What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Best Year for QB Freefall Ever? (1 Viewer)

Hot Sauce Guy

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
OK, perhaps a slight click-bait headline, but it certainly does seem like a very, very deep QB class. Deeper than I've seen in many years, at least. 

Of course the big 3 will be taken early in every league, Brady (3.05)/Rodgers(2.09)/Brees (4.06)in some order (probably that one). Checking out ADP though, why would anyone take them when you can have: 

  • Matt Ryan in the 5.08 - I know Shanahan is gone, but that's not stopping people from taking Julio in the 1st. Ryan may have some regression, but I see a QB who's really come into his own.
  • Russell Wilson 6.11 round - Seahawks can't run, Wilson has weapons, and is an injury bounce-back candidate for sure. 
  • Carr - 6.09 - elite offene, really sub-par defense. OAK is going to be fantasy gold in the passing game, playing from behind a lot. 
  • Winston 7.08 - like Matty Ice, he's got a WR people are drafting in the 1st round, and a TE who scored a bunch of TDs last year. He throws to his RBs, and he can vulture a few TDs as well. 
  • Big Ben carries some risk, but at 9.08 he's gonna win some weeks for you, especially at home, and with arguably the best WR and pass-catching RB in the league at his disposal - plus Bryant coming back. . 
  • Cam Newton 8.09 - one of my favorite targets. Dude has more weapons, and more experience now. And he's still gonna vulture some short yardage TDs. 8.09? That's a bargain. 
  • Rivers 10.01, Prescott 10.06, Eli Manning (with an elite group of receivers) 11.07, hell even Jay Cutler in the 14th is going to eventually start for some fantasy teams this year. 
This is the deepest I can remember for QBs in FFB. Go freefall - take a top 3 QB at your own peril.

Sure it's nice to have a "set it & forget it" QB, but not at that price. Not when I can take 2 of the guys in the 7th round or later and get similar weekly production by playing the matchups. 

Y'all are welcome to agree or disagree - I'd be interested in hearing from those who will be spending the early picks on Brady/ARod/Brees to hear why you think it's worth it.  :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Mariota and Cousins are certainly in the mix. I agree that the Qb position seems to be much deeper. Factor in Wentz and even Bradford and it pays to wait.

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
I would be much more comfortable with all four of them as my QB2, but they're definitely value picks.
Click to expand...
Every year the difference between mid to low-end QB1s and mid to low-end QB2s is pretty marginal on a PPG basis. I pretty much view everyone outside of Rodgers, Brady and Brees as a QB2. I honestly don't believe I've ever drafted a QB within the first 10 rounds.

 
I hate this thread, because it makes too much sense. I'd all but decided to grab Rodgers/Brady at the 12th pick of the second round, because I pretty much loathe all the WR/RB options. And it's even a third-round reversal draft. Sigh.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dalton's another good one. I think he finished Top 12 last season in a down year with Green and Eifert missing time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been a QB slougher for a long time now. Usually I don't start considering a QB until round 7, and I'm usually looking for a tandem to use based on SOS. It's another good year for it with the mid tiers. Given current ADPs I can glean from FBG's ADP info I'd be happy with a combo of two of Mariotta (early 7th), Roethlisberger (mid 7th), Rivers (late 8th), Stafford (late 8th), Manning (mid 9th). I like Winston, but it looks like he's going in the early 6th now, which is a bit too rich for me.

In the bottom 3rd, I'm intrigued by some of the rookies like Watson and Kizer, and Trubisky looks to have a nice SOS on top of his starting gig. I just don't know that they'll ask him to do a whole lot. Bradford has a nice SOS too, but I just don't get the tingly feeling about that offense.

 
I meant to say that I think Rivers in particular could have a much better than average year for himself. He's got the best set of weapons and starting offensive line he's had since the Tomlinson era. There's no depth on the offensive line though, so if they go through their usual injury problems he could end up about where he was last year. Also his SOS is not good, but I think he'll perform well even against some of the tougher match ups if his offensive personnel can stay healthy.

 
Problem is they are falling because everybody is letting them fall. Doesn't provide any relative advantage. I think there could be value in being the one to to kick off the run, as opposed to letting it play out. The reality is the 4th and 5th QB are going to score substantially more points than 10 or 11, if they only end up going a round or so apart late in the draft because everybody is letting them fall, it's hugely advantageous to be at the start of the run than the end (assuming you can identify the superior QB of course).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mbuehner said:
Problem is they are falling because everybody is letting them fall. Doesn't provide any relative advantage. I think there could be value in being the one to to kick off the run, as opposed to letting it play out. The reality is the 4th and 5th QB are going to score substantially more points than 10 or 11, if they only end up going a round or so apart late in the draft because everybody is letting them fall, it's hugely advantageous to be at the start of the run than the end (assuming you can identify the superior QB of course).
Click to expand...
That's the trick. I don't like anybody in particular after Rogers, Brady, Brees so much that I've got to have them to start the run of the remaining decent QBs. So I'll wait. I don't think the difference between a 4th round Ryan and an 8th round Rivers is going to be worth the cost to acquire Ryan.

 
The place where sloughers run into trouble is when the other guys start taking their 2nd QB before you've taken your 1st. It's a delicate little dance trying to get the timing right.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last year, Rodgers outscored QB6 (Cousins) by 70 points. You're not going to make up that sized gap by mixing-and-matching while playing matchups.

That is counting Brady in last year's top 5 based on his ppg, along with Ryan, Brees, and Luck. And those guys are all going in the first 5 rounds, except for Luck with his injury.

To me, this seems like a good year to take a QB early or late, while avoiding QBs 4-10.

 
ZWK said:
Last year, Rodgers outscored QB6 (Cousins) by 70 points. You're not going to make up that sized gap by mixing-and-matching while playing matchups.
Click to expand...
Actually, for the paying customers, there are articles right here at FBGs that prove almost the exact opposite.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm targeting Mariota and Cousins in the middle rounds, if I miss out out them I'll likely end up with someone like Rivers, Dalton or even Wentz  

 
ZWK said:
Last year, Rodgers outscored QB6 (Cousins) by 70 points. You're not going to make up that sized gap by mixing-and-matching while playing matchups.

That is counting Brady in last year's top 5 based on his ppg, along with Ryan, Brees, and Luck. And those guys are all going in the first 5 rounds, except for Luck with his injury.

To me, this seems like a good year to take a QB early or late, while avoiding QBs 4-10.
Click to expand...
Meh - 70 points over 14 games is just 5 points a game. Over the 16 game FFB season it's 4.3 points per game. 

IMO you more than make that up with better WR2, RB2 or elite TE taken on the first 6-7-8 rounds. Not to mention the depth it provides your team.

i scored Matty Ice in the 9th as my QB2 last year & that worked out pretty well. ;)  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZWK said:
If you mean Pasquino's QBBC articles, I'll counter with Harstad and his quarterback streaming challenge.
Click to expand...
I guess the crux of his conclusion is:

Starting 2nd-tier quarterbacks and defenses in favorable matchups is a phenomenal theory, but in the real world it runs face-first into the fact that we simply don’t know ahead of time who are the 2nd-tier quarterbacks and defenses, and which are the favorable matchups.

We don’t find that information out until we have the benefit of hindsight. After New Orleans gives up a lot of points to quarterbacks we can note that New Orleans is a defense that gives up a lot of points to quarterbacks, for all the good it does us at that point.
Click to expand...
Which boils down to, we can't know what's going to happen before it happens. Which is true. But there are no certainties when it comes to drafting - nothing has happened yet. Drafting is all about value and risk. Projections are just that, they'e not guarantees, we're working on our best guesses here. The flip side of the analysis is - what did you gain by waiting to take a QB, and does that potential gain outweigh the potential cost?

The other nice thing about planned tandems is, often enough one of the two in the tandem will end up having a season that is nearly as good as a higher round draft pick by themselves. And that is something you can figure out relatively early on, which means you can abandon the matchup plays in most weeks altogether, and just stick with the dominant starter.

 
mbuehner said:
"just" 5 ppg??? 
Click to expand...
If you read Pasquino's article, if you go with a reasonable tandem, you can get the difference between the tandem's projected total and the #1 QB's total down to around 30 points on the season - which would be about 2.3 points a game if distributed over 13 games. That same tandem would come in at QB3 or QB4 overall - if it went down as projected.

 
true, but when you draft Rodgers, it's one decision you could blow. When you stream QBs you can make a sub optimal decision every time out.

 
Gr00vus said:
If you read Pasquino's article, if you go with a reasonable tandem, you can get the difference between the tandem's projected total and the #1 QB's total down to around 30 points on the season - which would be about 2.3 points a game if distributed over 13 games. That same tandem would come in at QB3 or QB4 overall - if it went down as projected.
Click to expand...
I'm not dismissing streaming qbs, it can demonstrably work. I'm just saying 5 points per game isn't trivial, and there are serious downsides to streaming. 

I have a feeling there is a Texas Marksman fallacy that rears its head in fantasy, and i kinda suspect this is one of them.

 
mbuehner said:
true, but when you draft Rodgers, it's one decision you could blow. When you stream QBs you can make a sub optimal decision every time out.
Click to expand...
If you blow the Rodgers decision, you're in a huge hole. If you're streaming cheap QBs and make suboptimal decisions it probably isn't having as big an impact as you should have made up for it elsewhere on your roster.

 
mbuehner said:
I'm not dismissing streaming qbs, it can demonstrably work. I'm just saying 5 points per game isn't trivial, and there are serious downsides to streaming. 

I have a feeling there is a Texas Marksman fallacy that rears its head in fantasy, and i kinda suspect this is one of them.
Click to expand...
I'm saying it's not 5 points a game -it's more like 2, maybe 3. The question is, did you make up for that with what you did with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounder instead of spending it on a QB? That's a key to the whole approach.

Another is you've distributed your QB risk better - you're a bit less susceptible to a QB void due to injury.

Additionally, QBs are probably easier to trade for in season than RB/WR/TE (another indication of how you'd value them in the draft as well), so the advantage you got at the the non-QB position can also be more easily parlayed into addressing the QB position should you need to do so than vice versa.

 
ZWK said:
Last year, Rodgers outscored QB6 (Cousins) by 70 points. You're not going to make up that sized gap by mixing-and-matching while playing matchups.

That is counting Brady in last year's top 5 based on his ppg, along with Ryan, Brees, and Luck. And those guys are all going in the first 5 rounds, except for Luck with his injury.

To me, this seems like a good year to take a QB early or late, while avoiding QBs 4-10.
Click to expand...
I see Brees, Brady, Rodgers, and Ryan will outscore the others by 40-80 points.  There is value in getting one of those.  QB5 thru QB16 are a coin toss and all will produce consistently good numbers.  I think several QB left off the list are too 10 QBs like Stafford who was number 7 last year and will likely do better this year.  

I don't see going into a draft with a strategy to ignore RBs or ignore WRs or ignore QB's is a wise strategy.  You need to take advantage of what falls to you.   If you can get a top 4 QB in late 3 or 4, jump on it.  

 
Gr00vus said:
I'm saying it's not 5 points a game -it's more like 2, maybe 3. 
Click to expand...
for successful guys it's 2 or 3. my suspicion is the unsuccessful guys aren't writing articles about their great season. 

Point being we all know if taking Rodgers early paid off, it worked or it didn't. you'd have to run some legit statistical analysis to find out if streaming is genuinely effective by judging winners and losers, or at least guys that can consistently do it for statistically relevant repititions.

im worried it could be like knowing a guy that it 'great at blackjack'. No he's not, he can play an optimum game and has been lucky, meanwhile nobody brags about being bad at blackjack. if you looked at the big picture, the house always wins.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mbuehner said:
"just" 5 ppg??? 
Click to expand...
No, not just 5 ppg. 5 ppg offset by whatever bump you gain from your WR2, RB2 or TE1 that should be >5 ppg over your opponent's WR2, RB2 or TE1 since you waited and they reached early.

The point of the game isn't to have the best QB. You can have the best QB and go 3-11. 

The point of the game is to outscore your opponent's team. 

So the trade-off between losing 5 ppg & whatever you gain at the other position is what's most important. 

We all have have our strategy though. 

 
mbuehner said:
true, but when you draft Rodgers, it's one decision you could blow. When you stream QBs you can make a sub optimal decision every time out.
Click to expand...
Rodgers has bad games too though. Faces top defenses. His weekly floor is higher but he'll have those games. 

And from an injury standpoint you're dramatically increasing your risk with an elite QB. 

If you go say, Cam/Rivers, if one gets hurt, you'll have a relatively equal player to plug in at QB. Your team loses nothing week to week. 

Investing in Rodgers means you automatically drop to a 2nd tier QB for the rest of the year if he gets hurt, which is a huge drop off. (Obv)

can't predict injury of course, but I do like the idea of having two equal QBs. 

 
I think the problem with this strategy (which is a very solid plan) is that it is TOO WELL known and everyone employs it. That leads to everyone getting great value and cheap QBS but in the mean time, there still DOES exist a true and distinct advantage player (3 actually). So, while everyone in the league can get a hamburger for a nickel, the real question is "is it worth a quarter to dine on steak" and enjoy the benefit off one of the top there who WILL likely outscore  everyone else and create an advantage each and every week and WILL likely give you the benefit of setting and forgetting and not burning roster spots. 

It is an intangible thing but while most can agree that having Big Ben or Cousins is "just as good", it is still not the same when you're in week 14 and in the playoffs and you're matchup is your Rodgers, Brees, or Brady vs. their Eli or Ryan. Granted Cam or Ryan or any of those guys can, on any week, look the same, but there exists a reason why when the season is on the line there is a consensus of the big three.

 
5 ppg was the gap last year between Antonio Brown (WR1) and Doug Baldwin (WR8), or between Doug Baldwin and Marqise Lee (WR43). It's a lot. Even if you reduce it to 3 ppg, that's still Doug Baldwin vs. Mike Wallace (WR24).

And going QBBC means that you use a second roster spot on QB. That makes you less likely to land this year's Blount or Pryor, and makes it harder to find room for guys like Zeke and Martin who will be out for the first few games.

It sometimes is the right strategy to use, but QBBC has its costs.

 
Shutout said:
I think the problem with this strategy (which is a very solid plan) is that it is TOO WELL known and everyone employs it. That leads to everyone getting great value and cheap QBS but in the mean time, there still DOES exist a true and distinct advantage player (3 actually). So, while everyone in the league can get a hamburger for a nickel, the real question is "is it worth a quarter to dine on steak" and enjoy the benefit off one of the top there who WILL likely outscore  everyone else and create an advantage each and every week and WILL likely give you the benefit of setting and forgetting and not burning roster spots. 

It is an intangible thing but while most can agree that having Big Ben or Cousins is "just as good", it is still not the same when you're in week 14 and in the playoffs and you're matchup is your Rodgers, Brees, or Brady vs. their Eli or Ryan. Granted Cam or Ryan or any of those guys can, on any week, look the same, but there exists a reason why when the season is on the line there is a consensus of the big three.
Click to expand...
Yep - that's kind of the point of my topic. QBFF isn't a new or original strategy I'm touting. Especially at a FFB site, where a LOT of folks have been on board for a long while.

there was a golden window when maybe 15-20% of us were waiting on QBs & the other 80+% were going under the impression that you just have an elite passer. I made that mistake for a while, taking McNair, McNabb, Peyton, Favre, etc. 

but with so many folks waiting on QBs, now it's gotten tougher & tougher to pull it off & get a quality tandem. 

Thats why this year in particular I see it as unusually deep with deeper tiers. There are still extreme QB FF folks who'll have Alex Smith & Jay Cutler as their QBs. Maybe grab Wentz too for good measure. 

But the 2nd tier of QBs is like 12 deep. So it makes it easier to wait on a QB even if more folks do it.  And right now the perception of what ARod/Brady will give you vs the next tier seems a little overblown  People will still take the big 3 in the first 3-4 rounds. Maybe someone at a turn panics and grabs a Wilson or a Ryan inside 5 rounds. Maybe both. 

the next 7-8 teams should get better value. And chances are the teams who take QBs early won't be getting a QB2 until after most of the QBFF teams have 2.  

But yeah - this year is deeper than any in a while. 

 
ZWK said:
5 ppg was the gap last year between Antonio Brown (WR1) and Doug Baldwin (WR8), or between Doug Baldwin and Marqise Lee (WR43). It's a lot. Even if you reduce it to 3 ppg, that's still Doug Baldwin vs. Mike Wallace (WR24).

And going QBBC means that you use a second roster spot on QB. That makes you less likely to land this year's Blount or Pryor, and makes it harder to find room for guys like Zeke and Martin who will be out for the first few games.

It sometimes is the right strategy to use, but QBBC has its costs.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, all team's have 2 QBs anyway. So the 2nd roster spot is kind of moot. 

And again, it's not the 5 PPG (or 4.3, since the points mentioned were 16 games) - it's 4.3 ppg minus what your RB2 outscores the other QB2s in the league. Plus you might get a perceived 2nd tier step up to the front of the pack . Cam was the QB1 just a couple years back on arguably a less talented team. Mariota or others could finish top 3-4-5.

For example: comparing team ARod with team Mariota, team ARod took him 3.08. In the 3rd round team Mariota took Delvin Cook as his RB2 & got Mariota in the 9th.

team ARod took Ty Montgomery in the 4th as his RB2. 

Arguably Cook will have both a higher ceiling and floor than Montgomery. 

Then consider flexibility while drafting. If I know I'm waiting until the 7-8-9 rounds for a QB (or later if you're extreme QBFF) then I can take better advantage of players the slide past their ADP.  Look at team ARod, for example. Maybe he took AJ Green at 1.08, Amari Cooper in the 2nd, and ARod in the 3rd. Now he's taking Montgomery or whichever of that tier of RBs is there, maybe passing up a WR that slipped. But since team AROd is already under the gun for taking a QB, it kinda forces the hand.  

Also, other teams know it. They see team ARod's roster. So if I'm team 1.07, in the 4th round maybe I'm taking Montgomery as my 2nd back just to keep him from getting the last of a a tier (all just for example, of course) 

philosophically im much more comfortable with QB FF drafting. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Rodgers has bad games too though. Faces top defenses. His weekly floor is higher but he'll have those games. 
Click to expand...
Yes but whoever you start will have bad games no matter how smart you are. so your QB always risks bad games, my point is your decision making week to week introduces an additional point of friction.

 
mbuehner said:
Yes but whoever you start will have bad games no matter how smart you are. so your QB always risks bad games, my point is your decision making week to week introduces an additional point of friction.
Click to expand...
That is certainly possible. But like another person said, chances are that within a couple weeks you'll know which of your QBs is the man, and roll with him weekly anyway. If you took a couple upside guys you might not even have much of a drop-off. And if you hit on both, you can plug either in if one has a tough matchup. But mostly you'll probably go with whomever your best one is. So not much risk of the human element addi risk. I've never been much of a play the matchups guy.

thats more of a streaming strategy than a QBFF strategy.

 
shadyridr said:
Seriously that's enormous. Good luck making that up at other positions
Click to expand...


might wanna take a look at the drop-offs at other positions. It could be made up with a better RB2/WR2/TE1. Especially when you consider QBFF team stays potent during the QB BYE week, and team ARod drops substantially to the backup. 

But we all have our philosophy. Good luck. 

Besides, this topic keeps getting side1tracked to QBFF. 

Its mot a debate. Some of us do it. My question was whether this was a particularly good year for it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
ZWK said:
5 ppg was the gap last year between Antonio Brown (WR1) and Doug Baldwin (WR8), or between Doug Baldwin and Marqise Lee (WR43). It's a lot. Even if you reduce it to 3 ppg, that's still Doug Baldwin vs. Mike Wallace (WR24).

And going QBBC means that you use a second roster spot on QB. That makes you less likely to land this year's Blount or Pryor, and makes it harder to find room for guys like Zeke and Martin who will be out for the first few games.

It sometimes is the right strategy to use, but QBBC has its costs.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, all team's have 2 QBs anyway. So the 2nd roster spot is kind of moot. 

And again, it's not the 5 PPG (or 4.3, since the points mentioned were 16 games) - it's 4.3 ppg minus what your RB2 outscores the other QB2s in the league. Plus you might get a perceived 2nd tier step up to the front of the pack . Cam was the QB1 just a couple years back on arguably a less talented team. Mariota or others could finish top 3-4-5.

For example: comparing team ARod with team Mariota, team ARod took him 3.08. In the 3rd round team Mariota took Delvin Cook as his RB2 & got Mariota in the 9th.

team ARod took Ty Montgomery in the 4th as his RB2. 

Arguably Cook will have both a higher ceiling and floor than Montgomery. 

Then consider flexibility while drafting. If I know I'm waiting until the 7-8-9 rounds for a QB (or later if you're extreme QBFF) then I can take better advantage of players the slide past their ADP.  Look at team ARod, for example. Maybe he took AJ Green at 1.08, Amari Cooper in the 2nd, and ARod in the 3rd. Now he's taking Montgomery or whichever of that tier of RBs is there, maybe passing up a WR that slipped. But since team AROd is already under the gun for taking a QB, it kinda forces the hand.  

Also, other teams know it. They see team ARod's roster. So if I'm team 1.07, in the 4th round maybe I'm taking Montgomery as my 2nd back just to keep him from getting the last of a a tier (all just for example, of course) 

philosophically im much more comfortable with QB FF drafting. 
Click to expand...
One way to run the comparison:

Team A takes Aaron Rodgers, Cameron Meredith, and Mike Wallace in rounds 3, 9, and 11. Team B takes Doug Baldwin, Philip Rivers, and Andy Dalton.

For Team A, Rodgers is locked in as a starting QB. Meredith, Wallace, and some other guys are competing for starting WR slots, depending on who winds up having a good year (and, to a lesser extent, on matchups). When Rodgers is on bye, or if he misses any games with injuries, the owner will need to pick up a fill-in (or trade for one, if Rodgers misses a bunch of time). If Meredith or Wallace disappoints, or gets a major injury, the owner can drop him and use that slot to player the waiver wire at WR.

For Team B, Baldwin is locked in as a starting WR. Rivers and Dalton QBBC depending on matchups, or one of them takes over as your every-week starter if he's having a better season. When Baldwin is on bye, or if he misses any games with injuries, the owner will need to rely on his WR depth or maybe pick up a fill-in (or trade for one, if WR ends up being a major weakness). If Rivers or Dalton is a major disappointment, or gets injured early in the season, the owner can drop him and try to find another QB on the wire to committee with.

The bottom line is that your whole roster is a committee - that's what it means to have more roster slots than starting lineups spots. It's just a question of which positions you choose to spend your early picks on to get likely every-week starters, and which positions you choose to spend extra slots slots on to get reinforcements. And I don't see any particular reason to favor "avoid QB early and take 2 late" as a strategy over other ways of managing the different positions. Ultimately it comes down to the numbers on players' projections and when they're being drafted. And this year, IMO, Rodgers and Brady look like pretty good options in rounds 2-3.

 
Another factor many aren't considering is that past performance doesn't predict anything with accuracy. If your QB has a bad year and you went stud QB, there goes your season. 

Just because ARod scored X ppg ahead of the next guy last year doesn't mean he will this year. ;)  

 
ZWK said:
One way to run the comparison:

Team A takes Aaron Rodgers, Cameron Meredith, and Mike Wallace in rounds 3, 9, and 11. Team B takes Doug Baldwin, Philip Rivers, and Andy Dalton.

For Team A, Rodgers is locked in as a starting QB. Meredith, Wallace, and some other guys are competing for starting WR slots, depending on who winds up having a good year (and, to a lesser extent, on matchups). When Rodgers is on bye, or if he misses any games with injuries, the owner will need to pick up a fill-in (or trade for one, if Rodgers misses a bunch of time). If Meredith or Wallace disappoints, or gets a major injury, the owner can drop him and use that slot to player the waiver wire at WR.

For Team B, Baldwin is locked in as a starting WR. Rivers and Dalton QBBC depending on matchups, or one of them takes over as your every-week starter if he's having a better season. When Baldwin is on bye, or if he misses any games with injuries, the owner will need to rely on his WR depth or maybe pick up a fill-in (or trade for one, if WR ends up being a major weakness). If Rivers or Dalton is a major disappointment, or gets injured early in the season, the owner can drop him and try to find another QB on the wire to committee with.

The bottom line is that your whole roster is a committee - that's what it means to have more roster slots than starting lineups spots. It's just a question of which positions you choose to spend your early picks on to get likely every-week starters, and which positions you choose to spend extra slots slots on to get reinforcements. And I don't see any particular reason to favor "avoid QB early and take 2 late" as a strategy over other ways of managing the different positions. Ultimately it comes down to the numbers on players' projections and when they're being drafted. And this year, IMO, Rodgers and Brady look like pretty good options in rounds 2-3.
Click to expand...
Each to their own. I disagree with your premise here though. 

When I wait on a QB, I'm specifically doing it to not have an committee roster. I'm stacking up on WR1-2-3, RB1-2-3 before I take a QB.

my QB1 will shake out early so no ambiguity there either. 

Im not sure how you stretched the example that thin, but that's not the point of QBFF at all.

the bottom line is that you're taking a chance that a late round QB will perform top 3, 5 or 7.  Cam Newton this year could be that guy, Matt Ryan certainly exceeded his ADP with real value last year - there are a lot of QBs who could be the guy this year. Moreso than others. 

If you a bad Mariota and he finishes top 3, will you have an advantage over the ARod team? That's the question that matters IMO. 

But this is all about philosophy. You're welcome to agree or disagree that QBFF is viable or desirable. 

This topic is that people do it, and hey - this might be the best year evar for it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Another factor many aren't considering is that past performance doesn't predict anything with accuracy. If your QB has a bad year and you went stud QB, there goes your season. 

Just because ARod scored X ppg ahead of the next guy last year doesn't mean he will this year. ;)  
Click to expand...
The reason you take Rodgers in the second (and I'm not advocating this btw) is because his chances of being a bust are next to nil. The chances any other player you pick in the 2nd being a bust is much higher. Its not only point differential. 

 
shadyridr said:
The reason you take Rodgers in the second (and I'm not advocating this btw) is because his chances of being a bust are next to nil. The chances any other player you pick in the 2nd being a bust is much higher. Its not only point differential. 
Click to expand...
Yes, that factors into his value. But there are anonymous years for every player. WRs get hurt, OL suffers injuries, age catches up. And while every player is subject to the same risks, having an elite QB shifts risk (even if lower risk) to that position, while weakening you at other positions. 

Its all a crap shoot - maybe I'm way off. I just know I draft better teams when I take a QB later. My teams are always deeper & more balanced. 

 
I  too typically wait on QB's but I think one point is that being missed by the "always wait on QB'ers" is the bust rate on any of the RB's or WR's is SOOOOO much higher than that elite QB. Coming out of the draft and using projections, yeah, your team will almost always look better with the 3rd round RB/WR and the 10th round QB but in reality, it often doesn't play out that way.

Using the current ADP data from FF Calculator, 12 team Standard, let's look at the 3 players going before/after Tom Brady

28 - Christian McCaffrey

29 - Dalvin Cook

30 - Lamar Miller

31 - Tom Brady

32 - Terrelle Pryor

33 - Deandre Hopkins

34 - Carlos Hyde

You tell me, who is by far the best bet to perform in that group? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tsarc888 said:
I  too typically wait on QB's but I think one point is that being missed by the "always wait on QB'ers" is the bust rate on any of the RB's or WR's is SOOOOO much higher than that elite QB. Coming out of the draft and using projections, yeah, your team will almost always look better with the 3rd round RB/WR and the 10th round QB but in reality, it doesn't play out that way many times.

Using the current ADP data from FF Calculator, 12 team Standard, let's look at the 3 players going before/after Tom Brady

28 - Christian McCaffrey

29 - Dalvin Cook

30 - Lamar Miller

31 - Tom Brady

32 - Terrelle Pryor

33 - Deandre Hopkins

34 - Carlos Hyde

You tell me, who is by far the best bet to perform in that group? 
Click to expand...
A fair point. But one could also argue that because WR & RB are more likely to bust than QB, it's smarter to stack up on RB & WR & wait on a QB.

After all, the team that has Brady also has WR/RB that might bust. They just have 1 less of them than teams that wait on a QB. ;)  

(Also the example you use has 5 of the riskiest RB/WRs, but thats besides the point) 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wgoldsph
Who do you own the most in best ball
Replies
20
Views
845
Desert_Power
Desert_Power
T
Travdogg's positional rankings (summer edition)
2
Replies
84
Views
5K
wgoldsph
wgoldsph
JohnnyU
Arch Manning vs LaNorris Sellers, which is best for fantasy?
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
menobrown
M

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top