Drafting 2 QB's with your first 3 picks? (1 Viewer)

[TheDirtyWord]

Last year, I was in a league where in Round 3, an owner drafted Kurt Warner. In Round 6, he also picked up Matt Schaub. As it turns out, he has two stud QB's and winds up trading Schaub essentially for Ryan Grant around Week 4.

The guy made the playoffs and I consider him to be a very involved and astute owner. Now Schaub wound up being a bit of a surprise in that he severely outplayed his draft position. However, as I look to 2009 and coming off a year where 4000 yard QB's were quite plentiful, does the strategy of selecting QB's with 2 of your first 3 selections hold any merit?

Here is why I ask. As we enter into mock draft season, I see ADP's of certain players that kind of surprise me (via FantasyFootballCalculator).

Shonn Green - 2.01

Jamaal Charles - 2.11

Ryan Mathews - 2.11

Beanie Wells - 3.12

LeSean McCoy - 4.01

...maybe surprise is the wrong word, but when compared to these QB's.

Tom Brady - 3.09

Philip Rivers - 3.11

Tony Romo - 4.04

Matt Schaub - 4.05

You look at the QB's, and it's not only their numbers that stand out to you (they averaged 4476 yards & 28 TD's)...but their track records. All have at least 2 seasons of elite production at the QB position and Brady is a NFL poster boy.

Meanwhile, none of the above 5 RB's have proven that they can carry a teams (effective) rushing attack for a 16 game season and in most of those situations, there is a certain degree of uncertainty over workload split.

So what I wonder about is what if you drafted Aaron Rodgers and Matt Schaub? Do I feel more comfortable that I'm going to get what I paid for out of these two players than I would Ryan Mathews? For sure.

Now the rebuttal is "you can't start 2 QB's, you're wasting points on the bench". But we all know that no fantasy season goes according to pre-season scripts. There is going to be opportunity to be able to deal one of your QB's for a position that you are weak in during the seasons first month. You take take advantage of the panic emotion and also get a better lay of the land in terms of who is performing at a better/worse level than the previous season (Frank Gore in 2009?).

My overall point and question to the mob here is, I like the reliability at the QB position, particularly at the top (this does not account for injury which is random IMO). In terms of performance, you probably can predict with much more confidence what you are going to get out of these QB's than you can the 2nd tier of RB's.

Would you consider this drafting strategy in 2010?...or am I off my rocker?

 

[thriftyrocker]

Usually owners who do stuff like that get stonewalled and either have to sell low or just can't get a deal done.

There's 8 QBs who will be great to elite: Rodgers, Brees, Peyton, Brady, Schaub, Romo, Rivers, Favre

There's 6 QBs who will be startable to elite: Kolb, McNabb. Cutler, Eli, Flacco, Ryan

There's even more QBs who should be startable: Stafford, Palmer, Smith, Henne, Leinart

Plus there's Roethlisberger who will be great to elite after week 4.

In 10 to 12 team leagues, there's just too many QBs available to play games with someone trying out a strategy.

 

[Avery]

Now the rebuttal is "you can't start 2 QB's, you're wasting points on the bench". But we all know that no fantasy season goes according to pre-season scripts. There is going to be opportunity to be able to deal one of your QB's for a position that you are weak in during the seasons first month. You take take advantage of the panic emotion and also get a better lay of the land in terms of who is performing at a better/worse level than the previous season (Frank Gore in 2009?).

I wouldn't say you would get stonewalled, but don't draft a play with the assumption that you will necessarily be able to make a trade later on to balance your roster.

 

[SSOG]

The fact that there are so many QBs with eye-popping numbers is precisely the reason why drafting two of them high is a bad idea. You're basically drafting a player with the intention of trading him... but where's the trade market? Last year, there were 10 4,000 yard passers. Even if you land two of them, that means 8 other teams in your league have a 4,000 yard passer of their own, leaving you with 3 potential trade partners. Or, worse, someone else could land a pair of 4,000 yard passers with a lower initial investment, at which point the teams that need a QB are going to buy from whoever is selling cheaper... which is almost certainly going to be the other guy because he didn't spend a 3rd round pick on his backup QB.

In 2008, the 3rd best QB (Aaron Rodgers) ranked 7th in cross-positional VBD. In 2009, because of the explosion of quality passers (and the resulting raise in the baseline), the 3rd best QB (Brett Favre) ranked 16th. The 4th best QB fell from 13th to 21st. The 5th best QB fell from 17th to 25th. Where you see the gain is in the bottom 50% starters (for instance, the 9th best QB in 2008 was 55th, while the 9th best QB in 2009 was 37th), which really just goes to show that the current passing explosion lessens the importance of owning a top-6 fantasy QB and increases the value of low-end top 10 QBs. And nobody is *EVER* going to pay anything substantial for a guy who is QB9 in your league. It's just not going to happen.

I think drafting 2 stud QBs early made a lot more sense in the early 2000s when there was Peyton Manning, Daunte Culpepper, and no one else at the top. Now that there are so many fantastic options at the position, I could never see committing major resources to acquire a QB in trade.

 

[Routilla]

Too much risk IMO. If you start out 1-3, 0-4 etc and are needing a trade to balance your team then you are at the mercy of the other owners. If it is a shark league then they will likely let you slowly strangle yourself until say week 7-8 and then start offering trades. At that point you are done and would only be helping them towards a playoff run. In order for this strategy to work you would have to be 3-1 or 4-0 in order to be able to pull off a successful trade that actually helps your team. No way to guarantee that.

 

[Air Stich]

Awful strategy unless you start 2 QBs. Why not just take a stud WR or RB in the 2nd instead of hoping to trade your QB for one? Way too risky with limited upside.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Awful strategy unless you start 2 QBs. Why not just take a stud WR or RB in the 2nd instead of hoping to trade your QB for one? Way too risky with limited upside.

So this is what is qualifying as studs now?Shonn Green - 2.01Jamaal Charles - 2.11Ryan Mathews - 2.11Beanie Wells - 3.12LeSean McCoy - 4.01...these 'studs' whose average NFL season to date has amounted to 893 Yards From Scrimmage and 4 TD's?

 

[Instinctive]

Awful strategy unless you start 2 QBs. Why not just take a stud WR or RB in the 2nd instead of hoping to trade your QB for one? Way too risky with limited upside.

So this is what is qualifying as studs now?Shonn Green - 2.01Jamaal Charles - 2.11Ryan Mathews - 2.11Beanie Wells - 3.12LeSean McCoy - 4.01...these 'studs' whose average NFL season to date has amounted to 893 Yards From Scrimmage and 4 TD's?

You don't have to take those exact guys. Ryan Grant should be there round 2. A whole bunch of wideouts should be there. You're better off going STUD RB, WR/QB, WR/QB, and then shotgunning RBs later afte ryou fill out your WR corps.

 

[shader]

It's a terrible strategy in a 1 QB league. Yeah, it's a sure thing that they will be studs. However, you can only start one and I doubt you'll get great value for the 2nd.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Too much risk IMO. If you start out 1-3, 0-4 etc and are needing a trade to balance your team then you are at the mercy of the other owners. If it is a shark league then they will likely let you slowly strangle yourself until say week 7-8 and then start offering trades. At that point you are done and would only be helping them towards a playoff run. In order for this strategy to work you would have to be 3-1 or 4-0 in order to be able to pull off a successful trade that actually helps your team. No way to guarantee that.

You're at the mercy of other owners if you start out 1-3/0-4 no matter what the composition of your team; whether you draft 2 QB's or draft one of the aforementioned RB's who wound up underperforming (wouldn't that be a potential primary reason why you'd be in this predicament?). In that situation, you're forced to rob Peter to pay Paul in trying to improve your team. At least if you have a stud QB who can offer true value to trading partners.Is a 3rd round pick going to break you if you receive an asset that you know will have value, even if that value is minimal to you? Compared with making a bet on a player who is being primarily drafted on situation? When I look at this years crop, I see ALOT of players who really seem to be being overdrafted like I mentioned above. 2 years ago Chris Johnson was 8.04 ADP (and that was after a studly pre-season). Now, Ryan Mathews merits a 2.11 position? I just have a hard time believing that historically speaking he's worth that. LeSean McCoy who the Eagles felt so good about that they signed Mike Bell and have Leonard Weaver on hand...(where do McCoy's TD's come from?) at 4.01? Shonn Greene at 2.01 !!!??? I'm not naive to think all of these players will fail. But I think the reliability of all of these players reaching or exceeding expectations is nil.I'm thinking the risk of having a team be in need of a QB (in my experience, there are always 1-3 teams looking to upgrade at this position) is less than counting on one of these players with a 2nd/3rd round pick to provide big time production this year.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

It's a terrible strategy in a 1 QB league. Yeah, it's a sure thing that they will be studs. However, you can only start one and I doubt you'll get great value for the 2nd.

Why would you not get great value for the 2nd? And if that were the case, then you have the option of putting your QB1 on the market. Aaron Rodgers/Drew Brees couldn't net you value?

 

[KellysHeroes]

was going to come in and say the samething, not a good idea in re-drafts

Drafting 2 QBs early or even 2 TEs in leagues where your only able to start one isn't smart...

for starters your team is at a dis-advantage from the beginning by giving up a position player like RB or WR.

then the other owners know that your more than willing to deal one of them and by mid-season you'll take less than their worth unless you have a good record and can wait it out till trade deadline.

In Dynasty its a little different. The QB ADP always hold great value after the first 3 or 4 are off the board.. you can still get a really good one in a little round and in a larger league they hold good value.

I had a 16 team start up in 2008 and took 2 QBs between rounds 6 and 9

6.14 94. Lord Humungus and the Dogs of War Manning, Eli NYG QB - at the time he was the 10th QB taken

There were then 6 QBs taken afterwards and I made a small little trade to move a couple of spots to take a QB from a couple of teams that had yet drafted one

9.09 137. Lord Humungus and the Dogs of War Rivers, Philip SDC QB Mon May 19 9:49:19 p.m. ET 2008

But, I did end up hurting my team at the time; I needed a WR badly and I was actually going to pull the trigger on VJax but he was taken in the 8th.

and it should be noted that I traded Eli the following yr for 1.12 only to draft Sanchez. I got lucky with that move as drafting Rookie QBs are always Boom or Bust

 

[SSOG]

Too much risk IMO. If you start out 1-3, 0-4 etc and are needing a trade to balance your team then you are at the mercy of the other owners. If it is a shark league then they will likely let you slowly strangle yourself until say week 7-8 and then start offering trades. At that point you are done and would only be helping them towards a playoff run. In order for this strategy to work you would have to be 3-1 or 4-0 in order to be able to pull off a successful trade that actually helps your team. No way to guarantee that.

You're at the mercy of other owners if you start out 1-3/0-4 no matter what the composition of your team; whether you draft 2 QB's or draft one of the aforementioned RB's who wound up underperforming (wouldn't that be a potential primary reason why you'd be in this predicament?). In that situation, you're forced to rob Peter to pay Paul in trying to improve your team. At least if you have a stud QB who can offer true value to trading partners.Is a 3rd round pick going to break you if you receive an asset that you know will have value, even if that value is minimal to you? Compared with making a bet on a player who is being primarily drafted on situation? When I look at this years crop, I see ALOT of players who really seem to be being overdrafted like I mentioned above. 2 years ago Chris Johnson was 8.04 ADP (and that was after a studly pre-season). Now, Ryan Mathews merits a 2.11 position? I just have a hard time believing that historically speaking he's worth that. LeSean McCoy who the Eagles felt so good about that they signed Mike Bell and have Leonard Weaver on hand...(where do McCoy's TD's come from?) at 4.01? Shonn Greene at 2.01 !!!??? I'm not naive to think all of these players will fail. But I think the reliability of all of these players reaching or exceeding expectations is nil.I'm thinking the risk of having a team be in need of a QB (in my experience, there are always 1-3 teams looking to upgrade at this position) is less than counting on one of these players with a 2nd/3rd round pick to provide big time production this year.

It seems like you're identifying a problem and then finding a "solution" that's worse than the problem is.You think that a lot of mediocre RBs are being overdrafted. That's just fine. The solution isn't to draft two QBs, though. If you don't like the options at RB, then go with a WR. The options in the 2nd round consist of guys like Marshall, Roddy, Desean, and Calvin- guys with a demonstrable history of high-level production. If you don't like the options at RB in the 3rd, then the WRs there are guys like VJax, Sidney Rice, Colston, and Jennings- proven studs, one and all. You don't like any of those options, then take Dallas Clark or Antonio Gates, either of whom will benefit your team far more than drafting Tony Romo when you already own Drew Brees. Hell, Gates has finished in the top 20 in season-ending VBD in five of the last six seasons (he was 40th in the sixth), which means he's likely to be more valuable than that 6th QB off the board you're grabbing, and you don't have to worry about finding a trade partner to benefit from his production.Serious question... let's say you get your Rodgers in the 1st, Romo in the 3rd combo, and the two QBs wind up producing just like you'd expect them to. Who would you be looking to trade Romo for? Who do you realistically think you could acquire for him?

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Too much risk IMO. If you start out 1-3, 0-4 etc and are needing a trade to balance your team then you are at the mercy of the other owners. If it is a shark league then they will likely let you slowly strangle yourself until say week 7-8 and then start offering trades. At that point you are done and would only be helping them towards a playoff run. In order for this strategy to work you would have to be 3-1 or 4-0 in order to be able to pull off a successful trade that actually helps your team. No way to guarantee that.

You're at the mercy of other owners if you start out 1-3/0-4 no matter what the composition of your team; whether you draft 2 QB's or draft one of the aforementioned RB's who wound up underperforming (wouldn't that be a potential primary reason why you'd be in this predicament?). In that situation, you're forced to rob Peter to pay Paul in trying to improve your team. At least if you have a stud QB who can offer true value to trading partners.Is a 3rd round pick going to break you if you receive an asset that you know will have value, even if that value is minimal to you? Compared with making a bet on a player who is being primarily drafted on situation? When I look at this years crop, I see ALOT of players who really seem to be being overdrafted like I mentioned above. 2 years ago Chris Johnson was 8.04 ADP (and that was after a studly pre-season). Now, Ryan Mathews merits a 2.11 position? I just have a hard time believing that historically speaking he's worth that. LeSean McCoy who the Eagles felt so good about that they signed Mike Bell and have Leonard Weaver on hand...(where do McCoy's TD's come from?) at 4.01? Shonn Greene at 2.01 !!!??? I'm not naive to think all of these players will fail. But I think the reliability of all of these players reaching or exceeding expectations is nil.I'm thinking the risk of having a team be in need of a QB (in my experience, there are always 1-3 teams looking to upgrade at this position) is less than counting on one of these players with a 2nd/3rd round pick to provide big time production this year.

It seems like you're identifying a problem and then finding a "solution" that's worse than the problem is.You think that a lot of mediocre RBs are being overdrafted. That's just fine. The solution isn't to draft two QBs, though. If you don't like the options at RB, then go with a WR. The options in the 2nd round consist of guys like Marshall, Roddy, Desean, and Calvin- guys with a demonstrable history of high-level production. If you don't like the options at RB in the 3rd, then the WRs there are guys like VJax, Sidney Rice, Colston, and Jennings- proven studs, one and all. You don't like any of those options, then take Dallas Clark or Antonio Gates, either of whom will benefit your team far more than drafting Tony Romo when you already own Drew Brees. Hell, Gates has finished in the top 20 in season-ending VBD in five of the last six seasons (he was 40th in the sixth), which means he's likely to be more valuable than that 6th QB off the board you're grabbing, and you don't have to worry about finding a trade partner to benefit from his production.Serious question... let's say you get your Rodgers in the 1st, Romo in the 3rd combo, and the two QBs wind up producing just like you'd expect them to. Who would you be looking to trade Romo for? Who do you realistically think you could acquire for him?

Why would I only consider trading Romo? I'd consider trading Rodgers if the bait was good enough. Let's say you draft Rodgers at 1:10 and he performs to the level he performed at in 2009 (Romo follows suit). I'd have a case to trade Rodgers for just about anyone short of Chris Johnson duplicating a 2500 total yard season. Obviously it's all about 'situation' but Rodgers for MJD/Gore/Rice could all be reasonable offers.I still have a Top 5 QB who can provide sporadic huge weeks while trading an explosive yet expendable asset.

 

[BINGBING]

It's obvious nobody is going to prove you wrong...so just do it.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

It's obvious nobody is going to prove you wrong...so just do it.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion forum to discuss FF ideas and strategy. My bad... <sarcasm off>

 

[rzrback77]

You have to be in larger leagues to consider this. In ten and twelve team leagues, there are simply too many startable QBs and most guys will not trade valuable RBs or WRs for your second stud QB. It is that simple. That is why there are studly QBs available in the 4th and 5th rounds of ten and twelve team leagues.

 

[gehazi]

I could see some merit to it in a start-up dynasty league. In that scenario taking best available is almost always more productive. But I can't see doing it in a redraft league though.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

You have to be in larger leagues to consider this. In ten and twelve team leagues, there are simply too many startable QBs and most guys will not trade valuable RBs or WRs for your second stud QB. It is that simple. That is why there are studly QBs available in the 4th and 5th rounds of ten and twelve team leagues.

While 2009 saw studly production from this position...let's evaluate some of the bottom end of that production.Big Ben - prior to 2009, was not seen as a QB1 (was 14th drafted QB on average; source FFC). Will miss first 4 games.Warner - great 2008, but since retiredEli Manning - prior to last season, had not thrown for more than 3340 yards since 2005. YPA jumped to 7.9 (career best prior to then 6.8). Will he stay this productive with a healthy backfield?McNabb - In Washington? What might that do to his production?Favre - He was brilliant in 2009, not so much in 2008. He'll be 41 in October. Can he do again what he did last season?Everyone is pointing to the NFL becoming a passing league. But it was this way in 2008 too and yet only 3 QB's surpassed 4038 yards. In 2009, 9 QB's surpassed 4200. Do we know this jump in production is a trend or simply an outlier?I think in 10 team leagues, this would be admittedly tough. Not just in terms of more QB talent available, but more RB/WR talent to spare as well. But a 12 team league presents different challenges and roster compositions. IMO, there are 7 solid rocks at the QB position.BreesRodgersP. ManningBradyRiversSchaubRomo...there are also some good-to-great talents in the pipeline, but you don't know when it will mature to being at the level (Flacco, Cutler, Ryan, Kolb, Stafford, Sanchez, etc...) spoken about above. But if you grab 2 QB's, that leaves 6 teams choosing from the rest of the pool mentioned.When I look at the RB/WR position, I see more question marks being highly valued than I can remember and IMO they carry inordinate amounts of bust potential.

 

[ookook]

The few times I have seen it done the owner regretted it every time.

For the first 4 to 5 games, everyone likes who they drafted and your value is sitting on the bench.

By week 6, you want top trade value for your best stud, but supply and demand works against you as there WILL be good QBs out there on the wire.

Personally, I almost never take QBs in rounds 1 through 5 at all. The few that have value there are taken to early to be worth my while.

Most times I have won leagues it was with QBs taken in the 8th through 12th rounds (usually I take several).

Value of QBs is illusary -- it looks better than it really is because people pay too much attention to absolute points not relative and do not see the opportunity cost of NOT taking a 3rd good RB to hedge against injury or their 3rd WR.

 

[SSOG]

Why would I only consider trading Romo? I'd consider trading Rodgers if the bait was good enough. Let's say you draft Rodgers at 1:10 and he performs to the level he performed at in 2009 (Romo follows suit). I'd have a case to trade Rodgers for just about anyone short of Chris Johnson duplicating a 2500 total yard season. Obviously it's all about 'situation' but Rodgers for MJD/Gore/Rice could all be reasonable offers.I still have a Top 5 QB who can provide sporadic huge weeks while trading an explosive yet expendable asset.

Rodgers for MJD/Gore/Rice might be reasonable offers in your mind, but I absolutely guarantee you that no one else in your league will feel the same way (unless MJD/Gore/Rice bust, in which case why would you want to trade for them?). Nobody on the planet would trade a top 4 RB for the #1 QB unless the #1 QB was in the midst of another 50-TD season... and even then a lot of people would hesitate.Even in your dream scenario where you manage to trade, say, Aaron Rodgers for Ray Rice... what was the net gain there? Rodgers' current ADP is 9th overall. Rice's is 4th overall. If everything breaks perfectly, you can get the equivalent of a small move up in the draft. If not, you're either stuck with a QB that you can't move, or you're saddled with several losses that you have to overcome because you've had a 3rd round draft pick sitting on your bench to start the season. That seems to me like an awful lot of risk for such a remarkably small reward.

When I look at the RB/WR position, I see more question marks being highly valued than I can remember and IMO they carry inordinate amounts of bust potential.

Again, if you feel there are too many highly-valued question marks, then take one of the highly-valued NON-question marks. In the 2nd or 3rd rounds you could get guys like Roddy White, Vincent Jackson, or Marques Colston (a combined 8 top-14 finishes between them). Or you could get guys like Sidney Rice, Miles Austin, or Desean Jackson (young breakout uberstuds last season). Or you could get Antonio Gates (5 top-20 VBD performances in the last 6 years). There is a BOATLOAD of no-question talent available in the second and third without resorting to drafting a backup at a non-premium position. As I said, it looks to me like you're identifying a problem and coming up with a "solution" that winds up creating an even bigger problem.

 

[FUBAR]

Last year, I was in a league where in Round 3, an owner drafted Kurt Warner. In Round 6, he also picked up Matt Schaub. As it turns out, he has two stud QB's and winds up trading Schaub essentially for Ryan Grant around Week 4.

The reason this worked was Schaub greatly outproduced his draft spot, not that he had two QBs. We had an owner draft Brent Celek in the 14th round and trade him for Tony Romo who was drafted in the 6th. Does that make drafting two TEs highly a great plan? it simply means try to draft players who will exceed their draft position. In a 12 team league, there might be 4 QBs worth taking in the first 3 rounds due to positional scarcity or in this case, the abundance.Forgetting injuries for a minute, assume you have the #1 and #4 QB. the rest of the top 13 are evenly spread throughout the league. You want to trade your #4 guy to the team with the #13 QB, so you offer Tony Romo to the team with Joe Flacco, that team would net roughly 5 points per game. I don't think I've ever seen a QB traded straight for a RB in my smaller redrafts so you'd probably have to make it a 2 for 2 package where you send Romo and Bradshaw for Flacco and Addai to keep the points even. The names aren't important, I'm just using those as an example but look at their ADPs and I think you can see the problem here.

 

[FUBAR]

Rodgers for MJD/Gore/Rice might be reasonable offers in your mind, but I absolutely guarantee you that no one else in your league will feel the same way (unless MJD/Gore/Rice bust, in which case why would you want to trade for them?). Nobody on the planet would trade a top 4 RB for the #1 QB unless the #1 QB was in the midst of another 50-TD season... and even then a lot of people would hesitate.

FWIW, I traded Gore for Rodgers. Dynasty league This was with Romo and Freeman already on the team. So in essence I did exactly what you're talking about but in a dynasty league IMO it's a more viable strategy. Worst case scenario for me, I suck this year and get a decent pick. Best case, I deal Romo for a very good RB. Right now, nobody wants a QB, we'll see if that changes.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

The few times I have seen it done the owner regretted it every time. For the first 4 to 5 games, everyone likes who they drafted and your value is sitting on the bench. By week 6, you want top trade value for your best stud, but supply and demand works against you as there WILL be good QBs out there on the wire.

This is correct. People won't feel hosed at QB until the point in the season when WW wonders start to emerge. Matt Cassel and Tyler Thigpen in 08 are great examples. There's just no incentive for a team to deal one of their 2 or 3 best players for a QB when a player who can produce 80-90% of stud levels may emerge on the WW, or from a throw-in in a trade.Making it an even worse strategy this year is the relative value that Favre (old) and Roethlisberger (suspension) provide, and the strong depth at the position this year, with 6-7 of Ben, Favre, Kolb, McNabb, Flacco, Ryan, Palmer, Stafford, Henne, VY going as QB2s in a 12 team league.

 

[renesauz]

Obviously it's all about 'situation' but Rodgers for MJD/Gore/Rice could all be reasonable offers.I still have a Top 5 QB who can provide sporadic huge weeks while trading an explosive yet expendable asset.

How would they be reasonable offers? You've still missed the bigger point. It's the relative depth that deflates these QB's values relative to the top RB's. The RB you might be able to aquire is the same RB you passed up to get the QB in the draft...IF YOU ARE LUCKY. Your strat leaves, as it's best case scenario, a wash. Plenty of risk with virtually zero upside.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Too much risk IMO. If you start out 1-3, 0-4 etc and are needing a trade to balance your team then you are at the mercy of the other owners. If it is a shark league then they will likely let you slowly strangle yourself until say week 7-8 and then start offering trades. At that point you are done and would only be helping them towards a playoff run. In order for this strategy to work you would have to be 3-1 or 4-0 in order to be able to pull off a successful trade that actually helps your team. No way to guarantee that.

You're at the mercy of other owners if you start out 1-3/0-4 no matter what the composition of your team; whether you draft 2 QB's or draft one of the aforementioned RB's who wound up underperforming (wouldn't that be a potential primary reason why you'd be in this predicament?). In that situation, you're forced to rob Peter to pay Paul in trying to improve your team. At least if you have a stud QB who can offer true value to trading partners.Is a 3rd round pick going to break you if you receive an asset that you know will have value, even if that value is minimal to you? Compared with making a bet on a player who is being primarily drafted on situation? When I look at this years crop, I see ALOT of players who really seem to be being overdrafted like I mentioned above. 2 years ago Chris Johnson was 8.04 ADP (and that was after a studly pre-season). Now, Ryan Mathews merits a 2.11 position?

I just have a hard time believing that historically speaking he's worth that. LeSean McCoy who the Eagles felt so good about that they signed Mike Bell and have Leonard Weaver on hand...(where do McCoy's TD's come from?) at 4.01? Shonn Greene at 2.01 !!!??? I'm not naive to think all of these players will fail. But I think the reliability of all of these players reaching or exceeding expectations is nil.

I'm thinking the risk of having a team be in need of a QB (in my experience, there are always 1-3 teams looking to upgrade at this position) is less than counting on one of these players with a 2nd/3rd round pick to provide big time production this year.

It seems like you're identifying a problem and then finding a "solution" that's worse than the problem is.You think that a lot of mediocre RBs are being overdrafted. That's just fine. The solution isn't to draft two QBs, though. If you don't like the options at RB, then go with a WR. The options in the 2nd round consist of guys like Marshall, Roddy, Desean, and Calvin- guys with a demonstrable history of high-level production. If you don't like the options at RB in the 3rd, then the WRs there are guys like VJax, Sidney Rice, Colston, and Jennings- proven studs, one and all. You don't like any of those options, then take Dallas Clark or Antonio Gates, either of whom will benefit your team far more than drafting Tony Romo when you already own Drew Brees. Hell, Gates has finished in the top 20 in season-ending VBD in five of the last six seasons (he was 40th in the sixth), which means he's likely to be more valuable than that 6th QB off the board you're grabbing, and you don't have to worry about finding a trade partner to benefit from his production.

Serious question... let's say you get your Rodgers in the 1st, Romo in the 3rd combo, and the two QBs wind up producing just like you'd expect them to. Who would you be looking to trade Romo for? Who do you realistically think you could acquire for him?

Why would I only consider trading Romo? I'd consider trading Rodgers if the bait was good enough. Let's say you draft Rodgers at 1:10 and he performs to the level he performed at in 2009 (Romo follows suit). I'd have a case to trade Rodgers for just about anyone short of Chris Johnson duplicating a 2500 total yard season. Obviously it's all about 'situation' but Rodgers for MJD/Gore/Rice could all be reasonable offers.I still have a Top 5 QB who can provide sporadic huge weeks while trading an explosive yet expendable asset.

They may be reasonable offers but you're never going to get anyone to accept it. If some one wanted Rodgers over MJD they would have drafted him instead in the first place. If the team that drafted MJD is really hurting at QB (which they'll fail to acknowledge for at least 4 weeks and with the depth at QB that's making a huge assumption) then they should be able to trade a less valuable commodity for a startable QB while still gettiong MJD's production.It's about supply and demand. The QB supply is quite large, which of course lessens the demand.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

That seems to me like an awful lot of risk for such a remarkably small reward.

This line should be enough to squelch any thoughts you have about employing that strategy. More often you're dream scenario (getting a top shelf RB) will not come to fruition and you'll end up trading one of you QBs for the RB or WR that you passed up to draft him in the first place - and as a result you'll have 4-6 weeks of a net loss where those QB points sat on your bench while you started a 3rd down/CoP RB.

 

[Instinctive]

Rodgers for MJD/Gore/Rice might be reasonable offers in your mind, but I absolutely guarantee you that no one else in your league will feel the same way (unless MJD/Gore/Rice bust, in which case why would you want to trade for them?). Nobody on the planet would trade a top 4 RB for the #1 QB unless the #1 QB was in the midst of another 50-TD season... and even then a lot of people would hesitate.

FWIW, I traded Gore for Rodgers. Dynasty league This was with Romo and Freeman already on the team. So in essence I did exactly what you're talking about but in a dynasty league IMO it's a more viable strategy. Worst case scenario for me, I suck this year and get a decent pick. Best case, I deal Romo for a very good RB. Right now, nobody wants a QB, we'll see if that changes.

Dynasty is different. Rodgers will be elite for way longer than Gore will be. With Romo, perhaps not the greatest move on your part, but in a vaccuum, extremely smart decision.

 

[ddarroch4]

Last year, I was in a league where in Round 3, an owner drafted Kurt Warner. In Round 6, he also picked up Matt Schaub. As it turns out, he has two stud QB's and winds up trading Schaub essentially for Ryan Grant around Week 4.

The guy made the playoffs and I consider him to be a very involved and astute owner. Now Schaub wound up being a bit of a surprise in that he severely outplayed his draft position. However, as I look to 2009 and coming off a year where 4000 yard QB's were quite plentiful, does the strategy of selecting QB's with 2 of your first 3 selections hold any merit?

Here is why I ask. As we enter into mock draft season, I see ADP's of certain players that kind of surprise me (via FantasyFootballCalculator).

Shonn Green - 2.01

Jamaal Charles - 2.11

Ryan Mathews - 2.11

Beanie Wells - 3.12

LeSean McCoy - 4.01

...maybe surprise is the wrong word, but when compared to these QB's.

Tom Brady - 3.09

Philip Rivers - 3.11

Tony Romo - 4.04

Matt Schaub - 4.05

You look at the QB's, and it's not only their numbers that stand out to you (they averaged 4476 yards & 28 TD's)...but their track records. All have at least 2 seasons of elite production at the QB position and Brady is a NFL poster boy.

Meanwhile, none of the above 5 RB's have proven that they can carry a teams (effective) rushing attack for a 16 game season and in most of those situations, there is a certain degree of uncertainty over workload split.

So what I wonder about is what if you drafted Aaron Rodgers and Matt Schaub? Do I feel more comfortable that I'm going to get what I paid for out of these two players than I would Ryan Mathews? For sure.

Now the rebuttal is "you can't start 2 QB's, you're wasting points on the bench". But we all know that no fantasy season goes according to pre-season scripts. There is going to be opportunity to be able to deal one of your QB's for a position that you are weak in during the seasons first month. You take take advantage of the panic emotion and also get a better lay of the land in terms of who is performing at a better/worse level than the previous season (Frank Gore in 2009?).

My overall point and question to the mob here is, I like the reliability at the QB position, particularly at the top (this does not account for injury which is random IMO). In terms of performance, you probably can predict with much more confidence what you are going to get out of these QB's than you can the 2nd tier of RB's.

Would you consider this drafting strategy in 2010?...or am I off my rocker?

I think relying on a trade is very risky. Trades are hard to pull off and you never know what other owners are thinking.

 

[Sweet Love]

In general, I agree with the masses, but I have to admit, I am in one redraft with very funky scoring where this offseason I was contemplating the move. I can't find my link to the scoring, but basically, it is a TD driven league with bonus points (massive ones) at certain milestones. I can't stand the scoring, but play it with a bunch of friends so I am fine with it. I realized after year one that the best QB walked away with roughly 500 points and the best RB and WR around 190-210 total. Now everyone has a QB, but if I can walk away with Manning and Brees and literally plop one on the bench, I can ride the hot hand and what I pass up in round 2 (RB or WR) the point differential between elite and very good is MUCH less than that with elite and very good QBs. I had a great team last year, but ended up with McNabb and Roth...not terrible by any means for someone who waits on QBs, but nearly everyone had a better QB and I ended up coming in 5th (out of 10 teams).

Note: This is extremely rare as the scoring is so out of whack as I do believe unless you walk away with two top 3 QBs, you will never get the returns you are hoping for with a mid-season trade.

 

[SSOG]

Rodgers for MJD/Gore/Rice might be reasonable offers in your mind, but I absolutely guarantee you that no one else in your league will feel the same way (unless MJD/Gore/Rice bust, in which case why would you want to trade for them?). Nobody on the planet would trade a top 4 RB for the #1 QB unless the #1 QB was in the midst of another 50-TD season... and even then a lot of people would hesitate.

FWIW, I traded Gore for Rodgers. Dynasty league This was with Romo and Freeman already on the team. So in essence I did exactly what you're talking about but in a dynasty league IMO it's a more viable strategy. Worst case scenario for me, I suck this year and get a decent pick. Best case, I deal Romo for a very good RB. Right now, nobody wants a QB, we'll see if that changes.

Dynasty's a different beast. I'd trade Gore for Rodgers, too, if I weren't paper-thin at RB and 3-deep at QB already. That's not a matter of trading a top RB for a top QB, that's a matter of trading a top RB with 2-3 years left in the tank for a top QB with 8+ years left in the tank. If you account for career length, it's essentially like trading Frank Gore for TWO Aaron Rodgers in redraft.