anyone who finds himself hurt by hoarding needs to realize the problem isn't the hoarder, the problem is his own valuation of positions and/or allocation of roster space. Early on in my FF career I had a league where up to 4 RBs could start via flex positions. Every year an owner filled all his required offensive positions before getting additional RBs. And every year at some point during the season he'd complain about how other owners were hoarding the RBs. Yet he never put 2 and 2 together, that if it was his perception his team was hurt by not having more RBs, that he should be drafting more and/or drafting them earlier. Same is true with QB. Hoarding is not a bad thing, nor is it a sign of a bad league setup. If owners valued the positions right, then hoarding is a losing strategy. Hoarded QBs won't make up for the losses an owner would take at other positions in order to acquire the extra QBs if everyone else is drafting QBs where their value dictates.

"When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is." - Oscar Wilde

Click to follow me on Twitter.

 


#44 sspunisher

sspunisher

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 890 posts
  • Joined 25-July 09

Posted 01 May 2012 - 03:31 AM

I think 2 QB leagues are better suited for 10 man leagues. Loved it the 1 time I tried it, but I'd probably switch the scoring to 4 points per passing TD if I ever did it again.

#45 Bayhawks

Bayhawks

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3,031 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03

Posted 01 May 2012 - 03:44 AM

I've been in the same league for 20 years and it features some pretty antiquated rules, but one that I've always liked is that we start 2 QB's. I've joined other leagues over the years that feature the much more typical 1 qb/2 rb/3 wr set-up and they leave a lot to be desired for me. It just doesn't make sense that QB is the most important position on the field, yet they're significantly less valuable than RB's and WR's in fantasy football. Not only does starting 2 qb's add a lot more strategy to drafts and make them far less predictable, but it insures that almost every NFL starting QB has some value, as it should be.

Is the 1 QB rule something people believe in because there's only 1 QB in a real NFL game? I just don't buy that line of reasoning. We're playing fantasy football, after all. I think we're all capable of making the necessary leaps.

Would love to hear the arguments here. It's just never made sense to me and after trying both, I find a 2 QB much more challenging and interesting.
I started a thread on this a long time ago but it never got off the ground. Hoping to hear more responses given that it's the off-season.

Based on what? (the bolded)

In my 12 team league, we roster 240 players. There are always some (bottom-end) QBs available on the WW, but only twice in the 15 years of the league has a team with a starting QB outside of the top-10 (end of year FF rankings) won the championship. On the other hand, it's more common for a team to win it all with cobbled together WR/RB corps.

QBs are plenty important in that start 1-QB league.

#46 SelenaCat

SelenaCat

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 373 posts
  • Joined 31-May 04

Posted 01 May 2012 - 03:59 AM

As I mentioned before, we play QB + Superflex in a 12-team league. Obviously this means that not everyone can have a starting backup QB, which is why having the Superflex option is so critical. In addition, if your scoring system is somewhat normalized amongst the positions (having PPR helps a ton, and 1/25 yards keeps QB's more reasonable), you can entertain non-QB strategies as well (though this works much better with an auction system rather than a straight draft). That said, I still think QB+Flex makes for a much better experience. In a 1 QB league, QB's are way undervalued. The fact that a QBBC can score as much as a top-5 QB by playing matchups makes it even less important to get a stud, and that takes some of the joy out of the position. But with the QB+Flex, Rodgers is every bit as valuable as an RB1, perhaps moreso, and that completely makes sense in terms of their NFL value as well. Yeah, it might not make 100% sense in terms of "what happens on the field," but neither does scoring points for yardage, or non-TD deceptions, or even having 2 RB's in some cases. It's all about what makes the league more challenging and fun for the owners. (Edit: As an aside, I will note that QB's are now starting to become more important in 1 QB leagues due to the larger gap between elite and non-elite players, but after those few players, they're all pretty interchangeable compared to a QBBC.)

Edited by SelenaCat, 01 May 2012 - 04:01 AM.


#47 Sabertooth

Sabertooth

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21,179 posts
  • Joined 06-May 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North of You

Posted 01 May 2012 - 04:22 AM

I like the format. I'm in a 2qb dynasty All-play format. There is hoarding. There are deep rosters also, because it is a 10-team setup.

#48 3nOut

3nOut

    Footballguy

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3,317 posts
  • Joined 14-April 03

Posted 01 May 2012 - 04:38 AM

I think every team should carry three punters as well and everyone should play each team every week. That would really even out the value of all players.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. - Abraham Lincoln

#49 Greg Russell

Greg Russell

    Footballguy

  • Staff
  • Pip
  • 6,176 posts
  • Joined 11-April 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 May 2012 - 07:48 AM


I've been in the same league for 20 years and it features some pretty antiquated rules, but one that I've always liked is that we start 2 QB's. I've joined other leagues over the years that feature the much more typical 1 qb/2 rb/3 wr set-up and they leave a lot to be desired for me. It just doesn't make sense that QB is the most important position on the field, yet they're significantly less valuable than RB's and WR's in fantasy football. Not only does starting 2 qb's add a lot more strategy to drafts and make them far less predictable, but it insures that almost every NFL starting QB has some value, as it should be.

Is the 1 QB rule something people believe in because there's only 1 QB in a real NFL game? I just don't buy that line of reasoning. We're playing fantasy football, after all. I think we're all capable of making the necessary leaps.

Would love to hear the arguments here. It's just never made sense to me and after trying both, I find a 2 QB much more challenging and interesting.
I started a thread on this a long time ago but it never got off the ground. Hoping to hear more responses given that it's the off-season.

Based on what? (the bolded)

In my 12 team league, we roster 240 players. There are always some (bottom-end) QBs available on the WW, but only twice in the 15 years of the league has a team with a starting QB outside of the top-10 (end of year FF rankings) won the championship. On the other hand, it's more common for a team to win it all with cobbled together WR/RB corps.

QBs are plenty important in that start 1-QB league.

That doesn't really address his statement. I would expect 80-90% of teams start a QB in the top 10, so it would reason that a similar percent of league champions would be starting a top ten QB just based on that alone.

A better way to put his statement to the test would be a VBD look at the value of QBs vs that of other positions. Another, based on perceived value instead of actual value, would be to look at actual drafts and see what positions get selected first. If RBs are overall being drafted ahead of QBs then RB is being perceived by your owners as being more valuable.

"When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is." - Oscar Wilde

Click to follow me on Twitter.

 


#50 Greg Russell

Greg Russell

    Footballguy

  • Staff
  • Pip
  • 6,176 posts
  • Joined 11-April 03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 May 2012 - 07:58 AM

I think every team should carry three punters as well and everyone should play each team every week. That would really even out the value of all players.

Though you're being sarcastic, punters are an excellent addition to fantasy football. Place kicker scoring can be pretty random in normal scoring systems since it is based mostly on being able to get into scoring range but not being good enough to get a lot of TDs. But punter scoring is very tied to the overall quality of an offense. Particularly if your punter scoring is just based on yards and doesn't include bonuses for inside the 20. If you're able to forecast the quality of offenses well, then you're generally able to predict punter overall scoring pretty well. It's disappointing that more leagues aren't willing to give them a try. They make a far better fantasy position than kickers do. It's a position where skill has a big chance to differentiate itself from luck.

"When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is." - Oscar Wilde

Click to follow me on Twitter.

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users