PacmanBomb
Footballguy
I prefer formats with deep rosters and big benches. I think most of the people reading this forum do too. Each roster spot offers another decision to each manager. Typically football guys subscribers (and forum lurkers) will make their decisions with more information, more accurate information, and better judgment than their opposing managers -- hence more decisions are often to our advantage. There's another way we have an advantage over our opponents, we exercise better judgment when making tough decisions of the sort that a small roster forces. This post talks about the value maintaining a backup QB in leagues with a shallow roster.
This year, I'm playing in a few leagues where I have six bench spots supporting ten starting positions. These six bench spots get eaten up quickly juggling bye week replacements, WR and RB and to a lesser extent D/ST prospects and depth.
In my view, in formats with a shallow bench it's a big waste to roster a mediocre backup QB as compared with maintaining a RB or WR prospect, or a plug-n-play who helps with a bye week or gives a big push (i.e. O. Mare was a great kicker to have last week with an ideal matchup, worth rostering to patch up weak matchup). Why is it a waste:
* In shallow-roster leagues very few teams will hold three QBs (some will not even hold two), this mean the average quality of a QB on waivers is higher
* If your QB goes down it will be hard for other teams to add and hold on to an extra QB; you are likely to be able to get his replacement
* You are less likely to need depth at QB than at other positions (less injury risk, and its less likely when compared with RBs and WRs that a QB2 will outperform your QB1 because of matchup superiority)
Thoughts are welcome.
This year, I'm playing in a few leagues where I have six bench spots supporting ten starting positions. These six bench spots get eaten up quickly juggling bye week replacements, WR and RB and to a lesser extent D/ST prospects and depth.
In my view, in formats with a shallow bench it's a big waste to roster a mediocre backup QB as compared with maintaining a RB or WR prospect, or a plug-n-play who helps with a bye week or gives a big push (i.e. O. Mare was a great kicker to have last week with an ideal matchup, worth rostering to patch up weak matchup). Why is it a waste:
* In shallow-roster leagues very few teams will hold three QBs (some will not even hold two), this mean the average quality of a QB on waivers is higher
* If your QB goes down it will be hard for other teams to add and hold on to an extra QB; you are likely to be able to get his replacement
* You are less likely to need depth at QB than at other positions (less injury risk, and its less likely when compared with RBs and WRs that a QB2 will outperform your QB1 because of matchup superiority)
Thoughts are welcome.
