Start 2 QB & Superflex Leagues: Discussion and Strategy thread

[Efritch4 68]

28 minutes ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

So for the first time ever in my 2QB league, I drew the 1.01 in this year's draft. 

Is it totally crazy to consider going Rodgers at 1 overall? Three factors to weigh:

1) It's 6-pt pass TD scoring, so the VBD of the top QBs will be at least as great as the top RBs or WRs (Wilson scored 453 points last season, vs. 265 for QB20, Mariota).

2) It's full-PPR, which together with the 2QB requirement would seem to make a zero-RB strategy almost trivially easy to pull off.

3) Historically, almost identical numbers of QB/RB/WR have gone in the first two rounds (last year it was 7/7/6). And A-Rod paired with AJ Green or Gordon at 20 just feels like a much better starting core than Gurley or AB plus, what, Wentz? Cousins?

In a nutshell: 2QB leagues obviously increase the value of stud QBs - but do they increase it that much?

How many teams in the league??

You can’t go wrong with taking A. Rod at 1, but I like what someone posted: 

For a 2QB or Superflex League:

RB1 > QB1 = WR1 > QB2 = RB2 > WR2.

Edited August 21, 2018 by Efritch4
Adding info

[Clark Griswold 0]

While I agree that RB1>QB1 in Superflex, especially with depth at QB this year,  does that apply to keepers? 12 team PPR 6 pts all TDs. Struggling with Watson or Kamara. 

[Arodin 3,083]

26 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

While I agree that RB1>QB1 in Superflex, especially with depth at QB this year,  does that apply to keepers? 12 team PPR 6 pts all TDs. Struggling with Watson or Kamara. 

Ask yourself...if you cut Watson to keep Kamara, what QB are you looking at being able to draft instead?  Compare to the RB you would replace Kamara with if you kept Watson.  

Knowing your leaguemates help here, since it requires making some predictions about who they will keep, vs. who will be available in your first round.

[dkp993 6,306]

5 hours ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

So for the first time ever in my 2QB league, I drew the 1.01 in this year's draft. 

Is it totally crazy to consider going Rodgers at 1 overall? Three factors to weigh:

1) It's 6-pt pass TD scoring, so the VBD of the top QBs will be at least as great as the top RBs or WRs (Wilson scored 453 points last season, vs. 265 for QB20, Mariota).

2) It's full-PPR, which together with the 2QB requirement would seem to make a zero-RB strategy almost trivially easy to pull off.

3) Historically, almost identical numbers of QB/RB/WR have gone in the first two rounds (last year it was 7/7/6). And A-Rod paired with AJ Green or Gordon at 20 just feels like a much better starting core than Gurley or AB plus, what, Wentz? Cousins?

In a nutshell: 2QB leagues obviously increase the value of stud QBs - but do they increase it that much?

Have played in superflex leagues for years.  In your example I take the Gurley-Wentz/Cousins pair 10 out of 10 times (an no my being a Rams fan has nothing to do with that sub Bell and the answer is still the same).  I still fade the QB’s just not as much as in standard leagues.  The depth at that position right now is stupid.  

[Dr. Tom Gordon 0]

Question for you guys...

I'm a huge fan of the superflex and really don't get how anyone would want to do the old standby, where all you do is pick RBs and WRs and can wait on nearly every other position, it makes for such a ridiculously lame draft, in my opinion.  I have a couple of guys in my 12 team league wanting to get out of the superflex, back to the very boring solo QB option.  This is what we've done the past two years:

12 team league  -  10 Starters - 6 on bench

1QB - 2RB - 2 WR - 1TE - 1K - 1DEF - 1 RB/WR/TE FLEX - 1 Superflex

4 pts QB TD, -2 INT, all other TD's 6 pts

We currently put a limit at two QBs per roster, so there are QB options on the waiver wire, if needed.  But it irritates them that they feel they're at a significant disadvantage when one of their QBs is on bye and their opponent has both their QB's and no backup RB or WR can match even a low-end starting QB.   I don't wanna increase the limit to 3 QBs as that would probably leave teams at a disadvantage as well, with only 32 starters and all.

So I did some brainstorming and thought, what if, we kept the QB limit at 2, but if you arrive at one of your QB's bye weeks, you can pick up a 3rd QB, but you have to get back down to 2 immediately after the week is completed.  Obviously you'd have to find someone on your bench to dump for that 3rd QB, if you choose to go that route.  Injuries are not an option, so if you have Aaron Rodgers and it sounds like he'll be out three weeks (and you're obviously not gonna dump him), you're simply gonna have to stick him on your bench and work with just 1 QB, for the time being.

Is that a sensible option or am I not taking something into the equation? 

[Chaka 6,241]

27 minutes ago, Dr. Tom Gordon said:

Question for you guys...

I'm a huge fan of the superflex and really don't get how anyone would want to do the old standby, where all you do is pick RBs and WRs and can wait on nearly every other position, it makes for such a ridiculously lame draft, in my opinion.  I have a couple of guys in my 12 team league wanting to get out of the superflex, back to the very boring solo QB option.  This is what we've done the past two years:

12 team league  -  10 Starters - 6 on bench

1QB - 2RB - 2 WR - 1TE - 1K - 1DEF - 1 RB/WR/TE FLEX - 1 Superflex

4 pts QB TD, -2 INT, all other TD's 6 pts

We currently put a limit at two QBs per roster, so there are QB options on the waiver wire, if needed.  But it irritates them that they feel they're at a significant disadvantage when one of their QBs is on bye and their opponent has both their QB's and no backup RB or WR can match even a low-end starting QB.   I don't wanna increase the limit to 3 QBs as that would probably leave teams at a disadvantage as well, with only 32 starters and all.

So I did some brainstorming and thought, what if, we kept the QB limit at 2, but if you arrive at one of your QB's bye weeks, you can pick up a 3rd QB, but you have to get back down to 2 immediately after the week is completed.  Obviously you'd have to find someone on your bench to dump for that 3rd QB, if you choose to go that route.  Injuries are not an option, so if you have Aaron Rodgers and it sounds like he'll be out three weeks (and you're obviously not gonna dump him), you're simply gonna have to stick him on your bench and work with just 1 QB, for the time being.

Is that a sensible option or am I not taking something into the equation? 

Just remove the two QB roster limit. It will promote trades. If someone wants to spend that draft capital on extra QBs they will be vulnerable at other positions. Trades will happen and trades make leagues more fun.

[Tommy Collins 272]

On 8/26/2018 at 5:21 PM, Chaka said:

Just remove the two QB roster limit. It will promote trades. If someone wants to spend that draft capital on extra QBs they will be vulnerable at other positions. Trades will happen and trades make leagues more fun.

Our league puts the roster limit at 3 QBs for a 2 QB 12 team league. It created more trading than when there was no roster limit.

[Manster 541]

On 8/26/2018 at 1:50 PM, Dr. Tom Gordon said:

Question for you guys...

I'm a huge fan of the superflex and really don't get how anyone would want to do the old standby, where all you do is pick RBs and WRs and can wait on nearly every other position, it makes for such a ridiculously lame draft, in my opinion.  I have a couple of guys in my 12 team league wanting to get out of the superflex, back to the very boring solo QB option.  This is what we've done the past two years:

12 team league  -  10 Starters - 6 on bench

1QB - 2RB - 2 WR - 1TE - 1K - 1DEF - 1 RB/WR/TE FLEX - 1 Superflex

4 pts QB TD, -2 INT, all other TD's 6 pts

We currently put a limit at two QBs per roster, so there are QB options on the waiver wire, if needed.  But it irritates them that they feel they're at a significant disadvantage when one of their QBs is on bye and their opponent has both their QB's and no backup RB or WR can match even a low-end starting QB.   I don't wanna increase the limit to 3 QBs as that would probably leave teams at a disadvantage as well, with only 32 starters and all.

So I did some brainstorming and thought, what if, we kept the QB limit at 2, but if you arrive at one of your QB's bye weeks, you can pick up a 3rd QB, but you have to get back down to 2 immediately after the week is completed.  Obviously you'd have to find someone on your bench to dump for that 3rd QB, if you choose to go that route.  Injuries are not an option, so if you have Aaron Rodgers and it sounds like he'll be out three weeks (and you're obviously not gonna dump him), you're simply gonna have to stick him on your bench and work with just 1 QB, for the time being.

Is that a sensible option or am I not taking something into the equation? 

It seems kinda lame to have a two QB roster limit in any league......it seems insane to have that in a league in which you can start two QB's......it'd be better to just have it regular flex if the two QB limit stays in place.

[Fariq 442]

 My 2018 super flex league is ready to go and there are spots available. One guy is taking the fantasy football season off because it is hard work. Others chose not to return when we increased the entry fee to $40.

For those reasons, there are spots available. This is not a keeper or dynasty league.

 

 

 https://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/f1/611792/invitation?key=1f1d72dc09af51cb&soc_trk=lnk&ikey=7e490ad3168d0a29

[Fariq 442]

You can talk the talk or walk the walk and join. Your choice.

[Joe Summer 8,561]

Out of curiosity......how often do you guys see starting QBs on the waiver wire?

My 12-team superflex league has Winston/Tannehill/Bortles/Josh Allen on the waiver wire. My gut tells me that one or more of these guys would be startable in a 12-team/2QB league, and therefore it would be worthwhile to pick one up as trade bait or to prevent someone else from starting him.

But I don't really need another QB (have Brees/Goff plus Foles).

Every starting RB is rostered, and almost every starting WR is rostered.

[Chaka 6,241]

11 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Out of curiosity......how often do you guys see starting QBs on the waiver wire?

My 12-team superflex league has Winston/Tannehill/Bortles/Josh Allen on the waiver wire. My gut tells me that one or more of these guys would be startable in a 12-team/2QB league, and therefore it would be worthwhile to pick one up as trade bait or to prevent someone else from starting him.

But I don't really need another QB (have Brees/Goff plus Foles).

Every starting RB is rostered, and almost every starting WR is rostered.

Drop Foles for Jameis.

Foles is not startable over Brees or Goff under any circumstance.  Fitzpatrick will eventually prove to be exactly who he has been for the past 13 years.  Winston has demonstrated that he can produce big games passing and rushing and I think he will always be asked to shoulder more of the offensive load certainly than Goff and possibly even more than Brees once Ingram comes back.

I also like Bortles more than Foles (dude is a good runner and that usually translates to bonus fantasy production from a QB).

[tangfoot 1,844]

1 hour ago, Chaka said:

Drop Foles for Jameis.

Agree completely.  And to address the question from OP, if I were in a 12-team superflex league, my goal would be to have 3 QBs who are starting for an NFL team, with the ideal goal of having two in the top 12-14 overall.  This gives you the flexibility to cover for your QB byes and still start two every week.

[Fariq 442]

Two 1-0 teams did not pay in my super flex league. If interested in paying $40 to run one of these teams the rest of the season, let me know.

[Flying Elvis 760]

@Joe Summer

Agree that Winston is a better hold than Foles... for any roster.

Personally, I'd add Allen if it's a dynasty but I'm guessing it is not or none of those starting QBs would be on the wire.

 

[Joe Summer 8,561]

It's not a dynasty league.

So what is the consensus in terms of rostering all 32 starting QBs? Do you guys typically see the 3rd-tier QBs freely available on waivers? Just trying to figure out a general strategy -- i.e., whether it's worth carrying 4 QBs instead of 4 RBs or 5 WRs, etc.

In my league, the #24 QB averaged about the same number of points as the #24 RB and the #24 WR. So if all positions are relatively equal, why not stock up on QBs? I kinda feel like I'd rather have Bortles or Tannehill than (for example) Jamaal Williams or Marlon Mack.

[Chaka 6,241]

18 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

It's not a dynasty league.

So what is the consensus in terms of rostering all 32 starting QBs? Do you guys typically see the 3rd-tier QBs freely available on waivers? Just trying to figure out a general strategy -- i.e., whether it's worth carrying 4 QBs instead of 4 RBs or 5 WRs, etc.

In my league, the #24 QB averaged about the same number of points as the #24 RB and the #24 WR. So if all positions are relatively equal, why not stock up on QBs? I kinda feel like I'd rather have Bortles or Tannehill than (for example) Jamaal Williams or Marlon Mack.

In a 12 team league in would expect to see all 32 starters and a couple backups rostered.

People often take a third QB "early" because they are good trade bait when the inevitable injury happens. That strategy can backfire but I have seen it pay off often enough that I think it is completely viable.

[Phenomena 331]

18 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

It's not a dynasty league.

So what is the consensus in terms of rostering all 32 starting QBs? Do you guys typically see the 3rd-tier QBs freely available on waivers? Just trying to figure out a general strategy -- i.e., whether it's worth carrying 4 QBs instead of 4 RBs or 5 WRs, etc.

In my league, the #24 QB averaged about the same number of points as the #24 RB and the #24 WR. So if all positions are relatively equal, why not stock up on QBs? I kinda feel like I'd rather have Bortles or Tannehill than (for example) Jamaal Williams or Marlon Mack.

Every starting QB is usually gone by round 10 in superflex drafts.  And a few backups will be drafted as well. 

QBs will score, on average, 5 points more than any player low enough on your bench to consider flexing. It's a huge difference. They are very valuable during bye-weeks or as either handcuffs or streaming options. Every one that can possibly play a game, even for a few weeks (Fitz, Foles) should be rostered.

 

Just don't take it to excess - we had one guy draft 4 starting QBs before round 10 (while also not filling all of his starting positions).  His logic was to use them as trade bait.  Unsurprisngly, he lost his first week by 80 points.

[Mr. Irrelevant 1,714]

18 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

Just trying to figure out a general strategy -- i.e., whether it's worth carrying 4 QBs instead of 4 RBs or 5 WRs, etc.

In my league, the #24 QB averaged about the same number of points as the #24 RB and the #24 WR. 

Based on just those two sentences alone, the answer to your question is "yes, absolutely, without a doubt".

As I've said before (probably earlier in this thread), I don't like 2QB leagues with QB-heavy scoring, because it just replaces one shortage (good full-time RBs) with another (good starting QBs). But if you're already in one, then absolutely, the best strategy is to load up on the position. I'd have drafted 4, ideally all before ~QB24 went off the board - whether that was in Round 6 or Round 13. You need the insurance because, unlike at any other position, it's genuinely impossible to get any points off the waiver wire to replace a bye-week or injured starter when all 32 starters are rostered - and you never want to be forced to make a trade with a gun to your head.

ETA: If QB24 is scoring as many gross points as RB24 / WR24, that's not necessarily a QB-heavy scoring format. In my superflex with 4-pt pass TDs, our QB24 last season still outscored RB24 by a fair margin. In that case I'd say you still want 4 reliable starters (for the reasons below), but you don't need to waste a bunch of early picks on them since the Mannings and Bortles of the world will give you as many points as an RB2 but can be had several rounds later.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Mr. Irrelevant

[Mr. Irrelevant 1,714]

4 minutes ago, Phenomena said:

Just don't take it to excess - we had one guy draft 4 starting QBs before round 10 (while also not filling all of his starting positions).  His logic was to use them as trade bait.  Unsurprisngly, he lost his first week by 80 points.

In Joe's scoring format, that's exactly what I'd probably do. I don't think it's excessive - I'm not playing to win week 1 in those situations.

My logic is there's still variability at the QB position outside the studs, just like at RB or WR. Every year 2-3 guys drafted in the top 10 flame out, and 2-3 guys drafted in the bottom half become QB1's. I don't draft 4 QBs assuming I'll be able to start any of the 4 all season, but because I assume I won't, so I don't have to worry about using the guy I miss on except in an emergency situation. If I hit on all 4, it's gravy, and I can make a mint back in trade from the poor guy who only drafted 2.

[Chaka 6,241]

On 9/13/2018 at 9:44 AM, Joe Summer said:

Out of curiosity......how often do you guys see starting QBs on the waiver wire?

My 12-team superflex league has Winston/Tannehill/Bortles/Josh Allen on the waiver wire. My gut tells me that one or more of these guys would be startable in a 12-team/2QB league, and therefore it would be worthwhile to pick one up as trade bait or to prevent someone else from starting him.

But I don't really need another QB (have Brees/Goff plus Foles).

Every starting RB is rostered, and almost every starting WR is rostered.

 

On 9/13/2018 at 9:59 AM, Chaka said:

Drop Foles for Jameis.

I also like Bortles more than Foles (dude is a good runner and that usually translates to bonus fantasy production from a QB).

Okay I may have been wrong about Fitz. Could be having a 2015 2.0 probably not but maybe.

Still like Bortles over Foles. Wentz will be the starter when healthy. No question about that.

[Faust 4,576]

BEST-BALL QB TIERS

[Faust 4,576]

Evaluating the fantasy landing spots of the top-drafted rookie quarterbacks

[Faust 4,576]

July 26, 2018:

Fantasy Football 2018: Why Your League Should Embrace the Superflex Format

[dipandglide 341]

I see Jones drop to the mid-late 2nd in my rookie drafts. That surely has to be a value at that point, right? 

[Bfrahm3 219]

1 hour ago, dipandglide said:

I see Jones drop to the mid-late 2nd in my rookie drafts. That surely has to be a value at that point, right? 

Very likely that he gets atleast 3 years as a starter, you have to wait a little for that to happen but yes I think it’s and easy to pick in mid-late second. 

[Bfrahm3 219]

My question because Lock is usually right there with him. Which one is the better pick?. I went Lock at 2.4 in my superflex and Jones went 2.5 right after. I haven’t researched either that much(and was back and forth on which one I wanted) but from what I gathered Lock has the higher upside which is why I picked him. I see Jones as more a Trubisky/Tannehill like guy who may be solid but isn’t really that stud QB.

[Ben & Jerry's 219]

Jones has a much clearer path to relevance. Lock has the tools to be an NFL starter but some feel Brett Rypien will get his shot at some point as well.

[krsone21 366]

[Mr. Irrelevant 1,714]

On 5/5/2019 at 7:33 PM, Bfrahm3 said:

My question because Lock is usually right there with him. Which one is the better pick?. I went Lock at 2.4 in my superflex and Jones went 2.5 right after. I haven’t researched either that much(and was back and forth on which one I wanted) but from what I gathered Lock has the higher upside which is why I picked him. I see Jones as more a Trubisky/Tannehill like guy who may be solid but isn’t really that stud QB.

I realize it's over and done with now, but I'd have taken Jones at 2.4 and then swung a trade to get 2.5 and picked up Lock there as well.

Both of these guys will almost certainly get some run as a starter (1.5-2 years worth) sooner rather than later. And even if both their ceilings are Dalton and Trubisky - replacement-level QBs that flash on occasion - that still has a ton of value in most SF formats. You never want to be the guy in a SF with just 2 viable QBs who loses one in Week 4 and has to either field an RB4 against every other team's QB2 for three months or give up a mint in-season to trade for the equivalent of, say, Dalton or Trubisky.

[Faust 4,576]

Deep quarterbacks to stash in dynasty fantasy leagues

[Hu-Tang Clan 362]

I'm in a dynasty startup that allows for starting 2QB and is also best ball. I've never done a best ball or super flex before, how does strategy change for this type of league (also 6/passing TD)?

[dkp993 6,306]

45 minutes ago, Hu-Tang Clan said:

I'm in a dynasty startup that allows for starting 2QB and is also best ball. I've never done a best ball or super flex before, how does strategy change for this type of league (also 6/passing TD)?

Never done a best ball superflex but have done both independently.  Bottom line is superflex brings QB’s back to the table.  In a non 2QB or superflex the correct play is to wait as long as possible (possibly even streaming the position via your WW) to get your QB.  In a superflex you are at a huge disadvantage if you don’t put a QB there.  This then requires you to have 2 decent QB options and thus requires you to draft them like any other position and not fade.  

I love this element, my main league has been a superflex for 5/6 yrs and no one in the league would even think of going back.   

[ZWK 1,911]

In a best ball superflex, every starting QB has significant value. You generally want to own 3 or even 4 starting QBs so that you can take advantage of the week-to-week best ball factor, but there aren't enough to go around. So when you're looking at QBs, you should be thinking about longevity at least as much as you're thinking about production.

Joe Flacco's career (10 years as a starter, but generally in the bottom half of the 32 fantasy QBs) is pretty valuable in that format. Of course, it's hard to see that kind of career coming in advance - the guys who start out producing at that level often have short Josh Freeman shaped careers.

[Faust 4,576]

Two-Round Superflex Dynasty Rookie Mock Draft (2019 Fantasy Football)

[Mr. Irrelevant 1,714]

On 5/20/2019 at 4:23 PM, Hu-Tang Clan said:

I'm in a dynasty startup that allows for starting 2QB and is also best ball. I've never done a best ball or super flex before, how does strategy change for this type of league (also 6/passing TD)?

In this format, I would probably draft QBs with my first 4 picks. I won’t explain my reasoning in depth right now, but I am not remotely joking.

[Biabreakable 4,724]

FWIW Daniel Jones won the 2QB poll at pick 1.10 and Drew Lock went right after him at 1.11 so they are about as close as they can get.

Both have won their polls before players such as Deebo Samuel, which personally I disagree with, so it goes 

Definitely not a reach to be taking these players around this part of the draft.

I think Lock was the better college QB of the two but Jones has draft position in his favor.

[Flying Elvis 760]

In my 12 team SF PPR rookie draft last week they were close, as well. 

3.06 Lock 

3.11 Jones

I was surprised to see them slide so far and was happy to grab Lock at 3.06 after trading up from 3.13. The deciding factor for me was the coaching they've had. Pretty consistent in notes that Lock lacked coaching with changes at his school, while Jones worked with a very highly regarded coach but still has delivery issues and holds the ball too long. (based on scouting reports)

While I find it tough to believe in any QB Elway picks, it's still more desirable than one Gettleman picks. 

EDIT: I also own Flacco, which made Lock more appealing. 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Flying Elvis

[Faust 4,576]

2019 Stat Predictions for Every Projected Starting NFL QB

[Faust 4,576]

Good article for Start 2 QB Leagues

Each NFL team’s backup quarterback right now, ranked by tier (SBNation)

[Faust 4,576]

Re-birth of Slash: NFL teams looking for the next Taysom Hill

[renesauz 2,907]

IN a startup now that I'm struggling a bit to fully wrap around. 32 team (two copies every player so equivalent to 16 team) superflex with both deep rosters (30 including a rookie practice squad) and deep lineups (12 starters), TE premium PPR, 6 pt TDs for all, distance AND production scoring bonuses.

Lucky me drew the #2 pick and snagged Mahomes. Fully expected to see 40 QBs go in rounds 1 and 2 based on the settings, but they didn't. The QB's fell much heavier in rounds 3 and so far in round 4. Halfway through round 4, about 20 QBs are fully gone (both copies). I took Cousins at the 2/3 turn. Struggling to decide whether to snag a low end starter at the 4/5 turn or go elsewhere. Hard to commit to a backup so early given such deep starting requirements but feel like every QB should be gone by then given the settings.

Guess what I'm saying is these unusual leagues can really test/stretch your strategy! And sitting on a turn with 32 folks drafting is rough...hard to take advantage of falling value, and stretching for a player can mean an awfully BIG stretch!

[Dan Hindery 340]

3 hours ago, renesauz said:

IN a startup now that I'm struggling a bit to fully wrap around. 32 team (two copies every player so equivalent to 16 team) superflex with both deep rosters (30 including a rookie practice squad) and deep lineups (12 starters), TE premium PPR, 6 pt TDs for all, distance AND production scoring bonuses.

Lucky me drew the #2 pick and snagged Mahomes. Fully expected to see 40 QBs go in rounds 1 and 2 based on the settings, but they didn't. The QB's fell much heavier in rounds 3 and so far in round 4. Halfway through round 4, about 20 QBs are fully gone (both copies). I took Cousins at the 2/3 turn. Struggling to decide whether to snag a low end starter at the 4/5 turn or go elsewhere. Hard to commit to a backup so early given such deep starting requirements but feel like every QB should be gone by then given the settings.

Guess what I'm saying is these unusual leagues can really test/stretch your strategy! And sitting on a turn with 32 folks drafting is rough...hard to take advantage of falling value, and stretching for a player can mean an awfully BIG stretch!

In my experience, QBs do end up being very valuable in 16-team super flex. Big difference even compared to a 12 or 14 team superflex leagues because the supply and demand dynamic on the trade market is majorly impacted. There will end up being a few teams by next season who will be stuck with only one starter. And very few teams with 3. And some of those with 3, it might be like Drew Brees or somebody as one of them, so they won't want to move their #3 and hurt themselves long term. 

So yeah, I think you'd do well to snag one at the 4/5 turn if there is somebody decent and relatively young still available.

[Mr. Irrelevant 1,714]

4 hours ago, renesauz said:

IN a startup now that I'm struggling a bit to fully wrap around. 32 team (two copies every player so equivalent to 16 team) superflex with both deep rosters (30 including a rookie practice squad) and deep lineups (12 starters), TE premium PPR, 6 pt TDs for all, distance AND production scoring bonuses.

Lucky me drew the #2 pick and snagged Mahomes. Fully expected to see 40 QBs go in rounds 1 and 2 based on the settings, but they didn't. The QB's fell much heavier in rounds 3 and so far in round 4. Halfway through round 4, about 20 QBs are fully gone (both copies). I took Cousins at the 2/3 turn. Struggling to decide whether to snag a low end starter at the 4/5 turn or go elsewhere. Hard to commit to a backup so early given such deep starting requirements but feel like every QB should be gone by then given the settings.

I'll second Dan's advice - I wouldn't grab just any "low-end starter" at the 4/5 turn, but as you have the luxury of two every-week starters already, if someone young with upside is still on the board, absolutely. Darnold / Allen / Jackson would be no-brainers (although I have to imagine they'd all be gone). Rosen or Carr would probably be worth a stab. I might even be tempted to throw a dart at Haskins or Lock there even though I'm not that high on either - just because even if they're 80% likely to bust, their career VBD in that other 20% of cases will dwarf anyone else you could hope to land in that spot.

[renesauz 2,907]

10 hours ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

I'll second Dan's advice - I wouldn't grab just any "low-end starter" at the 4/5 turn, but as you have the luxury of two every-week starters already, if someone young with upside is still on the board, absolutely. Darnold / Allen / Jackson would be no-brainers (although I have to imagine they'd all be gone). Rosen or Carr would probably be worth a stab. I might even be tempted to throw a dart at Haskins or Lock there even though I'm not that high on either - just because even if they're 80% likely to bust, their career VBD in that other 20% of cases will dwarf anyone else you could hope to land in that spot.

Lock, Foles, Jones, Rosen are the quality of the ones left...not very inspiring...Brady and Brees (1) there too though. hard to pull trigger on another with only ONE other position player in the fold though. Just an odd feeling.

Edited June 4, 2019 by renesauz

[Mr. Irrelevant 1,714]

28 minutes ago, renesauz said:

Lock, Foles, Jones, Rosen are the quality of the ones left...not very inspiring...Brady and Brees (1) there too though. hard to pull trigger on another with only ONE other position player in the fold though. Just an odd feeling.

Count me among the foolish optimists, maybe, but I think Rosen's gotten written off way too soon. His fantasy advantage in this spot vs. a true rookie like Haskins is that you should have a  handle on his likely career arc a year sooner. 

I wouldn't worry at all about leaving yourself holes elsewhere. With lineups as large as you note depth is almost as important as top-end talent, and QB is the only position where depth simply doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. By contrast, you can acquire current-year RB2/WR3 production at comically low prices in any dynasty startup - even more so in a SF with TE premium scoring I would imagine.

[renesauz 2,907]

Would tend to agree. Rosen was gone though.

Lot of fun and a nice challenge to do a league like this. Keep in mind the rosters are big enough there'll be nothing viable on the wire either at any position

Edited June 4, 2019 by renesauz

[wlwiles 869]

Looking at converting my 12 team, start 1QB league to a superflex this coming season. General question about superflex leagues, and I don’t mean to make this an AC type question: 

Should I be looking at expanding bench size by 1-2 players to account for all the extra QBs needing to be rostered? Right now probably only half the teams roster more than 1 QB (~18 total).  But in a superflex I’m assuming every starting QB will be rostered, if not more. Do you guys find the challenge of managing it with the standard 5-6 bench slots better, or absolutely gotta increase it? 

Edited June 4, 2019 by wlwiles

[renesauz 2,907]

4 hours ago, wlwiles said:

Looking at converting my 12 team, start 1QB league to a superflex this coming season. General question about superflex leagues, and I don’t mean to make this an AC type question: 

Should I be looking at expanding bench size by 1-2 players to account for all the extra QBs needing to be rostered? Right now probably only half the teams roster more than 1 QB (~18 total).  But in a superflex I’m assuming every starting QB will be rostered, if not more. Do you guys find the challenge of managing it with the standard 5-6 bench slots better, or absolutely gotta increase it? 

This is a redraft? No dynasty has benches that small (nor should it!)

Guess it depends on whether you're adding another "starter" to the lineup (IE: starting 9 or 10 instead of 8 or 9)

[Ben & Jerry's 219]

On 5/23/2019 at 2:17 PM, Flying Elvis said:

In my 12 team SF PPR rookie draft last week they were close, as well. 

3.06 Lock 

3.11 Jones

I was surprised to see them slide so far and was happy to grab Lock at 3.06 after trading up from 3.13. The deciding factor for me was the coaching they've had. Pretty consistent in notes that Lock lacked coaching with changes at his school, while Jones worked with a very highly regarded coach but still has delivery issues and holds the ball too long. (based on scouting reports)

While I find it tough to believe in any QB Elway picks, it's still more desirable than one Gettleman picks. 

EDIT: I also own Flacco, which made Lock more appealing. 

I would make sure and add Brett Rypien as well. He will get a shot in Denver too.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Ben & Jerry's