Any good 2 QB combos this year? (1 Viewer)

[eoMMan]

Has anyone looked at this yet?

I'm referring to QBs that are ranked like #6 or lower, obviously have 2 different bye weeks, and their schedule is fairly favorable?

Anyone?

 

[Jack White]

Hear me now and thank me later.

 

[eoMMan]

Hear me now and thank me later.

Very, very nice. Thanks!

 

[Freelove]

I've used this kind of matchup-friendly committee approach numerous times...so I'm predisposed to find it agreeable.

Which I only mention so you'll know I've looked into it when I say that I don't think it's worth chasing this season. I don't see any combos there that give me enough of a combo of soft passing schedules and favorable playoff D's that I feel like I'm getting tons of extra value. I think your late round QB dollar goes further this year just taking two guys you like, and seeing if one or the other breaks out in a bigger way.

Jack's link seems to kind of make the same case, incidentally. Without looking into their methodology at all, their #1 combo purports to offer 17.4 ppg, while their #40 combo says 16.4.

When the pros are saying all those guys are clustered that close together, it's not worth chasing the 16 points per year they're saying you might eke out. You're way better off grabbing two guys you personally see bigger-than-consensus upside in. I'm invested pretty big in the Eli/Bradford combo, for that reason, even though I'm not in love with their combined schedule.

 

[Freelove]

It is still a cool link, though.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Hear me now and thank me later.

Thanks for the link, and please don't view this as shooting the messenger but their definition of "easy" v. "difficult" passing matchups seems totally based on last year's defensive statistics. For example the Jets are listed as an "easy" matchup, and with the additions of Revis, Cromartie, Skrine and Gilchrist to the defensive back rotation that's likely not the case. Philadelphia is another team that made some improvements, on paper, to their pass defense and are listed as "easy". I know there's no great away to judge the matchups at this point and it doesn't make those QB pairings obsolete or anything - but just pointing this out.

 

[mr roboto]

Hear me now and thank me later.

So you're saying the key in Ryan Tannehill.

 

[zftcg]

Hear me now and thank me later.

Thanks for the link, and please don't view this as shooting the messenger but their definition of "easy" v. "difficult" passing matchups seems totally based on last year's defensive statistics. For example the Jets are listed as an "easy" matchup, and with the additions of Revis, Cromartie, Skrine and Gilchrist to the defensive back rotation that's likely not the case. Philadelphia is another team that made some improvements, on paper, to their pass defense and are listed as "easy". I know there's no great away to judge the matchups at this point and it doesn't make those QB pairings obsolete or anything - but just pointing this out.

Any attempt to pair QBs based on strength of schedule is doomed to fail. It's like drafting a RB because of his "easy" playoff schedule. You're much better off sticking to fundamentals. For example, pairing a high-variance guy based on injury risk (Bradford) or rookie status (Winston/Mariotta) with a boring, safe guy like Eli or Flacco.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I like the link, but it's general flaw is the top duos listed depend on drafting an obvious QB1 and pairing with an upside QB2. I think what the OP is looking for is who to target after the QB1's are gone. Like for instance, you are on the turn in the 10th or 11th round and you don't have your first QB. I think for example a combo of Bradford/Dalton could work for instance. But there are many different combos that could work.

 

[Jack White]

Hear me now and thank me later.

So you're saying the key in Ryan Tannehill.

He is on my hit list, yes.

 

[Jack White]

Hear me now and thank me later.

Thanks for the link, and please don't view this as shooting the messenger but their definition of "easy" v. "difficult" passing matchups seems totally based on last year's defensive statistics. For example the Jets are listed as an "easy" matchup, and with the additions of Revis, Cromartie, Skrine and Gilchrist to the defensive back rotation that's likely not the case. Philadelphia is another team that made some improvements, on paper, to their pass defense and are listed as "easy". I know there's no great away to judge the matchups at this point and it doesn't make those QB pairings obsolete or anything - but just pointing this out.

Any attempt to pair QBs based on strength of schedule is doomed to fail. It's like drafting a RB because of his "easy" playoff schedule. You're much better off sticking to fundamentals. For example, pairing a high-variance guy based on injury risk (Bradford) or rookie status (Winston/Mariotta) with a boring, safe guy like Eli or Flacco.

I totally agree. I don't pay much attention to schedules, anyway.

The other gent who mentioned grabbing two QBs in the hopes one will break out: I agree with this as well. If you take a top-6 QB, you're probably going to start him every week as long as he's healthy. If not, you want a couple guys from 7-15 and hope one emerges.

Guys I'm be looking for relatively late include Eli, Tanny, Rivers, Stafford and Bradford.

 

[Hybrid]

Hear me now and thank me later.

So you're saying the key in Ryan Tannehill.

Finished QB8 last year, now with better weapons and a year more experience. His numbers have improved every year, and he's only starting his 4th year. ADP is QB13. Great value if you wait on QB, especially if you buy the training camp reports of improved deep-ball accuracy.