Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jedi Knight

2QB league players, I have questions.

22 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Hey guys,

We have a league (10-team, IDP) that has been going for over 25 years with multiple very long-term players as well as some new ones.  The question has been asked to switch to a 2QB format instead of the traditional "start 1".  Of course, some of the long-termers are being resistant and are bringing up some valid points.  So, I thought I would ask those of you who actually play it:

1- Do you enjoy it?  How does it make FF better?
2- Are there points where someone has to take a zero in the second QB spot due to injuries, byes, etc... with any regularity, or is this rare?
3- What is the impact in trading?  Do QB's command a higher price?
4- How does it impact the draft?
5- What other thoughts, advice, etc... would you have?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Edited by Jedi Knight
mis-spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy it.  The point of it is to make QBs more valuable than they typically are in standard 1 QB leagues, so the answers to most of these questions is pretty straightforward.

1- How does it make FF better?  It makes QBs more valuable.  Whether or not that's "better" is subjective and up to you and your leaguemates.
2- Are there points where someone has to take a zero in the second QB spot due to injuries, byes, etc... with any regularity, or is this rare?  Hasn't been a problem for my league, there are 32 starting NFL QBs so in a 10 team league it really shouldn't be a regular problem unless owners really mismanage things. 
3- What is the impact in trading?  Do QB's command a higher price?  Yes.
4- How does it impact the draft?  QBs go earlier. 
 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also enjoy it and it does make QB's more valuable. However my league is just a super flex as we aren't required to start 2 QB's. QB is just included as a flex, but since QB generally scores more than other positions, most of the teams start 2 QB's.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, tex said:

I also enjoy it and it does make QB's more valuable. However my league is just a super flex as we aren't required to start 2 QB's. QB is just included as a flex, but since QB generally scores more than other positions, most of the teams start 2 QB's.

I don't play I  any 2 QB or superflex leagues but a superflex position instead of a second QB eliminates the fear/argument about taking a zero in that spot.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I won’t play any league that doesn’t functionally put a QB at least on par with the other positions, so that usually means 2QB leagues. Everyone is entitled to their preferences, of course, but it’s very clear to me that it’s the much better format.  The RB-dominated leagues tend to get pretty stale.  

 

QB is the most important position on the field, so leagues that calibrate value more in line with real life tend to attract me more than leagues where 15of the top 20picks are RB.

Edited by cobalt_27
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jedi Knight said:

Hey guys,

We have a league (10-team, IDP) that has been going for over 25 years with multiple very long-term players as well as some new ones.  The question has been asked to switch to a 2QB format instead of the traditional "start 1".  Of course, some of the long-termers are being resistant and are bringing up some valid points.  So, I thought I would ask those of you who actually play it:

1- Do you enjoy it?  How does it make FF better?
2- Are there points where someone has to take a zero in the second QB spot due to injuries, byes, etc... with any regularity, or is this rare?
3- What is the impact in trading?  Do QB's command a higher price?
4- How does it impact the draft?
5- What other thoughts, advice, etc... would you have?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Every dynasty league I had up until last year was 2QB and 10team.  So let me answer all your questions.

1.  Yes I enjoy it a ton.  Especially 10 team, it usually isn't a problem after a couple years for EVERY team to have at least 3QB's along with a stash or two depending on how heavy they want to go.  

2.  Like I said, after an adjustment period of when we had our startup, there were spots that people had to take a 0 due to injuries, but the last 4+ years have been smooth sailing for that.  We have a rule in place for empty lineups cost us draft picks so nobody intentionally puts a 0 down and people plan well ahead of time to make sure they can cover.  And in dyer situations, people will trade for a bottom of the barrel QB to start last minute if need be.

3 & 4.  That leads me into this answer.  QB's definitely command a higher price, 10 team is a little lighter than 12 team, but the impact is relatively the same.  Everyone needs a QB.  Value wise, in rookie drafts the really good ones will go 1.01-1.03 (Andrew Luck types), the ones we think are going to be really good go around 1.05-1.08 usually (Wentz, Winston, those types).  

5.  I would add some rules in place to make sure you are always rostering at least 2 QB's, this will avoid some 0's (probably not all), but don't cap it.  A minimum would be great, but a limit would be tragic I feel.  Other than that it's just a slightly different way of looking at fantasy football.  If the league has played for 25+ years, I doubt the fantasy football thoughts stop, it's just a little bit adjusted to the new format. 

I highly recommend it, since QB's are so easy to find in 1QB leagues.  Everybody and their mother knows that streaming QB's is what you SHOULD do, not everyone does it but you get my point.  2QB is a way to even the market out a bit same as PPR was when it was first introduced.  

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I like 2 QBs but my preferred way to implement it is to have the second 2nd QB slot be a flex spot.  In most scoring systems the group of QB2s will tend to outscore RB3s and WR4s.  So it ends up essentially being a QB most of the time.  But no one is ever in the situation of having to take a zero for it.

It does make the QBs more valuable... bringing things a little closer to the NFL's notions of positional values, but I don't think it over does it either.

Edited by GregR
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quarterback is the most important position on a football team.

But in most fantasy leagues, it's often the 2nd, 3rd or 4th most important position. It's not uncommon to see TOP-10 quarterbacks on the waiver wire. People can stream quarterbacks like they stream kickers or defenses! That's wrong.

2QB solves all those issues.

I agree with those who suggest making it a flex position. If your'e concerned about someone being able to start an extra RB, then just make it a QB/WR/TE flex spot.

You'll never want to go back.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

Quarterback is the most important position on a football team.

But in most fantasy leagues, it's often the 2nd, 3rd or 4th most important position. It's not uncommon to see TOP-10 quarterbacks on the waiver wire. People can stream quarterbacks like they stream kickers or defenses! That's wrong.

2QB solves all those issues.

I agree with those who suggest making it a flex position. If your'e concerned about someone being able to start an extra RB, then just make it a QB/WR/TE flex spot.

You'll never want to go back.

This.  Making a fantasy football league that better mimics the importance of the QB position is a good thing.  (I play in a 2 QB league).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't really see how moving to two QB via ten Team League is much of a big deal  Imagine your League has good continuity!  The only question being any possibility of expanding the League  Because 12 teams would need 36 QB's to have a chance to cover bye's, suspensions, injury etc. not to mention matchups  The fact is that Teams will sometimes carry backups who get traded for starting gigs  Whatever the reason draft or otherwise a few Teams may wind up with four starters while some may be scraping by not really competing depending upon scoring  The costs could almost be compared to trading a Top five WR for not even a Top 12 TE in order to fill a slot  Imagine we could discuss such things as ability or liability to not starting a full lineup  However, it's probably best to just say the League works best if everyone truly hopes to see it competitive  A rule which has helped in our League involves a roster limit to start the Season of limiting starters to three w/ one allowed backup until the new Season begins with the Rookie (FA) draft

Overall the biggest change may involve bye weeks...   In the past, you may have been able to find a WW QB to fill in for a week  But let's say you couldn't and so you multiply that by two  Second challenge would be scoring  If the League awards bonus for yardage and such things as negative points for interceptions it can lead to interesting scores but also some complacency in that a goose-egg could have been better  League already have any special rules about leaving a starting spot vacant?  Because it may not only be tough to fill  It's almost ludicrous to start a player who may only throw for 150 yd's but quite likely to throw a few picks which leads to a negative score (something to consider even at ten Teams)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does it make FF better?

It can somewhat level the playing field while also increasing risk/reward  Lets say the toilet bowl winner gets to pick SB  It's a no brainer right  Aside from the fact that WR's have a longer shelf life and QB's even more so   Not to mention the fact that for example just a few Seasons ago there probably was no fool willing to trade TB12 even for the Greatest NFL RB playing even if you throw in a good WR  Okay so now most Dynasty players understand the value of WR1 players because they provide the backbone of year in year out contenders  These managers do not get such no-brainer picks  That leaves us with the group drafting in between these Teams  Guys who in recent years were maybe able to land the likes of Mike Evans  Or maybe there fortunate enough to draft Guice this Season  But now we're really cooking with grease!  We have players like Baker Mayfield available in the draft who may be destined to start soon at the most prized position for scoring  (Of course aside from the fact of some RB weekly matchup throughout the year)  But its not just Mayfield or I should say it may not even be Mayfield  It's also and/or could be Sam Darnold  IF you think its risky hedging bets on Rookie WR's just wait until you throw QB's in the mix  Bottom line I could more or less draft a guy like Lamar Jackson with the last pick in the 1st round who could potentially start the first day or maybe even never see the field except in a blowout  (I dunno maybe he just doesn't make the adjustment to playing at NFL speeds) But can you imagine if he hits?  Hell I may not even need a QB but there's probably a reason the SB owner exists  The fact is he would probably jump up and down if I started talking about my RB4 or 5 

Sadly I'm not for sure why some are mentioning "super flex"  It seems more a reward for coveting backs than any real risk involved or hard decisions to make  Two QB is the real deal and its Raw brother!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2018 at 8:32 PM, Jedi Knight said:

5- What other thoughts, advice, etc... would you have?

Make sure you tweak the QB scoring downward. You want the VBD between the top 2 or 3 options at the position and the borderline starters (the guys in the 18-22 range) to be roughly equal to that of RBs or WRs. With 6-pt pass TDs and 1-pt per 20 yards, for example, that VBD averages about twice as much for QBs, and within a couple of years you'll wind up with a draft where QBs are 8 of the first 10 picks and Andy Dalton goes 34th overall (which is what happened last season in one such league I'm in).

My neighborhood league is a 10-team 2QB and I've found that 4 pts / pass TD, -2 / INT, and 1 pt / 25 pass yards strikes about the right balance. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 7:32 PM, Jedi Knight said:

Hey guys,

We have a league (10-team, IDP) that has been going for over 25 years with multiple very long-term players as well as some new ones.  The question has been asked to switch to a 2QB format instead of the traditional "start 1".  Of course, some of the long-termers are being resistant and are bringing up some valid points.  So, I thought I would ask those of you who actually play it:

1- Do you enjoy it?  How does it make FF better?
2- Are there points where someone has to take a zero in the second QB spot due to injuries, byes, etc... with any regularity, or is this rare?
3- What is the impact in trading?  Do QB's command a higher price?
4- How does it impact the draft?
5- What other thoughts, advice, etc... would you have?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

1- Yes, but I prefer a superflex, where you want to start 2QBs but don't get stuck with a zero due to injuries and/or bye weeks.  I think it makes your draft much more strategic.  In my 10 team superflex, QBs get drafted much earlier than a 1 QB league, and you can get someone going with a stud QB strategy and take 2 stud QBs out of the gate.

2 - no problem if you go superflex. 

3- absolutely.  QBs are hot commodities in superflex/2QB leagues.  For example in 2015, Tom Brady was traded for Todd Gurley (when Gurley was breaking out).  That would never happen in a 1QB league.

4 - QBs go earlier.  Stud RBs and WRs still go early as well.  RBs and WRs outside the elite tier get bumped down.  In my 10 team superflex, you can get a RB20 in late round 5 or even early round 6, much later than a typical league.

5 - I would score QBs with 4 pts per TD pass and go PPR, and do a superflex.  You still want to start a QB in flex, but you are not at huge disadvantage to do so.  Making QBs too scoring friendly pretty much would make QBs a lot like what RBs were in the old days.......QB would just fly off the board in early rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2018 at 7:32 PM, Jedi Knight said:

Hey guys,

We have a league (10-team, IDP) that has been going for over 25 years with multiple very long-term players as well as some new ones.  The question has been asked to switch to a 2QB format instead of the traditional "start 1".  Of course, some of the long-termers are being resistant and are bringing up some valid points.  So, I thought I would ask those of you who actually play it:

1- Do you enjoy it?  How does it make FF better?
2- Are there points where someone has to take a zero in the second QB spot due to injuries, byes, etc... with any regularity, or is this rare?
3- What is the impact in trading?  Do QB's command a higher price?
4- How does it impact the draft?
5- What other thoughts, advice, etc... would you have?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

1 yes. Mostly because I like it when players are valued closer to real life. In most leagues QBs are almost an afterthought.

2, yes. It happens. Superflex can prevent those situations.

3 of course.

4, same. QBs go earlier.

Consider superflex if you're concerned about QB having too much value. Also, don't go more than 12 teams with 2 QB. 10 seems better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 is the perfect size for 2QB.

I've done it with 12 but it has to be superflex and you also need to consider roster restrictions to prevent hoarding.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with start 2QB leagues. However, I did have a season where all the QB's I had rostered got injured and I was not able to acquire the players that took their starting spots (dynasty / keeper league and the back ups were on other teams). The rest of the league figured out I could only start NFL back ups that weren't going to play and no one would trade me a QB, so I pretty much had to take two zeroes at QB for most of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anarchy brings up a good point  Its a really good idea to at least maintain one solid backup (actual handcuff)  Its just a case of the fittest survive  Why would another Team with four QB's be inclined to accept a less than stellar offer from such a Team   (btw) Odds are we're talking a Team with Only three QB's which means with a trade they risk becoming a one trick pony  I mean it's probably one hell of a QB for starters  But how much is too much?  Now we both know some trades involve lesser players at the same position  But a Team really only needs two starters for the Playoffs  So while it's not only possible that Anarchy isn't interested in giving up a proven but broken QB  Its also a case where the other Owner may not be inclined to pay near such value  It would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face  Possibly raising flags of collusion  I mean a Real contender may be willing to provide a Top WR for one of the owners actual starters packaging a Rook QB no less   (imho) If anything in such a situation Anarchy should hope to land leftovers following up on a Big trade which makes for some competition at the Top  No idea the type scoring you have planned Jedi but no QB's should mean completely out of the race 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I can help you understand the scope of playing two QB's with this post or if it even helps to paint any sort of picture  But lets look at the career of Jimmy Garoppolo  I mean great stats in College showing improvement each year who was drafted in the 2nd round  But he goes to the Patriots!  Talk about being willing to hold on to a player for awhile  I'm not so sure I could even listen to someone with a straight face talking about unseating or taking over for TB12  In Jimmy's second year in the League, he played in five games completing one of four passes  This man's value has gone from nearly nothing except for a TB owner to Stud must play untradeable status  I say nothing because it even becomes difficult to talk trades because it really just increases the players stock  Now maybe you have followed the Patriots some and just knew such a thing was bound to occur  Fair enough but can you tell me which of this year's Rooks stands the best chance of mimicking Jimmy's career thus far that you would even consider reaching for in the draft  Everybody loves them some RB's!  You gonna pass up a chance for Ronald Jones to land this QB  What could be a real RB performer from the onset or until next years draft for a guy who's more or less potentially going to sit on your bench 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all who replied.  I think we will be going with the "Superflex" option as that should work best for us.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

I don't have a problem with start 2QB leagues. However, I did have a season where all the QB's I had rostered got injured and I was not able to acquire the players that took their starting spots (dynasty / keeper league and the back ups were on other teams). The rest of the league figured out I could only start NFL back ups that weren't going to play and no one would trade me a QB, so I pretty much had to take two zeroes at QB for most of the season.

Yeah, this was a sticking point for a couple of owner resistant to change.  We actually had 2 scenarios go down last year where two different teams were scrambling just to find one QB...let alone two.  When we discussed super-flex instead of 2QB, it smoothed things right out, and I am glad of it.  As commish, the last thing I want is to see a team be forced to take a zero at any position.  It's not good for morale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jedi Knight said:

Thanks to all who replied.  I think we will be going with the "Superflex" option as that should work best for us.

Yeah having the flex option gives the owners the most options as far as lineups and roster construction, which I think is a good thing, and somewhat prevents taking a zero in extreme circumstance where a team may not have a viable QB to start, they could still start a different player at one of the spots.

I like the value of the QB position being increased and requiring owners to deal with that reality. Some will adjust better than others. It makes the rookie draft a lot more interesting when QB is a valuable position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Biabreakable said:

Yeah having the flex option gives the owners the most options as far as lineups and roster construction, which I think is a good thing, and somewhat prevents taking a zero in extreme circumstance where a team may not have a viable QB to start, they could still start a different player at one of the spots.

I like the value of the QB position being increased and requiring owners to deal with that reality. Some will adjust better than others. It makes the rookie draft a lot more interesting when QB is a valuable position.

Since it's 10 team there aren't really problems in terms of finding QB's to start, the trick is finding the right combo to start in terms of bye week and production being a top10 combo.  With 12 team I would rather have the flex spot being super flex, but with 10 teams there are enough QB's to find to roster and compete.  You're basically asking everyone to roster 3 which is reasonable, but if you just flex it, there's less priority to QB's in a 10 team league.  Most teams will still do that but it does de-value them a bit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.