Does anyone here still advocate taking a QB early? (1 Viewer)

[Gatorman]

Just throwing this out as well as the TE discussion. Does anyone here really still have to draft a top QB? I know in the world of 2 QB leagues and crazy scoring yada yada yada, but in a normal 1 QB + other starters is anyone who is not new to FF still grabbing a QB early.

Manning is a monster, sure, but others we close.

I have always been a Late QB guy since my first year...I think the highest QB I have taken in the last 5 years was in the 5th (Marc Bulger 2 years ago when he took on a DB after throwing an int )

I can't see this idea changing. Anyone disagree?

 

[LHUCKS]

This year there are 7 QBs that can finish #1 IMHO...wait until five or six are gone and take the last one.

Because Manning is so safe you can consider him in the second, but I probably would take an upside RB or WR there instead of Manning.

 

[Captain Hook]

I don't really see this trend changing Gatorman - although position in the draft could be a factor especially on a turn at 5/6

OTOH I have always wondered what would happen in a quality league if you found everyone else with the same strategy whether someone being a little early for the right guy would change it the year after. Yet to happen at higher levels.

 

[LawFitz]

Just throwing this out as well as the TE discussion. Does anyone here really still have to draft a top QB? I know in the world of 2 QB leagues and crazy scoring yada yada yada, but in a normal 1 QB + other starters is anyone who is not new to FF still grabbing a QB early.Manning is a monster, sure, but others we close.I have always been a Late QB guy since my first year...I think the highest QB I have taken in the last 5 years was in the 5th (Marc Bulger 2 years ago when he took on a DB after throwing an int )I can't see this idea changing. Anyone disagree?

IMO, Manning is the only QB worth picking in the 1st round and that's only b/c I am VERY high on the Anthony Gonzalez pick. Colts offense will be unstoppable this year and the defense has lost a lot of starters. If Bob Sanders is at any point unhealthy, look out for big shoot outs.I think Manning pushes 40 TDs again and based that plus the "no bust" factor, he's worth considering ahead of many of the "stud" RBs with potential for major 1st round let downs.edited to add: 6 pts per TD pass/ -2 pts per Int in my league

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I wouldn't touch any QB till the 3rd or 4th round. I look at my leagues history and championships. In the past 4 seasons only one of the top 5 QBs made the championship game in our league.

In our league it is and always will be, about having two RB's that you hope and pray make it into the top 10.

 

[mozzy84]

never tried it in 10+ years and probably never will. I think the 5th is the earliest for me also, alot of times you can find good ones on the ww.

 

[a_troll00]

Right now, IMO, the NFL is very deep at the WR position, much more so than QB.

This season, I would see absolutely no problem going RB, RB, QB, then a WR in the fourth. If Brady or Palmer are available in the third round, go get them. You might miss out on Steve Smith and Chad Johnson, but are you certain they will get the ball as often as they should?

Pick up Javon Walker in the fourth and Lee Evans in the fifth round and you're good to go at WR.

 

[Da Guru]

Team that took Manning early in my 14 team league, has not made the playoffs the last 3 years.

Too weak at RB.

 

[moneyman]

Last year I waited until about the 12th QB was selected, which was about the 8th round. It was a hassle all season switching garbage QBs so I'm seriously considering moving up to the 5-6 round and taking the 6th or 7th QB off the board. There does seem to be a dropoff after McNabb and Kitna.

There is too much turnover in the top 10 every year to justify a 1-3 round QB pick.

 

[Longrifle]

A lot depends on the other owners in the league. If you are in a league full of sharks that know to go for the RB's early and wait on the QB's then all you nned to do is wait for the run on QB in the 4 - 6 rounds. But if it is a mix league of guppies and sharks, then you could look at snagging a top rate (safe) QB in the 2nd round and then wait for a couple of the RB with potiential while everyone else is going for their QB. In my opinion if you miss out on the top tier QBs you can wait a while on the position and get some quality in the late rounds (I got Farve in round 10 last year). FWIW.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Redraft, no- unless I had some players atr other positions that I thought would significantly outperform their draft positions and I was relatively certain that I could/would get (Eddie Kennison 2003-05 version). In a dynasty initial draft, I would advocate taking QB and stud wr early, losing your first year and getting rb help in the rookie drafts. Thereason is that there is aa high turnover of losing, but high scoring FF QB. They work for redraft, because it doesn't matter if they lose their job at the end of the season. If I was starting a dyasty leeague, I would give serious thought to drafting Fitz and then Palmer in the first two rounds- knowing that my first year would be a bust.

 

[Rogi]

My league gives QBs 6 points per TD.

I'd take Manning in mid first round or later because he's as close to consistent high performance you can get.

In the second I would take Palmer, Brady, or Brees without any qualms.

At least this way you get a solid QB you can rely on throughout the season. I suffered from the "draft a QB late " strategy last year. Drafting A. Brooks and J. Plummer killed my season and caused major frustration.

 

[ravnzfan]

My league gives QBs 6 points per TD.

I'd take Manning in mid first round or later because he's as close to consistent high performance you can get.

In the second I would take Palmer, Brady, or Brees without any qualms.

At least this way you get a solid QB you can rely on throughout the season. I suffered from the "draft a QB late " strategy last year. Drafting A. Brooks and J. Plummer killed my season and caused major frustration.

that's your first problem...I'm not big on scoring 6 pts for passing TD's, but that's just methere is an intersting game of "chicken" going on in my Misfits HP-5 draft....consider:

14 team league---Manning, Palmer only 2 QB's gone by the end of the 3rd round...Brees/Brady go early 4th

7 of the 14 owners have no QB (currently in mid-6th), while 3 of the owners couldn't resist the value and plucked their QB2

Manning/McNabb

Brees/Young

Palmer/Vick

Brady

Leinart

Cutler

Bulger

are gone...there are several noteable QB's missing from this list, and I suspect at least one of us will last into the 8th round before we take our QB1

the second problem was taking a QB like Plummer when the team moved up in the first round to draft a QB...the lesson here is to make sure you get the vets backup

for every time this strategy has blown up on an owner, I can find a bunch of times a high QB selection flamed, for whatever reason---I'd rather not discuss strategy now, while in the middle of 2 drafts with many reading this thread, but I'll share some more on the topic alittle later

 

[Driver]

This year there are 7 QBs that can finish #1 IMHO...wait until five or six are gone and take the last one.

Because Manning is so safe you can consider him in the second, but I probably would take an upside RB or WR there instead of Manning.

Yeah, I agree with this. I used to be a "late-QB guy" and it usually worked OK to be one of the last guys to take a QB, and then grab 2 third tier guys with another QB later for a QBBC. However, I would get killed in about a third of my leagues from substandard QB performance from my 3 relatively mediocre QBs when none of them had a decent year.But I noticed that John Hansen would always take a quality QB who slipped as part of his strategy, similar to what was suggested above. My experience is that this increases the probability of higher pts from the QB position and doesn't detract significantly from building a team at the other positions.

It's worked for me a lot better than the QBBC approach and taking a QB late. IMO the key is finding value and drafting a team that is strong and balanced across the board. But the preferred strategy varies a lot according to league format, number of teams, number of starters, scoring, etc. -- all of the factors that determine relative value and scarcity among different positions.

For example, many leagues are RB-heavy and you get killed if you don't have a strong RB corps. OTOH, WCOFF formats require a strong WR corps and a more balanced approach. And drafting a quality QB is even more important in an initial dynasty draft IMO. In any event, I don't think taking a quality QB in rounds 3 or 4 (or a QB in the QB6-10 range who has fallen) is inconsistent with an overall value-based approach to drafting.

 

[SSOG]

I was always a HUGE fan of the "grab a QB late" philosophy. Some of my leaguemates could tell you stories about that- once, the first QB I grabbed was actually the 18th QB off the board (edit: in a 10-team league). However, I've recently been studying first round picks more closely and I'm starting to change my philosophy a bit.

First off, let's get this out of the way- 50% of first round picks bust. That is a simple, easily demonstrable fact. Sure, picking Manning will put you behind the 8-ball when it comes to RBs for the rest of the draft... but at least you *KNOW* you're behind the 8-ball, and draft to compensate. It's even worse if you draft Ricky Williams and then he retires after your draft is over, because then not only are you behind the 8-ball, but you weren't compensating for it during the rest of the draft.

The appeal of a Peyton Manning is that his bust risk, at this point, is virtually nil. He's like Brett Favre in his prime- you know he's going to produce in a big way. He doesn't get hurt, he doesn't have "bad years". You draft Manning, and then you can pretty much just ignore the position for the rest of your draft. Sure, you might be behind the half of the teams that didn't have their 1st rounder bust... but you're ahead of the half of the teams that did.

Now, I'm not quite at that extreme where I'd call him a solid 1st rounder... but I would have no qualms at all about taking Manning in the 2nd, especially in smaller leagues (where acquiring depth is a piece of cake, and having the #1 starter at a certain position is a greater advantage). In fact, I took Manning #10 overall in an 8-player keeper league last year (players keep for their cost last year +2 rounds, so all of the studs except for LJ were actually available for drafting) and rode him all the way to the championship. I know that a single success doesn't prove it's a viable strategy (the rest of my team was very strong, too), but I was just giving an example of a time when I'd take Manning earlier than I'd otherwise consider.

My current strategy can be described as "Manning in the 12-24 range... otherwise, be the last person to take a starting QB".

 

[Driver]

I was always a HUGE fan of the "grab a QB late" philosophy. Some of my leaguemates could tell you stories about that- once, the first QB I grabbed was actually the 18th QB off the board (edit: in a 10-team league). However, I've recently been studying first round picks more closely and I'm starting to change my philosophy a bit.First off, let's get this out of the way- 50% of first round picks bust. That is a simple, easily demonstrable fact. Sure, picking Manning will put you behind the 8-ball when it comes to RBs for the rest of the draft... but at least you *KNOW* you're behind the 8-ball, and draft to compensate. It's even worse if you draft Ricky Williams and then he retires after your draft is over, because then not only are you behind the 8-ball, but you weren't compensating for it during the rest of the draft.The appeal of a Peyton Manning is that his bust risk, at this point, is virtually nil. He's like Brett Favre in his prime- you know he's going to produce in a big way. He doesn't get hurt, he doesn't have "bad years". You draft Manning, and then you can pretty much just ignore the position for the rest of your draft. Sure, you might be behind the half of the teams that didn't have their 1st rounder bust... but you're ahead of the half of the teams that did.Now, I'm not quite at that extreme where I'd call him a solid 1st rounder... but I would have no qualms at all about taking Manning in the 2nd, especially in smaller leagues (where acquiring depth is a piece of cake, and having the #1 starter at a certain position is a greater advantage). In fact, I took Manning #10 overall in an 8-player keeper league last year (players keep for their cost last year +2 rounds, so all of the studs except for LJ were actually available for drafting) and rode him all the way to the championship. I know that a single success doesn't prove it's a viable strategy (the rest of my team was very strong, too), but I was just giving an example of a time when I'd take Manning earlier than I'd otherwise consider.My current strategy can be described as "Manning in the 12-24 range... otherwise, be the last person to take a starting QB".

I think I would describe my current strategy as a slight variation to what is described very well above. In addition to Manning, I would consider drafting any of the top-10 QBs -- if they fall to a position where they represent good value. After Manning, I would draft Palmer if he fell and then consider Brees -- but only if they fell far enough according to the specific requirements of the league. Next a group with Brady, McNabb, Bulger (and Vince Young in dynasty). Then Vick who's been falling like a rock with the dog PR and has become a high-value contrarian pick IMO. In some cases, I'll be one of the last persons to take a starting QB, but it's becoming more and more uncommon for me because I evaluate the value of the remaining QBs at each pick, and I usually find one I like in the top-10 that has fallen far enough to represent good value IMO.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Let's see, Wood and Wimer both have Manning at #7...

 

[David Yudkin]

Let's see, Wood and Wimer both have Manning at #7...

From a value and reliability perspective, Manning could be worth a Top 10 pick. Value wise he ended the year in that range two of the past three years. Whether each individual owner wants to invest that high a pick in him and how the rest of their teams would shape up if they did take him that high is another story.

 

[BoltBacker]

Now, I'm not quite at that extreme where I'd call him a solid 1st rounder... but I would have no qualms at all about taking Manning in the 2nd, especially in smaller leagues (where acquiring depth is a piece of cake, and having the #1 starter at a certain position is a greater advantage).otherwise, be the last person to take a starting QB".

I'm not the other end of the spectrum. I'd take Manning in the second round if it was a large league(16+ teams) because....- That's a lot of teams that are going to need a QB so demand is higher- Your picks are further apart so you don't have as much time to react if there's a run on QB's after your last pick- You blow a second round pick on Manning sure, but in big leagues those RB's drafted(16-32) in the second round often have their own "?"'s as well and Manning seems like the safer selection imoIn small leagues(10 teams or less) I think you almost have to go RB/RB because in the second round you're looking at RB #10-#20 so chances are you're passing on a better RB than the one you're passing on in a big league.Most of the time in 16+ team leagues I don't mind going RB/Manning/Gates/WR/RB all that much. If you're first round RB is a bust it'll kill you but once you get in leagues of 16 or more teams an injury to your first round pick is going to kill you anyway. Maybe it's just me but I take a lot more chances in large leagues. In small leagues I'm much more likley to go RB/RB/WR/WR or RB/WR/RB/WR because you can still get a decent QB/TE late.

 

[renesauz]

I'm one of the guys who never goes into a draft with a plan.

#Pause for effect#

The truth is that every draft plays out differently. There's ALWAYS surprise picks. There are always unexpected runs, or players slipping well past where I would take them. In the end, I evaluate every pick only after looking carefully at what is available, what I already have, and how far until my next pick. The league make-up has a lot to do with it too. IN a league with several relative guppies, I know I can count on a couple quality RB's slipping further then they should, while quality QB's will fly off early. IN that scenario, I'm comfortable using a 1st on Manning, or a 2nd/early 3rd on a Brees/McNabb type.

IN leagues that are mostly vets/sharks...I don't like going QB that early because it leaves no room for error/injury on my other early round picks.

IN shark leagues, I find I usually can get a 6-9th ranked QB (safe Qb with limited downside, occassionally better upside) in the 6-8th round, sometimes later. IN leagues more guppie dominated, I usually find I'm playing QBBC with two guys ranked in the 11-17 range. That's frustrating because I don't always know who to start, and all too often start the wrong one. On the other hand, the stud RB's and WR's on my squad more then make up for it.

I love it when people have a "draft plan"...because that usually means they are not flexible enough to take advantage of the specific draft they are in, and are easier for me to dominate. For those who would question the "no strategy" strategy, I can only smile, knowing I've made the playoffs in over 80% of my redraft leagues over the years. It seems to be working well in the message board leagues as well.

 

[-OZ-]

Right now, IMO, the NFL is very deep at the WR position, much more so than QB.This season, I would see absolutely no problem going RB, RB, QB, then a WR in the fourth. If Brady or Palmer are available in the third round, go get them. You might miss out on Steve Smith and Chad Johnson, but are you certain they will get the ball as often as they should?Pick up Javon Walker in the fourth and Lee Evans in the fifth round and you're good to go at WR.

I pretty much agree with this, value dictates my picks. I don't know that I would actually do it, but I wouldn't be opposed to drafting LT, Peyton and Gates in the first 3 rounds if Peyton and Gates fell that far. It seems every year I have a better WR and RB on the bench than QB in my lineup in redrafts. But then, my redrafts are local leagues and they tend to take QBs higher than many here would.

 

[burd]

Last year, i dominated my league (only 2 losses) and sailed through the playoffs and championship by going RB, WR, WR, QB and the players I got were Shaun Alexander, Steve Smith, Torry Holt and Marc Bulger. Eventhough I went away from RBs in the 2nd through 4th rounds, I still managed to get Thomas Jones and Kevin Jones in the 5th and 6th. I've used the "best value" strategy for years and I've always gone deep in the playoffs. My thinking is that I would rather have a sure #1 WR or QB instead of a 2nd or 3rd rate RB.

So to answer your question, yes, i think that there's adequate RB depth to warrant picking other than RBs in the early rounds.

 

[Gatorman]

I love it when people have a "draft plan"...because that usually means they are not flexible enough to take advantage of the specific draft they are in, and are easier for me to dominate. For those who would question the "no strategy" strategy, I can only smile, knowing I've made the playoffs in over 80% of my redraft leagues over the years. It seems to be working well in the message board leagues as well.

Instersting point, but you do go in with a plan. Your plan is to see how the draft plays out, and adjust from there. I agree with this plan.The point I am making here is that one of your decisions (taking manning) happens before you see how the draft is going to play out. If you have an early round 1 pick, your "plan" is not to take manning, but see if he falls in the second.Most people here go in with a "plan" but one with enough flexibility to compensate for variations of the board.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Last year I had to choose to protect 2 of these 3: S Jackson, Tiki, Palmer

I opted for Jackson and Palmer and won my league, having gotten W Parker at pick 29 (9th pick of round 3).

This year's dilemma becomes Jackson-Palmer-Parker. (It's a 6-pt per TD league). I know if I ditch Palmer I'll never have him again and I'm about 100% certain he'll go for 30 TD every year for the next 6 or so while Parker will almost certainly be gone by that time (just the nature of RBs). I know if I let Palmer go that I'll probably end up drafting a QB at the end of round 5 (50th player) or even round 7 (70th player, though this will almost certainly be QB14). I'll have to go back to look at the past drafts to get a flavor of who that'll be, but it's gonna be a tough call in spite of FWP being #7 or so on the typical draft board (scoring is very heavy on the TDs as compared to yardage and PPR doesn't come into play for RBs).

Might have to indulge my homerism this year for once (hell it worked last year).

-QG

 

[Gatorman]

How many of us got burned by the QBBC approach last year, and how many succeeded.

How long can you stick with a QB that suxor.

Case and point: Jake Plummer last year....

 

[Prof. Chaos]

How many of us got burned by the QBBC approach last year, and how many succeeded.How long can you stick with a QB that suxor.Case and point: Jake Plummer last year....

Eli Manning,C-pep, McNair

 

[ImTheScientist]

This may just be by chance but my two worst years in FF I selected a QB high....4th round each year. Both teams did well but seemed to lack WR depth which hurt me.

 

[BigRed]

Just throwing this out as well as the TE discussion. Does anyone here really still have to draft a top QB? I know in the world of 2 QB leagues and crazy scoring yada yada yada, but in a normal 1 QB + other starters is anyone who is not new to FF still grabbing a QB early.

Manning is a monster, sure, but others we close.

I've bought into the "you can get a good enough QB late so don't 'waste money' (for those of us in auction leagues) on the top ones" etc etc - meanwhile the guys grabbing Manning have a reliable scorer and do well while my cheapie QB picks drive me nuts. But like most any strat, I think you have to be flexible on how much and when to buy into it, taking into account the given players and situations in a given year.

I may not get Manning this year, but I'm going after a true upper tier guy (Brady or some such). Lord knows the fn "RB stud" thing isn't panning out.

 

[CalBear]

In 2006, Manning's VBD was 120 points. Here's the list of players who provided more value to your fantasy team:

Tomlinson

LJ

S.Jackson

That's it. A team that had the 1.04 pick that chose Manning probably did better than a team with 1.04 that made any other selection.

Bulger provided 65 VBD points, which placed him at #14 overall; that means he could have been productively chosen as early as 2.02.

All of that is not to say that you should take those players at those spots; you definitely need to take ADP into account. But in terms of the value they provide in your lineup, top QBs are consistently underrated.

 

[george]

Right now, IMO, the NFL is very deep at the WR position, much more so than QB.This season, I would see absolutely no problem going RB, RB, QB, then a WR in the fourth. If Brady or Palmer are available in the third round, go get them. You might miss out on Steve Smith and Chad Johnson, but are you certain they will get the ball as often as they should?Pick up Javon Walker in the fourth and Lee Evans in the fifth round and you're good to go at WR.

In a 12 team league, I doubt you'll be able to pick up Lee Evans in the fifth round. I would expect Walker to be a late 3rd/early 4th round pick and Evans to go somewhere in the 4th rnd. I think the quality of WR in the 5th round may disappoint you if you look at ADP of currently completed drafts. Of course in a 10 team league, with a middle pick you may be able to get them in the 4/5 rounds but you better be an early 5th imo. I think your better off getting a top WR in the 3rd. Of course it all depends upon what's available. Lately I've been drafting best available player from rounds 3-6th or so, then going with positional needs.

 

[David Yudkin]

In 2006, Manning's VBD was 120 points. Here's the list of players who provided more value to your fantasy team:TomlinsonLJS.JacksonThat's it. A team that had the 1.04 pick that chose Manning probably did better than a team with 1.04 that made any other selection.Bulger provided 65 VBD points, which placed him at #14 overall; that means he could have been productively chosen as early as 2.02. All of that is not to say that you should take those players at those spots; you definitely need to take ADP into account. But in terms of the value they provide in your lineup, top QBs are consistently underrated.

If you remember the lengthy Manning = First Round Pick thread I had started last year, no matter how many ways it was discussed a lot of people still poo-pooed the notion.A lot of the risk in taking a QB earlier is that there is a very good chance an individual QB will be ranked very high on the QB food chain but have very little relative value. Unless the bandwidth is pretty large in terms of point differential, it could still turn out to be a so-so pick.Last year, I felt that Manning's numbers would go way up and to a certain extent they did (+650 passing yards and +3 passing TD). However, after 3 straight years of no rushing TD I don't think anyone expected him to jump up to 4.Sometimes I think people forget that the goal is to score the most points no matter how your team is constructed. As you said, Manning plus an average RB would likely have trumped an above average RB and an average QB.

 

[David Yudkin]

Right now, IMO, the NFL is very deep at the WR position, much more so than QB.This season, I would see absolutely no problem going RB, RB, QB, then a WR in the fourth. If Brady or Palmer are available in the third round, go get them. You might miss out on Steve Smith and Chad Johnson, but are you certain they will get the ball as often as they should?Pick up Javon Walker in the fourth and Lee Evans in the fifth round and you're good to go at WR.

In a 12 team league, I doubt you'll be able to pick up Lee Evans in the fifth round. I would expect Walker to be a late 3rd/early 4th round pick and Evans to go somewhere in the 4th rnd. I think the quality of WR in the 5th round may disappoint you if you look at ADP of currently completed drafts. Of course in a 10 team league, with a middle pick you may be able to get them in the 4/5 rounds but you better be an early 5th imo. I think your better off getting a top WR in the 3rd. Of course it all depends upon what's available. Lately I've been drafting best available player from rounds 3-6th or so, then going with positional needs.

In some early drafts this year, Walker's ADP is 38 and Evans is right behind at 40. In most leagues, there's a decent chance neither of these guys will be around in the 4th.

 

[BigRed]

Manning plus an average RB would likely have trumped an above average RB and an average QB.

See you just can't buy info like this. I assume you meant a top RB on that last part.

 

[David Yudkin]

Manning plus an average RB would likely have trumped an above average RB and an average QB.

See you just can't buy info like this. I assume you meant a top RB on that last part.

No. If you did not get an uber RB IMO that guy would be above average. And I also meant drafting more toward the middle to bottom of round 1. Looking at guys that went mid- to late- first last year included guys like Jordan, Brown, Caddy, McGahee, Edge, Portis, etc. Add that to someone like Favre or Brady and value wise that would be a train wreck compared to Manning and almost any other non-injured starting RB.

 

[george]

Right now, IMO, the NFL is very deep at the WR position, much more so than QB.This season, I would see absolutely no problem going RB, RB, QB, then a WR in the fourth. If Brady or Palmer are available in the third round, go get them. You might miss out on Steve Smith and Chad Johnson, but are you certain they will get the ball as often as they should?Pick up Javon Walker in the fourth and Lee Evans in the fifth round and you're good to go at WR.

In a 12 team league, I doubt you'll be able to pick up Lee Evans in the fifth round. I would expect Walker to be a late 3rd/early 4th round pick and Evans to go somewhere in the 4th rnd. I think the quality of WR in the 5th round may disappoint you if you look at ADP of currently completed drafts. Of course in a 10 team league, with a middle pick you may be able to get them in the 4/5 rounds but you better be an early 5th imo. I think your better off getting a top WR in the 3rd. Of course it all depends upon what's available. Lately I've been drafting best available player from rounds 3-6th or so, then going with positional needs.

In some early drafts this year, Walker's ADP is 38 and Evans is right behind at 40. In most leagues, there's a decent chance neither of these guys will be around in the 4th.

I think that's what I said. Just not as well since I didn't look up the ADPs. Your going to be disappointed at what is left in the 5th round. So in a 12 team league. Walker is going at 4.2 and Evans at 4.4. 10 team league-Walker at 4.8, Evans at 4.10.

 

[CalBear]

Players consistently drafted before Manning in 2006:

Tomlinson

Alexander

Barber

Jackson

James

Portis

R.Brown

C.Williams

LJ

Qualitatively, only LT, LJ, and Jackson owners were clearly better off than Manning owners. Tiki Barber was maybe a push, but only if you play week 17. The rest, you'd have been better off with Manning, and what's more, you probably could have predicted that you were better off with Manning. Manning probably had better VBD projections than the RBs he wound up out-performing in VBD.

 

[David Yudkin]

Players consistently drafted before Manning in 2006:TomlinsonAlexanderBarberJacksonJamesPortisR.BrownC.WilliamsLJQualitatively, only LT, LJ, and Jackson owners were clearly better off than Manning owners. Tiki Barber was maybe a push, but only if you play week 17. The rest, you'd have been better off with Manning, and what's more, you probably could have predicted that you were better off with Manning. Manning probably had better VBD projections than the RBs he wound up out-performing in VBD.

I gave some more thought as to why people are so against taking a QB early and this is the best I could come up with.People pretty much make the assumption that taking a QB in the mid rounds will get them a guy that at a minimum will score 240 or so points. So they look at it as a free 240 points in rounds 6-10. It's hard to dispute that there will be guys that will score in that range available.By comparison, there are not a lot of sure things at running back in those same rounds, and their argument is that you can't risk taking a RB that late because there won't be any proven ones left. You also can't really argue that one as for the most part that is a true statement.HOWEVER, people for whatever reason seem to think that those are the only options available when you can take RBs in Rounds 2-5 as well. They also don't realize that the "free" QB and his "gift" 240 points is basically worth nothing at all value wise.As we all know, after the first handful of RBs they are a bit of a crap shoot. Thus my statement that value wise people are probably better off taking the uber stud QB after the true RB studs are gone than trying to create wine from water in finding a stud RB that by most accounts will be average or slightly above average compared to what RB1s produce.As you suggested, Manning could come with a value score of 100-120 points. Sifting through the guys after the first 10 RBs are off the board and coming up with an elite RB is a daunting task. It's not impossible, but finding a guy that will get a lot of points past 200 is pretty rare. By comparison, you know what you are getting with Manning.So the question becomes, would you rather get average production at a position in the end of round 1 or the beginning of round 2 by taking a RB that really needs a breakout season to be really worth A LOT and an average player at QB several rounds later OR take a known value commodity in Manning and try to find an average RB in the next couple of picks to come out ahead.Better stated, if the owner would be taking the same RB (in theory) in Round 2, would the RB taken in Round 3 score THAT much less than the guy taken at the end of Round 1? And remember, Manning would still have the 100-120 advantage over the QB TBA in the later rounds.I know it is not quite that simple because the RB-RB team would have an advantage in having a third round pick to work with while the other owner that went Manning-RB-RB would not. But I doubt they would catch up 100 value points.

 

[Gatorman]

This VBD number people are floating around needs some explanation.

If we are using best starter VBD in deremining this number, then this number is crap (IMHO).

I look at these things from an ADP situation.

Manning in the first vs. Bulger in the 5th +/- the RB that would have been there.

Lets look at this two ways...

1) take a QB in Rounds 1-3 (so QB 1-4 or so)

2) Take a QB in rounds 4-6 (QB 5-11)

3) Take a QB after that (QB 12 - rest)

The reason I say this is that you have 3 different type of drafters:

Ones who want a top QB and damn the torpedoes (some are newbies, others are value guys)

Ones who want a "viable starter"

Ones who think they can get a guy late who will perform.

None of these are wrong (completely), but they all have flaws.

 

[David Yudkin]

This VBD number people are floating around needs some explanation.If we are using best starter VBD in deremining this number, then this number is crap (IMHO). I look at these things from an ADP situation. Manning in the first vs. Bulger in the 5th +/- the RB that would have been there. Lets look at this two ways...1) take a QB in Rounds 1-3 (so QB 1-4 or so)2) Take a QB in rounds 4-6 (QB 5-11)3) Take a QB after that (QB 12 - rest)The reason I say this is that you have 3 different type of drafters:Ones who want a top QB and damn the torpedoes (some are newbies, others are value guys)Ones who want a "viable starter"Ones who think they can get a guy late who will perform.None of these are wrong (completely), but they all have flaws.

I don't particularly like getting involved in the reshuffling of players and picks to figure out which team *COULD* have done better. All that matters is the final team that gets drafted and who scores more points.If you look at who gets drafted where and at what position (and I have), you'll be able to see that there are only rare occasions where high value guys are available past the first few rounds (and you'll be able to actually see it if I get a chance to finish up the damn article).So even if you do get the #5 QB late as the #18 QB off the board, his value may still only be 20 points. 100-120 value points are A LOT to catch up with basically the difference in say the #10 RB off the board and the #24 RB off the board (the difference in RBs) and a slight decrease in the two team's WR1s (because that's basically all that will be different). So if one team may have taken the #7 WR off the board the other guy might get the #13 WR off the board, and all things being equal I suggest that the scoring difference between those two will not be very much at all.

 

[David Yudkin]

To further confuse the issue, I forgot to mention that early round QBs also carry a huge fantasy bust rate because in recent years they've gotten hurt. That certainly throws a wrench into the mix which is why a guy like Manning is really the only guy I would consider early.

 

[SSOG]

Players consistently drafted before Manning in 2006:TomlinsonAlexanderBarberJacksonJamesPortisR.BrownC.WilliamsLJQualitatively, only LT, LJ, and Jackson owners were clearly better off than Manning owners. Tiki Barber was maybe a push, but only if you play week 17. The rest, you'd have been better off with Manning, and what's more, you probably could have predicted that you were better off with Manning. Manning probably had better VBD projections than the RBs he wound up out-performing in VBD.

I gave some more thought as to why people are so against taking a QB early and this is the best I could come up with.People pretty much make the assumption that taking a QB in the mid rounds will get them a guy that at a minimum will score 240 or so points. So they look at it as a free 240 points in rounds 6-10. It's hard to dispute that there will be guys that will score in that range available.By comparison, there are not a lot of sure things at running back in those same rounds, and their argument is that you can't risk taking a RB that late because there won't be any proven ones left. You also can't really argue that one as for the most part that is a true statement.HOWEVER, people for whatever reason seem to think that those are the only options available when you can take RBs in Rounds 2-5 as well. They also don't realize that the "free" QB and his "gift" 240 points is basically worth nothing at all value wise.

My theory is quite a bit simpler. Let's call it the "Michael Vick Must Die Effect" (or MVMD Effect for short).In 2002, Michael Vick blew up in a way that no one really saw coming. In 2003, everyone jumped on him in the first round, and he busted spectacularly. In 2004, people tempered expectations a little and grabbed him in the 2nd-4th, instead... and this time he didn't bust, but he was very unspectacular. Turned off by this strategy (draft Michael Vick), people adopted a newer strategy that ran completely contrary to their original strategy (i.e. "Michael Vick Must Die"). They dropped him off of their boards entirely, Vick's draft stock plummeted, and anyone who grabbed him was mocked mercilously ("n00b, dont u kno that Vick suxxorz?!!1!!!11!"). In reality, "Michael Vick MUST DIE" was a gross overreaction, and Vick very quietly represented solid value in 2005 and was an absolute STEAL in 2006 (ADP = QB12, finished the season as QB4 with just 1 point of VBD less than he had in 2002).I think a lot of people have taken QBs early, been burned by it, and now discount it as a successful strategy. In fact, I suspect that pretty much everyone who was once a Guppy (some never were- some were born sharks) who played in a league with Sharks was absolutely destroyed by the people who understood the true value of stud RBs. Now, those former guppies were influenced by what they saw in their developmental years, and stick FIRMLY to the "Stud RB" theory, repeating it like some sort of mantra. As a result, a lot of people just discount out of hand the idea that drafting a QB early can be a very good idea, regardless of what the numbers say... just like people discounted out of hand that taking Vick as a top-12 QB was a fantastic idea, despite what the numbers said.I think a good way to find great value is to find out what everyone did last year that absolutely blew up on them... and then to do that same thing this year. Why? Because after it blew up on them last year, people are going to horribly underrate the strategy, and you can execute it far cheaper than they could. Outside of drafting Michael Vick, other examples include grabbing backup RBs who become starters (after Kevan Barlow in 2004, LaMont Jordan represented great value in 2005), and drafting Tony Gonzalez (after he struggled in 2005, he represented great value in 2006).Also, the correlary to the MVMD Theorem is that if some particular strategy was ridiculously effective last year, you might want to consider steering away from it this year, since everyone else is going to try that strategy now and the cost of executing the strategy will be much higher. For instance, after Marques Colston's year last year, I suspect it'll be a little bit more expensive to acquire rookie WRs this year, and after the success Terrell Owens had while changing teams in 2004, I suspect that Randy Moss will probably be a little pricier this year than he otherwise would have been.

 

[stevegamer]

In a dynasty, I 100% disagree. I think Manning & Palmer are first rounders there due to length of carreer & expected consistent quality production.

If it's a 2 QB league, everything changes, as you state.

A 1 QB league, Manning is a valid 1st rounder. He is highly liekly to give you a top 2 QB, which puts you far ahead of others unless they are really skilled with QBBC, and can generate more points from a QBBC than just starting one of the normal starting-caliber QB's. I have been able to do that fairly often before, but sometimes it goes bad.

1/2 of 1st rounders bust. If you can get a guy who is goign to be a top player for you, who has been pretty much bust-proof, that's a good thing.