Does QB-by-committee ever work? (1 Viewer)

[Jojo the circus boy]

16 team league, Fitzpatrick, Freeman, Sanchez - I think 2 weeks in total I picked the right guy, most of the time both guys on the bench outscored my starter. I have been rolling each week w/ FBG's top selection, guess it is time to just pick one of the two lower ranked QB's for the week.

Sure it looks good on paper, but you need a crystal ball to pick the right one each week.

 

[Porkchop]

16 team league, Fitzpatrick, Freeman, Sanchez - I think 2 weeks in total I picked the right guy, most of the time both guys on the bench outscored my starter. I have been rolling each week w/ FBG's top selection, guess it is time to just pick one of the two lower ranked QB's for the week.Sure it looks good on paper, but you need a crystal ball to pick the right one each week.

Short answer: noMany years ago, I did a detailed analysis of QBBC. To get an idea of how long ago, I think the computer spit out a top pairing of Jake Plummer and Jeff Garcia... the year he played for the Browns. The top 3-man QBBC was Plummer/Garcia/Delhomme.I posted it here, but I think those were the old forums.My conclusion was that QBBC doesn't work the way most people advertise it. Without going into details, to maximize your return, you need two QBs who...1.) Have almost identical end of season fantasy points (almost impossible to predict)2.) Have incredibly up-and-down schedules... playing the best and worst pass defenses. (also almost impossible to predict)3.) Have schedules which complement each other perfectly.4.) Are so consistent that you can the right QB each week.My conclusion was that if you got all 4 factors perfectly, you could expect to combine two QBs who were normally marginal QB1s (say, ranked #12 and #13) and get them to perform like an average QB1 (say, QB5 or QB6).In practice, one of the QBs ends up outperforming the other... even if one is only a little better than the other, the benefits of the complementary schedules becomes pretty marginal. Also, the pre-season predictions of which pass defenses will be good/bad tends to be pretty iffy.This isn't to say it's a bad idea to wait until later to take a few QBs with upside. Just that your best hope is that one of them outperforms his draft position and you can run with him all season.

 

[Mister CIA]

When framed as a best-ball proposition, no doubt QBBC is a very good approach. When you have to pick the right guy week-to-week, it gets dicey, especially when you pick two solid QBs to lead the way, like say Ryan and Freeman. Still, I'm a big believer in this approach. You do a little homework and you end up with two good QBs relatively cheap.

 

[Macdaddy_2004]

I play in a 2QB league and went with a comittee of Orton, Stafford, VY and Sanchez.

It worked pretty good so far for me this year. I picked 4 guys with high upside and Orton has tuned into a stud.

There are the odd weeks where you get a bad game but for the most part my QB's are above average in my league.

 

[Instinctive]

The Orton-Freeman-Vick QBBC has worked out relatively well for me.

QBBC isn't how it actually works, it is more of a draft strategy. Pick mid-tier matchup guys with upside.

 

[dagwood]

QBBC can work. If you go that route, it means you drafted heavy in other areas in the early rounds. If your team is awful this year, it probably is more due to failure of your early RB picks (S.Greene, D.Williams) or your early WR picks (R.Moss), than a failure of the QBBC.

 

[da_budman]

QBBC can work. If you go that route, it means you drafted heavy in other areas in the early rounds. If your team is awful this year, it probably is more due to failure of your early RB picks (S.Greene, D.Williams) or your early WR picks (R.Moss), than a failure of the QBBC.

If you ask the question in the strictest sense of the term qqbc does taking lower level qb's and starting the right one each week really gets you an above average qb I would say probably not (at least not most of the time). But the benefits of DRAFTING qbbc goes beyond the strict definition of qbbc.First , as stated, any time you DONT use a high draft pick on a qb your team should theoretically be stronger at another position.Second Just because you draft qbbc doesnt mean you wont end up with a Kyle Orton who ends up an every week starter at a cheap price. You maximize your chance of hitting fantasy gold by taking mid tier qb's hoping that either they mix to make a good combo and one breaks out.Third You avoid the dreaded "my team went down the tubes when my stud qb went out with a season ending injury" issue... Qbbc drafting should leave you with a pretty good backup if you do it right. Where teams that draft a qb early tend to wait later for a backup, you should be targeting 2 (or 3) qb's in the middle rounds.In short, the qbbc draft strategy doesnt always work out as intended but it has some real advantages and is a good draft strategy. Rating players pre season is a VERY inexact science. Getting 2 or 3 shots at fantasy qb gold often works out well if you draft well.

 

[kclien]

I play in a 2QB league and went with a comittee of Orton, Stafford, VY and Sanchez.It worked pretty good so far for me this year. I picked 4 guys with high upside and Orton has tuned into a stud.There are the odd weeks where you get a bad game but for the most part my QB's are above average in my league.

I agree with this. It works the best when one of your guys vastly outperforms his draft position. I almost always draft QBs late and have had a lot of success with this approach.Picking between two or three mediocre guys based on matchup makes it pretty tough to pick the right guy every week, but it still can work if the rest of your team is strong.

 

[Da Guru]

I have won a couple if times using QBBC, but I only had two on my roster. Would not do it with three.

 

[tigerz]

My take is QBBC from drafting isn't as effect since you don't know the SOS before the season starts. It's good only in a sense that you have a better chance to hit sleeper QBs like Orton and Vick but the first 3-6 games is a learning period where you try to figure out who is for real and who is playing beyond their level and what defenses suck this year. Half way through, we know that Houston gives up huge games no matter who the opposing QB is. If you followed Houston every week, I'm pretty sure you would have higher numbers than at least the QB5. QBBC by following the worst teams like Cowboys, Washington, and Houston seems like it would work better than 3 under performing players vs middle tier defenses.

 

[Late225]

I won a championship last year w/ Big Ben/McNabb quarterback committee.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I've been using the Eli-Ryan combo all year and it's worked very well.

Regarding making the wrong choice each week, it helps that Ryan's home/away splits are so clearly defined, so it's basically become start Ryan at home (unless Eli's matchup is overwhelmingly better on paper, like this past week), bench Ryan on the road.

 

[da_budman]

My take is QBBC from drafting isn't as effect since you don't know the SOS before the season starts. It's good only in a sense that you have a better chance to hit sleeper QBs like Orton and Vick but the first 3-6 games is a learning period where you try to figure out who is for real and who is playing beyond their level and what defenses suck this year. Half way through, we know that Houston gives up huge games no matter who the opposing QB is. If you followed Houston every week, I'm pretty sure you would have higher numbers than at least the QB5. QBBC by following the worst teams like Cowboys, Washington, and Houston seems like it would work better than 3 under performing players vs middle tier defenses.

If you played the qb who plays Houston every week you would certainly have the #1 qb in your league. The problem is you would have to have a bunch of different qb's on your roster to do that. I understand what you are saying but your plan wouldnt really work since most starting qb's are rostered. Its like you are trying to play the waiver wire defense game...only with quarterbacks. All I know is myself and a whole lot of other people have successfully used a QBBC draft strategy and done very well with it. Your SOS argument goes across the board in a lot of situations not just qbbc. Players outperform and underperform their draft position all the time. Defenses are no exception. Offenses you thought would be good turn out to be bad and vice versa. Im not sure not knowing the sos early affects the qbbc situation all that much more than all the myriad of other lineup decissions you make. I would say, that if you think the qbbc drafting strategy isnt effective and you worry about choosing the wrong one each week then You probably need to stay with what you are comfortable with and take a qb in the first 4 rounds. Of course what that means is you probably end up with a DIFFERENT lineup decision early when you dont know the sos...only at a different position.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think QBBC is a fascinating concept, but I so rarely have seen it work in practice.

 

[Irish Chaos]

won my league last year with mcnabb/ someone else who i dont remember...

 

[Late225]

QBBC - I don't think it's a concept as much as a simple principle: If your first quarterback isn't great, get a good backup. Now, you hope that one of them breaks out. If one of doesn't, then QBBC won't work in that situation.

 

[tigerz]

My take is QBBC from drafting isn't as effect since you don't know the SOS before the season starts. It's good only in a sense that you have a better chance to hit sleeper QBs like Orton and Vick but the first 3-6 games is a learning period where you try to figure out who is for real and who is playing beyond their level and what defenses suck this year. Half way through, we know that Houston gives up huge games no matter who the opposing QB is. If you followed Houston every week, I'm pretty sure you would have higher numbers than at least the QB5. QBBC by following the worst teams like Cowboys, Washington, and Houston seems like it would work better than 3 under performing players vs middle tier defenses.

If you played the qb who plays Houston every week you would certainly have the #1 qb in your league. The problem is you would have to have a bunch of different qb's on your roster to do that. I understand what you are saying but your plan wouldnt really work since most starting qb's are rostered. Its like you are trying to play the waiver wire defense game...only with quarterbacks. All I know is myself and a whole lot of other people have successfully used a QBBC draft strategy and done very well with it. Your SOS argument goes across the board in a lot of situations not just qbbc. Players outperform and underperform their draft position all the time. Defenses are no exception. Offenses you thought would be good turn out to be bad and vice versa. Im not sure not knowing the sos early affects the qbbc situation all that much more than all the myriad of other lineup decissions you make. I would say, that if you think the qbbc drafting strategy isnt effective and you worry about choosing the wrong one each week then You probably need to stay with what you are comfortable with and take a qb in the first 4 rounds. Of course what that means is you probably end up with a DIFFERENT lineup decision early when you dont know the sos...only at a different position.

Ugh, it's late so I might be misreading but I don't think we are seeing eye to eye. I'm not talking about QBBC working because some of your QB might perform better than drafted or worse than drafted. If you waited on drafting a top 7 QB and picked up 3 QBs and were lucky enough to have Vick or Orton then you hit your sleeper but that's not the committee approach. The committee approach is playing lesser guys according to matchup in order to gain the stats of a higher ranked guy. I'm just saying you don't know which matchups are good early on so you can't really abuse this strategy until it's clear who the bad teams are. Specifically, I'm talking about the QBBC recommended by sites like FFToolbox and the ones recommended here ever year. If you followed their recommendations each year, I think here it was Garrard and Schaub last year and Cutler and Roethlisberger this year and FFToolbox recommended combinations like Favre and Kolb or Kolb and Eli. The combinations were chosen based on schedule but how good the schedule is changes so drastically year to year and if you went according to the schedule they chose in the beginning, you'd leave points on the bench a lot of weeks. The committees ended up good in hindsight because one of the guys turned out to be a stud but starting them based on the schedules didn't turn out too well because of the SOS changes and the fact that middle tier defense matchups can go either way so starting a guy vs a ranked 15 defense vs a ranked 20 defense is pretty much a toss up. Truthfully, stuff like this is actually really frustrating for some people and that should be taken into account. If you really want to abuse the matchups, knowing that Washington and Houston and Dallas are very bad against opposing QBs would be essential. You might not get Houston every week because you can't get 10 QBs but if you picked up a guy like Vince Young who has matches against 4 of these really weak bottom 5 defenses and perhaps a guy like Garrard last week then you have 5 weeks of easy matchups right there. You can do this for all positions and you will end up with a lot of points. It wouldn't matter if the guys you started were waiver wire guys because they will perform just as good as true QB1s. That's what I think a QBBC is. If you picked up guys like Freeman and Sanchez and Hasselbeck and their schedules didn't line up well then this strategy wouldn't be as good because it wouldn't be clear which weeks to start each guy and you will miss a lot of weeks. SOS is the most important thing for QBBC, not the talent of the QB. If you have talented QBs then you don't need a committee.To summarize, 1) drafting multiple QB sleepers if you miss the top studs is solid strategy. 2) Drafting QBs in a later round because an article says their schedules line up nice and you will get comparable points to a QB1 isn't good. 3) Figuring out which teams are the absolute worst at defending the pass and give up elite points to opposing QB each week asap and then trading/picking up guys with schedules that line up well is solid. 4) I repeat QBBC against middle tier defenses is not good enough, they have to be the worst defenses or you really will need a crystal ball to pick the right one. I'm pretty sure this works every year and in every position and people hint at it in like every "weekly pickup" or "waiver wire defense" or "RBs to exploit". It's so obvious that I swear, the only sleepers Matthew Berry gets right every week are the ones based on this philosophy. Majority of the sleepers people pick every week like Seyi, Goodson, Manningham, etc are 90% based on schedule and I'm pretty sure the hit rate is very high (unless it's someone like D.Alexander) so this is a very viable strategy. People are just too afraid to risk their record starting no name guys because the appeal of brand name guys. I have a hunch that if you took away all the startable guys (top 10 QB, top 20 RB/WR) and picked guys according to the matchup each week then you could make up an entire team that would perform just as good or better than a team with a set lineup of studs. Bottom tier defenses are always so bad that they produce top tier offensive talent as often or more often than a stud has good weeks. I hope all that makes sense, it's late and I'm half awake. Just my 2 cents.

 

[FUBAR]

As mentioned, I only use it in best ball or in an effort to get a couple value QBs and a solid backup.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I guess this is what I am getting at, I am in a 16 team league, we did an auction format for the first time this year. League has been around 6 or 7 years. I paid no more than $1 for each of my QB's, I got some elite players at other positions and they are carrying my team. I am tied for the best record in the league (2 divisions total), I lead my division 8-2 but I have the 5th highest total points in my division (of 8 teams) so obviously I have been catching some lucky breaks.

If you take the highest score QB on my roster for any given week, you would have the #1 scoring QB in the league w/ 275.2 points (Rivers is QB1 statistically w/ 240.2) - bye week aside.

Given the QB I have chosen each week my total is 143.6, or good enough for 21st QB in my league (out of 16 teams).

Salary	Pos	Player35	RB	Johnson, Chris RB TEN22	WR	Moss, Randy WR TEN17	RB	Williams, DeAngelo RB CAR --> traded for Andre Johnson8	WR	Nicks, Hakeem WR NYG7	TE	Celek, Brent TE PHI1	QB	Campbell, Jason QB OAK1	WR	Robinson, Laurent WR STL1	WR	Moore, Lance WR NO1	K	Folk, Nick K NYJ1	DST	Colts DST1	RES	Jackson, Brandon RB GB1	RES	Freeman, Josh QB TB1	RES	Sanchez, Mark QB NYJ1	RES	Ringer, Javon RB TEN1	RES	Titans DST1	RES	Douglas, Harry WR ATL

 

[Warhogs]

Is the question really does QBBC work or the philosophy of drafting the QB spot late work? I think this sometimes get confused.

My simple answer is yes in either case QBBC or drafting the QB position late can work well.

I think I tend to play matchups at all positions more than a lot of my league mates. It does get frustrating when you choose wrong but generally I think you can benefit by playing matchups at the QB spot.

In talking drafting QB late that can work really well too. I am having a pretty successful year in a 12 team league where I ended up drafting Kolb and Orton and then adding Vick as soon as Kolb had an injury. I carried more bodies early on since I knew it was my weak position but have since weeded out the position and I am quite strong at the QB spot.

 

[Captain Hook]

16 team league, Fitzpatrick, Freeman, Sanchez - I think 2 weeks in total I picked the right guy, most of the time both guys on the bench outscored my starter. I have been rolling each week w/ FBG's top selection, guess it is time to just pick one of the two lower ranked QB's for the week.Sure it looks good on paper, but you need a crystal ball to pick the right one each week.

First some Very Good responses in this threadIn regards to your question, I think you are blaming the drafting strategy of QBBC on YOUR lineup choices.......totally different parts of managing your FF team.

 

[LC512]

Lost in a nailbiter championship game last year with Flacco and Orton

They weren't the reason for my success, but not drafting a QB early allowed me to load up on skill players, who WERE my strength. So it worked as the theory says it does.

All depends on the year. I've tried it and failed, and I've won and lost with "stud" QBs.

No right answer.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

16 team league, Fitzpatrick, Freeman, Sanchez - I think 2 weeks in total I picked the right guy, most of the time both guys on the bench outscored my starter. I have been rolling each week w/ FBG's top selection, guess it is time to just pick one of the two lower ranked QB's for the week.Sure it looks good on paper, but you need a crystal ball to pick the right one each week.

First some Very Good responses in this threadIn regards to your question, I think you are blaming the drafting strategy of QBBC on YOUR lineup choices.......totally different parts of managing your FF team.

I could go back and compare what FBG recommended to start and who I chose every week (hint: they were the same), like I said you need a crystal ball to get accurate projections. For those saying it worked out great because they drafted Vick, well if I drafted (sleeper) Arian Foster for $12 I am sure I would have no complaints either.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

QBBC can work. If you go that route, it means you drafted heavy in other areas in the early rounds. If your team is awful this year, it probably is more due to failure of your early RB picks (S.Greene, D.Williams) or your early WR picks (R.Moss), than a failure of the QBBC.

Of course if you take Rodgers early and hit on your late round rb picks like McFadden, Hillis, Foster, then you're set as well.

 

[solorca]

I've used an Orton/Eli combo quite well this season, but honestly, both have been performing at the QB1 level, so most weeks it was just a matter of who performed higher.

I traded Eli away yesterday though, and will simply grab a backup.

 

[Porkchop]

You know... I found some of the spreadsheets I generated when I last tried to analyze QBBC (in 2006) Unfortunately, the meat of the analysis was in a database and was lost. But maybe someone will find this interesting.

First... a quick definition. I define a successful QBBC to be one where by starting different QBs (based on their matchup), you are able to get a combined fantasy output that is significantly better than the output than either of the individual QBs.

[*]The maximum expected benefit for a 2-man QBBC was a 17% improvement. The optimal pairing in 2006 was Jeff Garcia (projected to score 260 fantasy points) and Tom Brady (projected to score 260 fantasy points). Paired together, they were projected to score 303 fantasy points.

[*]The 17% number is a bit inflated... because a single QB will score zero points during his bye week. If you factor out bye weeks, it comes out to about an 11% improvement.

[*]An 11% improvement is enough that if your pair was QB12 and QB13, you should expect them to perform at about the level of a QB7. To give a more current example... it would have been like drafting Stafford/Kolb this year, and hoping they had a combined output similar to Phillip Rivers.

[*]Note that the 2006 "optimal" pairing was a disaster, as Brady went on to have a much better fantasy year than Garcia.

I seeded the analysis using a.) FBG pre-season QB projections, b.) FBG pre-season SoS estimates, c.) 4 years of NFL play by play data.

The play by play data was used in an attempt to analyze the effect of pass defenses on the fantasy output of opposing QBs. I wasn't very confident in my methodology at the time, but I concluded that...

[*]When playing against the worst NFL pass defenses, the expectation is that a QB will score ~30% more fantasy points than if he were playing against an average one.

[*]When playing against the best NFL pass defenses, the expectation is that a QB will score ~15% fewer fantasy points than if he were playing against an average one.

[*]The 'worst' estimate feels a little extreme... I think it might be a flier because Arizona was terrible from 2001 through 2005, which is where I mined my data.

Note that the numbers for defenses do not reflect the usual "average fantasy points allowed to QBs". They attempted to reflect the effect of a defense on a specific QB.

For example... people were talking about how Houston has given a lot of fantasy points away this year. But they've also faced 2xPeyton Manning, Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers, and 2xMatt Schaub this year. I don't have the numbers for this anymore, but my recollection is that QBs have a bigger impact on how defenses are perceived, than the other way around.

It is likely that if, say, Colt McCoy faced Houston... his fantasy output isn't going to be nearly as high as their "fantasy points allowed" numbers would suggest.

A few concluding thoughts...

Note that all of the above calculations assume that the pre-season QB and SoS projections are perfect. In practice the requirements necessary to get the 11% improvement are very fragile. The two QBs need to have almost identical fantasy output, have extreme schedules (facing good and bad defenses), and their schedules need to complement each other. Because it's so fragile, the computed QBBC will probably fall apart almost as soon as the season starts.

Because of that, my conclusion was that: QBBC is a myth.

I suspect the concept of a QBBC persists because it's exactly the kind of sneaky "edge on my league" play that fantasy players love. And also because every year people have anecdotes like "I had a QBBC of Orten and Vick". Remember that Orten and Vick are not QBBC plays... they're not valuable because they complement each other, they're valuable because they were sleepers that panned out.

Sorry about the walls of text. Hope that was interesting to someone.

 

[Late225]

Very interesting - thanks for that.

So what's the lesson here? Don't do QBBC based on matchups? If you pick a low end quarterback, try to get a solid backup and a few late round high risk/high reward sleepers and hope one hits?

Or draft Peyton Manning...

 

[cubbie5150]

I've utilized it successfully several times before, but as always, it mostly depends on which QBs make up the committee. In '09 it was a disaster for me as by the 3rd week of the season (due to Hass injury) I was trying to rotate 3 QBs (Cutler, Hass, Garrard). I always managed to start the lowest scoring of the three, and lemme tell you, amongst THOSE three, there was low scoring aplenty. It totally destroyed what was otherwise a solid team. I think I averaged a ridiculous 8.5 pts/week from my starting QB....

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Is the question really does QBBC RBBC work or the philosophy of drafting the QB RB spots late work? I think this sometimes get confused.

My simple answer is yes in either case QBBC RBBC or drafting the QB RB position late can work well.

I think I tend to play matchups at all positions more than a lot of my league mates. It does get frustrating when you choose wrong but generally I think you can benefit by playing matchups at the QB spot.

In talking drafting QB RBs late that can work really well too. I am having a pretty successful year in a 12 team league where I ended up drafting Kolb and Orton Foster and McFadden and then adding Vick Hillis as soon as Kolb had an injury. I carried more bodies early on since I knew it was my weak position but have since weeded out the position and I am quite strong at the QB RB spot.

fyp

 

[Banger]

I start out with approach every single year , this year started with Palmer and Eli a d rotated them the first few weeks. It usually works fine but I think the best thing about it is that it doesn't make you "tied" to any one qb so invariably every year I'm active on the waiver wire and this year I nabbed Vick and Orton. I usually draft and play the ww well enough that if I'm still struggling to find consistency half way through the year i'll look at strength of schedule and cobble together a deal for one.

So I love QBBC not so much for the results but for flexibility to play matchups (which are more important at the qb position than any other) and because it forces me to continually hunt for better options. It's been a winning strategy for me for years although I don't stick with the QBBC textbook.

 

[fightingillini]

I like the strategy of drafting a QBBC for the early part of the year, then see if one QB can emerge to be the every week starter. Nothing wrong with drafting 2 or 3 mid tier QBs and see if one can become a top 10 QB and a consistent starter.

QBBC can work. In theory you can start the QB with the best matchup, and generally the better of two mid tier QBs will equal a stud QB....but it does have its disadvantages. You can have a headache determining which one to start.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Cliff notes.

Note that all of the above calculations assume that the pre-season QB and SoS projections are perfect.

Because of that, my conclusion was that: QBBC is a myth.

Nail on the head and what I have been trying to say.

 

[tigerz]

A few concluding thoughts...

Note that all of the above calculations assume that the pre-season QB and SoS projections are perfect. In practice the requirements necessary to get the 11% improvement are very fragile. The two QBs need to have almost identical fantasy output, have extreme schedules (facing good and bad defenses), and their schedules need to complement each other. Because it's so fragile, the computed QBBC will probably fall apart almost as soon as the season starts.

Because of that, my conclusion was that: QBBC is a myth.

I suspect the concept of a QBBC persists because it's exactly the kind of sneaky "edge on my league" play that fantasy players love. And also because every year people have anecdotes like "I had a QBBC of Orten and Vick". Remember that Orten and Vick are not QBBC plays... they're not valuable because they complement each other, they're valuable because they were sleepers that panned out.

Sorry about the walls of text. Hope that was interesting to someone.

Bingo, we have a winner! Great analysis, I agree with everything you said here but late in the season you still have an edge if you play someone who is average against a really bad defense. Houston did face Rivers and Manning but I believe they did even better than they usually do, Garrard and Cassel also did well, and unless the QB is the worst of the worst then you should expect they receive a noticeable bump from their average and that should result in top 10 stats for that week. You do need to take the fact that a defense only played elite QBs into account if that were true because they may actually be better than they are rated because of that but sometimes a defense really can be passed on by anyone. Although, throwing out the worst of the worst is always a good idea as some QBs are unserviceable no matter who they face. This shouldn't discourage anyone from playing the matchups though since it is a solid strategy once the season is underway and even an 11% bump is good though I suspect it would be higher if you also weigh the matchup against other factors that might detract from a player's performance like any good manager would do. I think you were thinking along he same lines but I just wanted to clarify.

Very interesting - thanks for that.

So what's the lesson here? Don't do QBBC based on matchups? If you pick a low end quarterback, try to get a solid backup and a few late round high risk/high reward sleepers and hope one hits?

Or draft Peyton Manning...

The conclusion is if you miss the stud QBs you draft, draft multiple sleeper QBs and hope one pans out. Do not draft QBs based on schedule because schedule strength is often inaccurate in the preseason. Do take matchups into account when setting your lineup but notice that it only holds weight after the regular season is underway and you know which defenses are bad and which QBs are at least decent. Remember that matchup is only one of the factors in determining success so weigh it against other factors like QB performance, QB history against that defense, division matchup, home/away game, etc. Pretty much what every good manager should already know. In theory, you can reach higher stats with a QBBC if you are perfect but in reality, it's a lot harder than it looks because people who draft with that strategy see it in a vacuum. At some point you will have to either go by a committee in one of the positions if your sleepers do not pan out or you did not draft all studs so it doesn't matter if you draft Peyton Manning or not because you can't realistically have studs at all positions. When that happens, a decent committee is good enough to get you the low end of the stats at that position.