Carter_Can_Fly
Footballguy
In a league where you start 2 QB's does a stud qb like Manning gain or lose value????
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Start 2 QB leagues..........question inside.... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Carter_Can_Fly
- Start date
KellysHeroes
Footballguy
The stud's value don't change... its the Mid-tier guys go up alot...Carter_Can_Fly said:
Carter_Can_Fly
Footballguy
So do you not take Manning as early in a 2 qb leauge system as you can take 2 mid-tier guys that could possibly out perform Manning and whoever else you pair him with as opposed to a single qb system where Manning is definitely going to out perform the mid-tier guys.I am having trouble doing my rankings for Manning in a dynasty draft where you start 2 QB's.
KellysHeroes
Footballguy
6 pt passing TDs: Manning should be a top 8 player taken, Palmer should be a gone be #20 pick, Brady/Bulger/Brees should be gone by the 4th or 5th in any format.Now the difference in 2 QB leagues is that QBs like McNabb/Hass/Eli/Vick/Romo and the other Mid-Tier QBs are taken about 2 rounds earlier than they would in a 1 QB league.The later Tier (like #15 and lower) are taken much higher than normally; maybe even 5 rounds earlier.In a 2 QB league.. 3 decent QBs are just as important as 3 decent RB options.
Last edited by a moderator:
Riffraff
Footballguy
Yes, Manning is worth more than usual in a 2QB league. Some could argue he's top 5 in that format.
In a start 2 QB league, PManning is virtually untradable as he's too valuable.
In any format, studs are more valuable than committee players.
In a start 2 QB system, try to grab three QBs that have the faith of their team (no one looking over their shoulder) and a decent system. Third QB is your developmental QB Smith/Losman/Cutler.
You don't want to be the owner that waits on QBs and has to decide who to start (two of) Delhomme, Simms, and Pennington each week.
In a start 2 QB league, PManning is virtually untradable as he's too valuable.
In any format, studs are more valuable than committee players.
In a start 2 QB system, try to grab three QBs that have the faith of their team (no one looking over their shoulder) and a decent system. Third QB is your developmental QB Smith/Losman/Cutler.
You don't want to be the owner that waits on QBs and has to decide who to start (two of) Delhomme, Simms, and Pennington each week.
Last edited by a moderator:
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
Why are you worrying about it...you have no shot at Manning at your pick anyways.
-OZ-
Footballguy
It's a simple matter of supply and demand, IMO all QBs become more valuable, but the difference is largest past the studs.
What value really do the QBs in the #13-24 tier have in most leagues? Sure it's nice to have a backup, but not really needed if you have a stud. Now, they start in this format, and you only have 8 backups available (24 start, 32 QBs in the NFL...)
It's similar to why RBs are more valuable than WRs in most leagues.
What value really do the QBs in the #13-24 tier have in most leagues? Sure it's nice to have a backup, but not really needed if you have a stud. Now, they start in this format, and you only have 8 backups available (24 start, 32 QBs in the NFL...)
It's similar to why RBs are more valuable than WRs in most leagues.
Carter_Can_Fly
Footballguy
He may slip to the 10 spot. I am trying to get a gauge on his worth in this system.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
There's a lot of misinformation in this thread.
For starters, your opinion on Manning is very important. You can't just say "Manning is awesome", because in regular leagues, he's ranked 30th, 2nd, 34th and 4th the last four years. Those are significant differences. If we were to do a 2006 draft all over again, Manning would be a top five pick (actually, he'd be pick 4).
Manning's value jumps up a ton in 2-QB leagues. He'd be the number two pick in a 2006 re-draft, in a 2-QB league.
In 2005, Carson Palmer ranked 20th overall by VBD in 1-QB leagues. If it were a 2-QB league, he'd rank third. That's an enormous upgrade.
Your stud QBs benefit a ton in this system. Depending on your thoughts about Manning's ability for the next five years, he's easily worth a top four pick in a start-2-QB dynasty league.
For starters, your opinion on Manning is very important. You can't just say "Manning is awesome", because in regular leagues, he's ranked 30th, 2nd, 34th and 4th the last four years. Those are significant differences. If we were to do a 2006 draft all over again, Manning would be a top five pick (actually, he'd be pick 4).
Manning's value jumps up a ton in 2-QB leagues. He'd be the number two pick in a 2006 re-draft, in a 2-QB league.
In 2005, Carson Palmer ranked 20th overall by VBD in 1-QB leagues. If it were a 2-QB league, he'd rank third. That's an enormous upgrade.
Your stud QBs benefit a ton in this system. Depending on your thoughts about Manning's ability for the next five years, he's easily worth a top four pick in a start-2-QB dynasty league.
Carter_Can_Fly
Footballguy
thanks.
Depends on the scoring set up and the league dynamics.
We have our scoring set up where the basically 2qbs=2rbs=3wrs/te, that was the goal during the setup. IMO this makes the draft more interesting (for redraft leagues) because you can actually use different strategies (not just rb-rb-rb) and be routinely succesful from year to year. There is no advantage drafting 3 straigh rbs, because you will be stuck with Frye and Carr starting every week and have Grossman as your other guy on the bench.
So Qbs & Rbs are worth the same, we will be basically split on qbs vs rbs drafted and maybe the first 1or2 wrs gone.
We have our scoring set up where the basically 2qbs=2rbs=3wrs/te, that was the goal during the setup. IMO this makes the draft more interesting (for redraft leagues) because you can actually use different strategies (not just rb-rb-rb) and be routinely succesful from year to year. There is no advantage drafting 3 straigh rbs, because you will be stuck with Frye and Carr starting every week and have Grossman as your other guy on the bench.
So Qbs & Rbs are worth the same, we will be basically split on qbs vs rbs drafted and maybe the first 1or2 wrs gone.
jeter23
Footballguy
In a startup dyansty draft held last offseason, I took Manning 4th overall. We start 2 QBs, plus they get 6 points per TD. In the 2nd, I took a RB (McGahee) and then was shocked when my 3rd rounder cam and Palmer was still available. I grabbed him and now have the top 2 dynasty QBs. I ws actually wondering if all owners were aware of the scoring/lineups.
Here is my current team-
QB (2) Manning, Palmer, Frye, Harrington
RB (2-3) Benson, McGahee, MJD, Maroney, Turner, Norwood, Betts
WR (3-4) Evans, AJ, Jennings, Ma Clayton, Bruce, Edwards, M Jones
TE (1-2) Daniels
Here is my current team-
QB (2) Manning, Palmer, Frye, Harrington
RB (2-3) Benson, McGahee, MJD, Maroney, Turner, Norwood, Betts
WR (3-4) Evans, AJ, Jennings, Ma Clayton, Bruce, Edwards, M Jones
TE (1-2) Daniels
wannabee
Footballguy
WOW! I like this team.
Dirty Weasel
Footballguy
The answer to the question - Are stud QB's more or less valuable in a start 2QB league - can be answered mathematically. I suggest you do a search on VBD (value based drafting). Basically, VBD is a mathematical formula that incorporates your leagues starting requirements along with your leagues scoring rules. Once those numbers are input, you can then determine which players are more valuable than others. The formula even rates players from each positon against all other positions. Since it's the offseason, maybe you can take some time now to plug last year's stats into the VBD formula. In the end, you will have a list like this:
1) RB1
2) RB2
3) QB1
4) RB3
5) RB4
6) TE1
7) WR1
8) QB2
9) RB5
10) D1
The above list (just a sample) would mean that the top TE in your league's scoring rules and starting requirements was actually the 6th most valuable player in your league. Now here comes the fun part - if you had a crystal ball and could determine the final stats before the season even started, would you draft the top TE with the 6th overall pick? I hope you said no, because he will still be available for you in round 2 (and probably in round 3 too). Even using the VBD formula, you still have to remember one simple rule - do not draft any player any earlier than you have to. Good luck and happy drafting!
P.S. Once you get the theory of VBD down, then move on to DVBD (dynamic value based drafting). It's basically the same as VBD, but it attempts to recalculate player values from round to round, based on what players have already been drafted.
1) RB1
2) RB2
3) QB1
4) RB3
5) RB4
6) TE1
7) WR1
8) QB2
9) RB5
10) D1
The above list (just a sample) would mean that the top TE in your league's scoring rules and starting requirements was actually the 6th most valuable player in your league. Now here comes the fun part - if you had a crystal ball and could determine the final stats before the season even started, would you draft the top TE with the 6th overall pick? I hope you said no, because he will still be available for you in round 2 (and probably in round 3 too). Even using the VBD formula, you still have to remember one simple rule - do not draft any player any earlier than you have to. Good luck and happy drafting!
P.S. Once you get the theory of VBD down, then move on to DVBD (dynamic value based drafting). It's basically the same as VBD, but it attempts to recalculate player values from round to round, based on what players have already been drafted.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
If you had a crystal ball and could determine the final stats before the season started, you would draft the top TE with the 6th overall pick, assuming the top 4 RBs and top QB were gone.
KellysHeroes
Footballguy
1) RB1
2) RB2
3) QB1
4) WR1
5) RB3
6) QB2
7) WR2
8) TE1
9) RB4
10) QB3
That would be my goal
2) RB2
3) QB1
4) WR1
5) RB3
6) QB2
7) WR2
8) TE1
9) RB4
10) QB3
That would be my goal
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Even if you are the only one with the crystal ball, Gates should be your first round pick.
-OZ-
Footballguy
I disagree, but only because I've never seen a TE taken in the first two rounds of a redraft and the main redrafts I play in are local, most don't use VBD. Accordingly, I don't use a pure VBD. I would end up with RB5 and TE1 in the first two rounds. If I were playing in a high stakes league or one with at least a few other FBG's, you may be right.
Bottom line - different plans for different leagues.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
It's more than that. If you follow VBD, you're sure to win. You may not win by as much as you could have before, but you are guaranteed to win. If you don't follow VBD, you might score more points on average, but could potentially lose. Taking the highest ranked VBD player every time would be the money move, with only a few small exceptions.And RB5 might also be available in the second round.
Nate
Footballguy
I think a lot of people in this thread are understating how important QBs are in start 2 QB leagues. Keep in mind:
- QBs lose less games to injury
- QBs play every down
- QBs are generally more consistent than any other position
- Maximum 32 QBs are expected to play each week, usually less due to byes
- Tomlinson was a special case this year, but after him, almost all QBs outscore RBs at equivalent rank over the season (in almost any scoring system)
The top 3 picks or so should be RBs most years but from that point on QBs are worth more than RBs of the same rank.
Last season this was especially true at the early-mid rounds. The difference between QBs 10-20 and RBs 10-20 were dramatic. Take those extra points plus the increased rarity of starting QBs and I think there's no question that QBs are worth significantly more than RBs in start 2QB leagues.
Lucky for me, only a few others in my league have really figured this out
- QBs lose less games to injury
- QBs play every down
- QBs are generally more consistent than any other position
- Maximum 32 QBs are expected to play each week, usually less due to byes
- Tomlinson was a special case this year, but after him, almost all QBs outscore RBs at equivalent rank over the season (in almost any scoring system)
The top 3 picks or so should be RBs most years but from that point on QBs are worth more than RBs of the same rank.
Last season this was especially true at the early-mid rounds. The difference between QBs 10-20 and RBs 10-20 were dramatic. Take those extra points plus the increased rarity of starting QBs and I think there's no question that QBs are worth significantly more than RBs in start 2QB leagues.
Lucky for me, only a few others in my league have really figured this out
CalBear
Footballguy
I don't agree with this on its face. To take a scenario, you're picking in the first round, and have TE1 with a VBD of 100, and your second-highest VBD player is RB7 with a VBD of 90. You think TE1 will probably last to your second pick, so if you take RB7 and then get TE1, your expected VBD for your first two picks is 190. But maybe someone snarfs TE1 ahead of you and you're stuck with another player--for symmetry's sake, let's say it's TE2 at VBD 80, giving you 170 VBD points for your first two picks. You lost 20 points for your gamble. In this scenario, you should take RB7 with your first pick if the probability of TE1 lasting to your second pick is at least 90%.Chase Stuart said:
CalBear
Footballguy
Another reason QBs in start-2 leagues are underrated is that the projections are screwed up for low-ranked QBs. If you look at the beginning-of-year projections for WR, RB, and QB, you'll find that the baseline numbers for WR and RB (the projections for WR24 and RB24) are reasonably close to historical norms for those slots. The projections for QB24 are wildly off from historical norms. In 2006, FBG projected the #24 QB to score 221 points; the actual QB24 scored 176. For RB24, Dodds projected 149 points, actual turned out to be 161, and for WR24 he projected 131 and the actual WR24 scored 131. So looking only at VBD stats based on Dodds' projections, in a start-2-QB league the VBD for QBs was understated by over 60 points relative to RBs. This kind of discrepancy is consistent and pervasive; you must bump up the VBD numbers for your QBs if you're using DD or VBD-based cheatsheets during your draft. (Incidentally, this also happens with start-1-QB leagues; QB12 is fairly consistently over-projected relative to RB24 and WR24. In 2006, the discrepancy was about 20 points to WRs and 40 to RBs).Nate said:I think a lot of people in this thread are understating how important QBs are in start 2 QB leagues. Keep in mind:
- QBs lose less games to injury
- QBs play every down
- QBs are generally more consistent than any other position
- Maximum 32 QBs are expected to play each week, usually less due to byes
- Tomlinson was a special case this year, but after him, almost all QBs outscore RBs at equivalent rank over the season (in almost any scoring system)
The top 3 picks or so should be RBs most years but from that point on QBs are worth more than RBs of the same rank.
Last season this was especially true at the early-mid rounds. The difference between QBs 10-20 and RBs 10-20 were dramatic. Take those extra points plus the increased rarity of starting QBs and I think there's no question that QBs are worth significantly more than RBs in start 2QB leagues.
Lucky for me, only a few others in my league have really figured this out
Last edited by a moderator:
