The smallish difference in expected production between QB 10 and QB 24 is such that it is difficult to pull the trigger on a QB early. While I suspect that BassNBrew probably overspent, he should have an advantage at QB over most, if not all other teams. The act of taking three QBs that early could force others to follow suit, leaving value for him at other positions. It is really difficult to be disciplined in 16-team drafts when the perception is that a position run is beginning, due to the potential disaster that a certain position could be completely plundered in between subsequent picks.
It sure makes these early survivors that much more interesting when someone attempts to force an issue by taking a substantial risk as he did.
My initial suspicion was that the advantage of 3 good-to-great QBs at a start-1 position would be marginal vs. having just 2. On a lark, I went back 3 years and looked at the weekly best-ball score for a pair of low-end top-10 QBs (I used each combination from QB5-QB9, so ten total), and the incremental benefit of adding a 3rd QB in the QB11-16 range to each of those pairs:
2016 - Range of 33-55 added points, average 40.9 (2.4 ppg)
2015 - Range of 25-81 added points, average 39.4 (2.3 ppg)
2014 - Range of 29-88 added points, average 39.8 (2.3 ppg)
That's ... pretty underwhelming, especially compared to the opportunity cost of that 7th-rounder.
As to the domino effect ... IMO that'll probably be pretty limited because this league format pretty narrowly constrains rosterable QB demand (I don't get penalized if my backup QB isn't a Week 1 starter, and if I like living on the wild side, I don't even need to draft one at all).
But enough from me! Let's get an opinion from someone with experience on the matter ...
I tried this last year with Brees/Newton/Kap and flamed out early.