This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I would agree with this. I am in a redraft though with pretty high QB scoring where we'll see at least 3 QBs gone in round 1. Probably the earliest would be Rogers or Brees at 1.04 or 1.05.
When is the earliest round to take one then if QBs are flying off the board in rounds 1 & 2?
I'm in a 6pt QB league and I say yes. The drop off from the top QBs (usually 3) to the next tier is about a hundred. I'm not convinced Fizt will be solid with Warner gone, Boldin gone, and the running game one more year established. Moss probably has the highest ceiling, but can be streaky and ... he fired his agent, is having contract issues, is 34. High ceiling, but not solid. That said I'm keeping him and Ray Rice in a 2 man keeper league and I'm excited to have him. It's not a lock tho. The 2nd tier of QB is a little less solid than the 2nd tier of wr IMO. I've seen guys win just cuz they have Brady, Brees, Manning or Rogers. My guess is you don't like the RB available at that spot. If you love AJ or Fitz or Moss then sure, but for me there's a lot of securing in having a plug and play QB stud. You will have to give up on taking a top TE, Def (not that you would) or kicker (not that you would) and probably backup QB, just so you can bulk up on WRs like Harvin, Maningham, Ward, Nicks, Collie, Garcon etc just so you have a better chance of owning a guy who happens to step up this season. My QB is Big Ben so I don't have an option of keeping him as one of my keepers. I would keep Manning, Brees, Brady, or Rogers. Not in that order. Good luck.
If all of Rodgers-Brees-Peyton-Romo-Rivers-Schaub-Brady are gone in the first two rounds of a 12 team draft (thats 7 qbs), then I would say you absolutely want to be the 12th team to take your starter because then next 8-10 QBs form a large 2nd tier and you can easily come away with 3 of them. You will get great value or WR or RB in round 3 because so many QBs have gone. There will be only 4 more teams left to take a starter, wait them out unless you are in love with a high-upside guy like Cutler or Kolb, but still wait for the 5th or 6th. If you employ this strategy and end up taking say, QB12 QB13 and QB16, you will likely end up with something like Stafford/Palmer/Ben or McNabb/Flacco/Favre - a QBBC of a safe baseline player, a pure upside pick and a value pick. I think even in a 6 pt per pass TD league, that committee will be much closer to the QBs taken in round 1 and round 2 than the RBs/WRs taken in the 7th/8th/9th (where you would be picking off those QBs - maybe later because most teams will wait to a take a backup QB) will be to the WR/RB you get in the first two rounds instead of a QB.
Thanks for the reply. Something for me to think about for sure.
But the top tiers aren't that big this year and the drop off isn't that steep after that. I would consider Brees or Rodgers in the late first round this year.
I think you can get to 11 RB/WR - the big 4 RBs, Gore/Sjax/Dwill/Turner + Dre/Fitz/Moss
Great discussion and a lot of sound advice.However, if you do decide to go QBBC, be prepared for a LOT of in-season stress and difficult sit/start decision-making.I play in a 12-team QB 6-pt league and last year picked at the 12/13 turn. It was crazy. All 7 of the above QBs went in the first round and I thought I had the championship locked up when MJD and D. Williams fell to me. Picked up great WRs, then Palmer and Ryan in Rds 6 and 7 for my QBBC, both of whom were consensus Top 12 in 2009.Maybe it was bad luck or maybe I should have picked up even a 3rd QB, but this strategy totally backfired. In wks 12 and 13 I was still in playoff contention and actually licking my chops with Palmer playing CLE and DET right after Quinn and STafford had their epic 4 and 5 TD games against each other.Of course, Palmer had a whopping 110 yds, a lone TD and 3 sacks against CLE, followed by a similarly putrid game throwing 2 INTs against DET that cost me the playoffs. Point is, by drafting one of the Top 7-8, you can just be on autopilot at QB for better or worse the entire season. AFter that, not only does talent drop off, but inconsistency increases, as well as sacks/INTs/fumbles for those leagues that penalize negative plays.Sit/start decision-making in a QBBC is not nearly as straightforward as it might seem...
non-PPR makes WRs a much dicier proposition in the 1st because the elite WRs aren't separated as much from the rest of the WR1s. That being said, this year is unusually deep at QB - Eli, Cutler, Kolb, Palmer and Ryan could all make the leap to the lower end of the QB1 tier, and Favre/Ben/McNabb may give you QB1 production at a discount. As long as you triple up on that group (include Stafford, VY, and maybe even Flacco and Henne as upside picks), you should be fine. Yes, there will be week-to-week lineup decisions, but any one of those top 8 can play well enough to clear up those decisions for you in a best case scenario.
i agree, it is still about value
But is it really worth tripling up on the QB position? Aren't you maintaining a roster spot that would best be utilized on trying to find a good value or a sleeper at RB/WR?
I disagree on tripling up. I love the idea of grabbing Eli or Cutler and pairing with Flacco or Henne. But 3 QBs? I'd prefer to grab one of the first QBs off the board and walk out of the draft with only one QB then waste two bench spots on the QB position.
a 14 man roster makes conservation of roster spots very important and in that kind of league I would recommend getting one of the last two members of the top 7.
Gets it.ookook said:
Thanks, those are my thoughts as well.Sigmund Bloom said:
The problem with playing the wire in a 14 man roster league is that you almost always have to drop someone you believe in and hate to part with, that's why I think going with a "set it and forget it" QB is smart in that format. The shallow roster is so constraining that I think it is viable to even take a zero instead of covering a K/DEF bye if you aren't clawing and scratching for every win.
That's what I did last year. I drafted Brees in the 2nd round and didn't even draft a backup. I picked up a backup to play during Brees byeweek and then dropped him to maximize my roster space.
No, relevancy of the QB (and any position) is based entirely on the league's scoring system. In the vast majority of leagues what you say is true; but that is only because over the years scoring systems have become relatively standard. QB scoring does drop less dramatically than that of RBs or WRs in just about every league out there - but that doesn't automatically make the other positions more valuable than the QB. If you are playing with a standard scoring system with the exception that passing TDs are worth 100pts instead of the standard 4pts and passing yards are worth 100pts per 25 yards instead of 1pt then all other positions are irrelevant. Granted that this is an extreme example but it is only used to illustrate that percentage of your team's points scored by the position is what determines value first *then* value within the position is factored in.ookook said:
This. I almost never pick a QB early in this format but Manning fell to me where I didn't expect. I took him reluctantly at the time but really enjoyed locking him in for the year and watching the pts roll in.
This. Well said and I agree 100%.
Your 100pts/25yd example only works because it (dramatically) increases the drop off within the position. Which is ookook's point.
Exactly. Sure, if you multiply scoring of a position by a constant, it will increase the dispersion of players' projected scores (e.g., the standard deviation will go up) and the drop-offs will increase. But 6 pts per TD does not have a very marked effect on this, and I have yet to see a scoring system where QBs get MORE than 6 pts (not saying one doesn't exist, but I have seen many hundreds where this is not the case). Sometimes there are large bonuses for arbitrary amounts of yards passing which does this some. But these are not all that common or sensible.
No, the drop off percentagewise is exactly the same. If a #1 QB scores 100pts for a season and the #2 QB scores 99pts then the drop off is 1 percent. If you change the system such that the #1 QB scores 1,000,000 pts and the #2 QB scores 990,000 pts the dropoff is still # %1. However, in the first scenario a QB is irrelevant while in the second the QB is the only thing relevant. You stated that it does not matter at all that QBs score double what other positions do - that is categorically false. At some point, whether that be double, or triple, or quadruple etc. etc. the % of overall points attributed to a player becomes the *only* factor.Again, what you said is true for the vast majority of leagues but it doesn't take much to make a QB a valid late first round pick (a likely scenario would be no points per reception, 6pts per passing TD, no negative points for INTs) *especially* if you think that QB might have a huge season. A good example is Brady who had already once led the league in passing TDs before adding Moss into the mix.
My point many posts ago was that the top third of the league's QBs did exceedingly well last year. 10 QB had 4000 passing yards and 12 had 27 total TD.I realize every year is different, but last year in particular there was not a ton of benefit in taking a QB early. There were tons of high scoring ones to go araound.I AM NOT saying that it's imperative to have a high scoring QB on your team . . . but I am saying that it may not be worth investing in one in the first or second rounds.Over the past 10 years, QBs that have been first round picks as QB have not fared very well as the players in question tended to get hurt. Warner and Brady are two clear examples.Part of the other issue is many times the guys that end up as peak performers weren't drafted as such. So while there may be a few QBs that grade out as first round level production, they often are not the guys that got drafted first or second off the board.
I've always found this to be the case as well. I've done a lot of tinkering in the format with where I take my QB and I've always done best when I'm able to grab a "plug it and forget it QB" preferably in the second to third round. Playing the WW has also worked but you really need to hit on the majority of your sleepers and then get really lucky in picking who'll do the best week to week, because it's hard to make up the thirty some points elite QBs make when your guy puts up less then 5 on the worst ranked pass D.
OK: if you're thinking of dropoff in terms of percentages, your reasoning makes sense. Problem is, there's no reason to think of dropoff in percentages: it should be in terms of fantasy points.Also, the bolded statement re: INTs hints that you still don't quite get the concept. Negative points for INTs actually increases the value of the top QBs, since the top QBs tend to throw fewer INTs than the mediocre ones--thus increasing the point differential between the top QBs and the mediocre ones. And that point differential is all that matters.
Yeah, but how many of these were taken early? Probably not 2004 McNabb (coming off a 16-TD season) 2005 Palmer, 2007 Romo, 2008 Thigpen, or 2009 Schaub. (Or 2008 Kurt Warner, for that matter). So actually, only one of your championship QBs in the past six years was taken early, so this (limited) data set would suggest that the key to winning is to take something other than a QB early, and find a productive QB later.Instinctive said:
If you're picking at the bottom of the 1st round, shouldn't you really be asking, "what the difference between QB1 and QB12 compared to RB10 and RB24 or WR3 and WR36 - as defined by ADP at the time they're drafted?"I've read through all the expert advice on the topic of drafting QBs early, and almost without exception, every one compares RB1 with RB24 and QB1 with QB12. But that's not the decision you have the luxury of making. OF COURSE it's a no brainer to take the top RB over the top QB because the dropoff is much steeper for RBs at that point. But when you get down to RB10, you're suddenly into #2RB territory, and you've entered a morass of mediocrity where RBs are more valuable for their security/risk than difference in healthy production (IMO). At some point it stops being a "no brainer".It would be nice to see a study that evaluates performances of ADP-RB10s with lower ADP RBs vis a vis ADP-QB1s with lower ADP QBs. And the same with WRs. Something tells me the dropoff would not be so steep as to make this a no brainer decision. If anyone knows of a study like this, I would be very interested in seeing it.And, as a side note, when you start talking about QB strategies involving taking 2-3 guys in the 8th round, when you're in like ADP-RB40 territory, what's to stop the QB1 drafting guy from making the same value pick? I mean, there's another annoying issue with these "QB early pick" studies - they tend to compare a QB1/QB24 combination with a QB12/QB13 combination. As though there's no further complexity.ookook said:
Line up requirements are:1 QB 2RB 2WR 1TE 1Def 1K or1 QB 1RB 3WR 1TE 1Def 1K
I was only using percentages because the poster I was refuting wasn't using fantasy points (or at least appeared to not be using them with the QB1 WR6 vs. QB6 WR1 comparison that he said was invalid). You are correct about the INTs normalizing the QB position but I was throwing that out there more because it makes the QB scoring more consistent. Also, when I am using a percentage when rating within a position I am assuming (as I stated before) that I am measuring the percentage of points scored for a team of an average starter first. This boils down to the same thing and in effect you are just measuring point differential.Bamac said:
The fact that they spent a high pick to lock down their QB position, which in turn put them a little behind at WR and RB, which they'll have to make up with those picks around the 8th round. If the team with Peyton Manning or Philip Rivers really wants to back him up with Kevin Kolb or Matt Ryan, that's even better because they are wasting capital and the QBBC tier is deep enough that as long as every team that takes a QB early doesnt reach for their backup, you'll be fine.
Never ever? Even if you had a 10-12 pick in the draft, KNEW that your competition traditionally drafted QBs like they were overdosing on donuts in the 1st/2nd round and that you would be left with a tier 3 QB by the time u got to draft again in round 3?NEVER EVER????
