Draft quarterbacks higher? (1 Viewer)

[ATG]

This site along with many others have recommended drafting your core players before quarterbacks. That is because quality running backs and receivers are more limited and also because you start only on qb. I am in a 12 team ppr league where qb's get 4 points for a touchdown. With the increased number of 2 back teams would drafting a qb in rounds 1 or 2 make sense? Mr. Dodds in his article, perfect ppr draft, recommends taking them late, even though they are ranked high in his rankings. Any thoughts?

 

[rizzler]

many threads on this.

Simply put, if it's PPR, and only 4pts per QB TD... I would wait on a QB.

6pts per, and Id be drafting a stud QB early.

Without getting into semantics, that's my flow... and I do pretty damn well each year.

 

[Warhogs]

You may want to plug your league scoring into your projected statistics to help answer this question. I have had success both waiting on QB and drafting a QB early.

I have no problems drafting a guy like Rodgers, Brees or Brady early. Outside of that I would probably wait (I'm talking redraft in this post).

When planning a draft I identify the guys I think give me the greatest advantage at their position. So I maybe create a list like:

Rodgers

Brees

Brady

Foster

Rice

McCoy

Calvin

Fitz

Gronk

I'll take one of these guys first regardless of position. Once that list is gone I would tend to focus on RB and WR before worrying about grabbing a QB.

That's my general philosophy heading into a draft.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Both strategies work. You still need to draft well. I will say getting a top 3-4 QB gives you a significant advantage at the position. It is just a matter of value.

 

[jeter23]

I am not advising either way, but QB ADP in startups so far this year is very different from the past. There are currently 3 1st round QBs according to ADP and 2 more 2nd rounders.

 

[Sylira21]

This year's ADP is usually an overreaction to last year's results. A lot of people won with Brady, Brees or Rodgers or at least received a large perceived advantage with one of them as a QB last year.

The FBG method tries not to fall in love with any one particular position - instead, as a number of people have already pointed out, go for value regardless of position. Value Based Drafting theoretically works independent of position. That does take some pretty good projection skills though.

 

[rizzler]

Projections are far too often laughably low for QBs....

I consider stud QBs a must. That's just me. And I find projections to be way off.

 

[towney]

I draft a QB (4pts) early because we can use a QB at a flex position. If your 6pts it make sense to draft an elite one early.

 

[hotboyz]

I was one to wait on qbs but over the yrs I've noticed the high majority of playoff teams in my league have top 5 qbs. I won the championship this yr because I drafted stafford in the 6 th and got cam as a FA going into this season I dont see that 5th rd QB that can be top 5 so I may go QB early we award 6 pts for all Td under 40 yds 9 pts for all Td 40 and over. Plus I believe top QB is the safest pick in the draft very rarely bust and not as big of a injury risk

 

[kutta]

I never understood the argument that "since there are more 2-back teams, you should wait on RB in the first round." Assuming there are more 2-back teams, all that does is boost the relative value of the one-back guys. So guys like Rice, Peterson, Foster, Chris Johnson, Jones-Drew, etc., become more valuable, not less, and these guys should be drafted in round 1.

I am not saying that these guys should be taken over Rogers, Calvin, etc. I'm just stating that the argument that more 2-back teams makes drafting a RB in the first round risky is off base, and actually the opposite is true.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

I never understood the argument that "since there are more 2-back teams, you should wait on RB in the first round." Assuming there are more 2-back teams, all that does is boost the relative value of the one-back guys. So guys like Rice, Peterson, Foster, Chris Johnson, Jones-Drew, etc., become more valuable, not less, and these guys should be drafted in round 1. I am not saying that these guys should be taken over Rogers, Calvin, etc. I'm just stating that the argument that more 2-back teams makes drafting a RB in the first round risky is off base, and actually the opposite is true.

Look at the recent history of super stud QBs. Peyton's monster year was followed by just a good year. Ditto Brady. Look at Aaron Rodgers' yearly stats: which one looks like the outlier?Career years (at any position) are often followed by just a good year. Career years are hard to reproduce. Green Bay sucked at running the ball in 2011, so they threw threw threw. They will still be very good at throwing and Rodgers should be the #1 QB taken, but his 10 point per game advantage from 2011 might only be 3-5 points this year.That being said, there are many draft strategies that work. Do what works in your particular league.