Going into season w/o backup QB (1 Viewer)

[moleculo]

I believe that there two QB's in the league today that have value beyond what is captured in the projections - Manning and Brady.

These two (a) have never missed a game, and are therefore unlikely to miss time this season due to injury (knock on wood), and (b) should never get pulled due to unfavorable match-up, if you believe in "always start your studs".

The value lies in that if you have Brady and/or Manning, you really don't need to draft a back-up QB. not having a back-up QB gives you an extra roster spot you can use for a RB or WR who might have a break-out season - a Jacoby Jones, etc. you can have more depth at the RB/WR position because you aren't wasting a roster spot on someone who you hope to never play.

Looking at other top QB's:

* Brees: in 5 seasons as starter, only played in 16 games 3x.

* Bulger: in 4 seasons as starter, only one 16 game season.

* Palmer: only three seasons under his belt, not enough time to assume he is an "iron man".

* Kitna: three 16 game seasons in 10 years, unsure about 2007 health in Martz system & Det O-line.

* Rivers: see Palmer

* Eli Manning: pull him if bad situation

* McNabb: three 16 game seasons in 8 years

* Favre: pull him if bad situation

* Peyton Manning: 9 seasons with 16 games. Only risk is if Colts bench him to rest for playoffs.

* Tom Brady: hasn't missed a game since taking over in week 2 of 2001 - 5 consecutive 16 game seasons.

Again, this extra value in that a backup QB will not be needed is not reflected in any projections. Therefore, I believe that Manning and Brady are actually undervalued at their present ADP.

Last night I drafted Brady and did not take a back-up QB, and I have no regrets.

 

[David Yudkin]

If you never had an accident, would you still carry car insurance?

 

[1huskerfan]

If you never had an accident, would you still carry car insurance?

I never had an accident until I had one.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I believe that there two QB's in the league today that have value beyond what is captured in the projections - Manning and Brady.

These two (a) have never missed a game, and are therefore unlikely to miss time this season due to injury (knock on wood), and (b) should never get pulled due to unfavorable match-up, if you believe in "always start your studs".

The value lies in that if you have Brady and/or Manning, you really don't need to draft a back-up QB. not having a back-up QB gives you an extra roster spot you can use for a RB or WR who might have a break-out season - a Jacoby Jones, etc. you can have more depth at the RB/WR position because you aren't wasting a roster spot on someone who you hope to never play.

Looking at other top QB's:

* Brees: in 5 seasons as starter, only played in 16 games 3x.

* Bulger: in 4 seasons as starter, only one 16 game season.

* Palmer: only three seasons under his belt, not enough time to assume he is an "iron man".

* Kitna: three 16 game seasons in 10 years, unsure about 2007 health in Martz system & Det O-line.

* Rivers: see Palmer

* Eli Manning: pull him if bad situation

* McNabb: three 16 game seasons in 8 years

* Favre: pull him if bad situation

* Peyton Manning: 9 seasons with 16 games. Only risk is if Colts bench him to rest for playoffs.

* Tom Brady: hasn't missed a game since taking over in week 2 of 2001 - 5 consecutive 16 game seasons.

Again, this extra value in that a backup QB will not be needed is not reflected in any projections. Therefore, I believe that Manning and Brady are actually undervalued at their present ADP.

Last night I drafted Brady and did not take a back-up QB, and I have no regrets.

There is zero chance that Eli Manning gets pulled.

 

[moleculo]

If you never had an accident, would you still carry car insurance?

If you must have a back-up QB, you should at least realize that you don't need to draft Cutler at QB13 (8.10 per antsports) if you have Manning, right? To use your insurance analogy, if I drive the safest car on the road and have a squaky clean driving record, I should pay less than the reckless drunk in the Camaro, right? Cost = draft position. McNabb insurance = high, so you should draft a back-up QB relatively early. Manning insurance = low, so you should draft a back-up QB as late as possible.There's always the WW for the cheapest possible insurance.

 

[moleculo]

I believe that there two QB's in the league today that have value beyond what is captured in the projections - Manning and Brady.

These two (a) have never missed a game, and are therefore unlikely to miss time this season due to injury (knock on wood), and (b) should never get pulled due to unfavorable match-up, if you believe in "always start your studs".

The value lies in that if you have Brady and/or Manning, you really don't need to draft a back-up QB. not having a back-up QB gives you an extra roster spot you can use for a RB or WR who might have a break-out season - a Jacoby Jones, etc. you can have more depth at the RB/WR position because you aren't wasting a roster spot on someone who you hope to never play.

Looking at other top QB's:

* Brees: in 5 seasons as starter, only played in 16 games 3x.

* Bulger: in 4 seasons as starter, only one 16 game season.

* Palmer: only three seasons under his belt, not enough time to assume he is an "iron man".

* Kitna: three 16 game seasons in 10 years, unsure about 2007 health in Martz system & Det O-line.

* Rivers: see Palmer

* Eli Manning: pull him if bad situation

* McNabb: three 16 game seasons in 8 years

* Favre: pull him if bad situation

* Peyton Manning: 9 seasons with 16 games. Only risk is if Colts bench him to rest for playoffs.

* Tom Brady: hasn't missed a game since taking over in week 2 of 2001 - 5 consecutive 16 game seasons.

Again, this extra value in that a backup QB will not be needed is not reflected in any projections. Therefore, I believe that Manning and Brady are actually undervalued at their present ADP.

Last night I drafted Brady and did not take a back-up QB, and I have no regrets.

There is zero chance that Eli Manning gets pulled.

No, I meant I would pull him in a less than ideal start - say, @ Chicago, week 13. Eli is a QBBC candidate; not a must start.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I believe that there two QB's in the league today that have value beyond what is captured in the projections - Manning and Brady.

These two (a) have never missed a game, and are therefore unlikely to miss time this season due to injury (knock on wood), and (b) should never get pulled due to unfavorable match-up, if you believe in "always start your studs".

The value lies in that if you have Brady and/or Manning, you really don't need to draft a back-up QB. not having a back-up QB gives you an extra roster spot you can use for a RB or WR who might have a break-out season - a Jacoby Jones, etc. you can have more depth at the RB/WR position because you aren't wasting a roster spot on someone who you hope to never play.

Looking at other top QB's:

* Brees: in 5 seasons as starter, only played in 16 games 3x.

* Bulger: in 4 seasons as starter, only one 16 game season.

* Palmer: only three seasons under his belt, not enough time to assume he is an "iron man".

* Kitna: three 16 game seasons in 10 years, unsure about 2007 health in Martz system & Det O-line.

* Rivers: see Palmer

* Eli Manning: pull him if bad situation

* McNabb: three 16 game seasons in 8 years

* Favre: pull him if bad situation

* Peyton Manning: 9 seasons with 16 games. Only risk is if Colts bench him to rest for playoffs.

* Tom Brady: hasn't missed a game since taking over in week 2 of 2001 - 5 consecutive 16 game seasons.

Again, this extra value in that a backup QB will not be needed is not reflected in any projections. Therefore, I believe that Manning and Brady are actually undervalued at their present ADP.

Last night I drafted Brady and did not take a back-up QB, and I have no regrets.

There is zero chance that Eli Manning gets pulled.

No, I meant I would pull him in a less than ideal start - say, @ Chicago, week 13. Eli is a QBBC candidate; not a must start.

Oh, ok. Well I agree with that.

 

[Gr00vus]

What do you do for bye weeks?

Also, you definitely not drafting any more quarterbacks creates value for other people at quarterback. By not drafting any more qbs you're taking the pressure off those who didn't get a top 5 guy, giving them at least one more option to work with. You may get value with the guy you take instead of a backup qb, but will it be as good a value as your league mate is getting by taking the qb you're leaving available to him later? I don't know, but it's something to think about. In a way you're somewhat giving up part of the leverage you have in having a great qb.

 

[Captain Hook]

While I agree with you in theory and practice, there is a case for drafting a second quarterback and then waiving them for whatever looks good after Week 1 - just in case there is something really strange, what happens to your team if they miss week one for some freak accident or something at home that forces them off the field.

Or if you have already drafted and were "set" with Shayne Graham as your kicker and you have no free agents until after Week 1...................just saying

 

[Dirty Weasel]

I see where you are going, Moleculo, and I quite agree. If you draft Peyton, you are obviously going to start him every week (except for his bye in week 6). Unless great value represents itself on a QB who doesn't have a bye in week 6, why not just wait until week 6 to scoop up any starter off waivers for that week (and drop your underperforming sleeper RB/WR)? This only works in leagues where there are starting QB's on the WW though. If all 32 starters are drafted, just make sure you snag anyone that will at least see the field in week 6.

I know you mentioned Peyton and Brady being the only 2 QB's you'd do this with, but I add Palmer, Brees, and Bulger to that list. To me, they are elite, and deserve the "always start your studs" privilege. Are they riskier than Peyton/Brady based on missed games/injuries? Sure. Am I going to draft a QB2 early enough to get a good backup if get one of these 3? No way. BTW - my QB for 2007 is Bulger, and presently I have Leftwich as my QB2. But, I will drop him in a heartbeat if I see a sleeper RB/WR emerging. The only reason I took him with my last pick was because I think of him as a sleeper. He just happened to be a QB, and as luck would have it, is not off the same week as Bulger.

 

[Chase Stuart]

These two (a) have never missed a game, and are therefore unlikely to miss time this season due to injury (knock on wood), and (b) should never get pulled due to unfavorable match-up, if you believe in "always start your studs". * Peyton Manning: 9 seasons with 16 games. Only risk is if Colts bench him to rest for playoffs.* Tom Brady: hasn't missed a game since taking over in week 2 of 2001 - 5 consecutive 16 game seasons.

Fortunately, we can check these things out.Exactly 20 QBs have been starting quarterbacks for five straight seasons and played 80 games over that stretch. How did the other 17 (not including the 2002-2006 Favre, Brady or Manning versions) do the next year?1) Jim Everett started 80 games from 1988-1992. In 1993, he was injured, and played in just 10 games. 2) Brett Favre is on this list 9 other times, besides the 2002-2006 version. He started 16 games the following year each time.3) Trent Green started 80 games from 2001-2005; in 2006, he was injured, and played in just 8 games.4) Peyton Manning is on this list 4 other times, besides the 2002-2006 version. He started 16 games the following year each time.5) Dan Marino started 80 games from 1988-1992. In 1993, he was injured and played in just 5 games.6) From 1997-2001, Kordell Stewart started 80 games. In 2002, he was ineffective and benched, and played in just 8 games.So on one hand, of the 17 QB seasons, only 3 times was the QB injured. On the other hand, outside of Favre and Manning, no QB has ever played six consecutive 16 game seasons. Make of it what you like.

 

[moleculo]

What do you do for bye weeks?Also, you definitely not drafting any more quarterbacks creates value for other people at quarterback. By not drafting any more qbs you're taking the pressure off those who didn't get a top 5 guy, giving them at least one more option to work with. You may get value with the guy you take instead of a backup qb, but will it be as good a value as your league mate is getting by taking the qb you're leaving available to him later? I don't know, but it's something to think about. In a way you're somewhat giving up part of the leverage you have in having a great qb.

bye weeks are troublesome, obviously. I'm going with the assumption that by week 10 (Brady's bye-week), someone in my league will cut a QB they shouldn't have, or someone will emerge on the WW - they always do.WRT loosing value @ the QB position - what ever I am giving up there, I am gaining by having more depth at RB or WR, which can help insulate me against the dreaded early season injury, or it gives me an opportunity to take a flyer on someone I otherwise wouldn't have roster room for.

 

[moleculo]

I see where you are going, Moleculo, and I quite agree. If you draft Peyton, you are obviously going to start him every week (except for his bye in week 6). Unless great value represents itself on a QB who doesn't have a bye in week 6, why not just wait until week 6 to scoop up any starter off waivers for that week (and drop your underperforming sleeper RB/WR)? This only works in leagues where there are starting QB's on the WW though. If all 32 starters are drafted, just make sure you snag anyone that will at least see the field in week 6.I know you mentioned Peyton and Brady being the only 2 QB's you'd do this with, but I add Palmer, Brees, and Bulger to that list. To me, they are elite, and deserve the "always start your studs" privilege. Are they riskier than Peyton/Brady based on missed games/injuries? Sure. Am I going to draft a QB2 early enough to get a good backup if get one of these 3? No way. BTW - my QB for 2007 is Bulger, and presently I have Leftwich as my QB2. But, I will drop him in a heartbeat if I see a sleeper RB/WR emerging. The only reason I took him with my last pick was because I think of him as a sleeper. He just happened to be a QB, and as luck would have it, is not off the same week as Bulger.

 

[skillz]

I really came close to doing this in my keeper league draft this past weekend. I had already traded two mid-round picks and was able to draft Brady early in the draft. I needed to selectively use my picks on RB's and WR's given my lack of two mid-round picks so I kept bypassing Qb's for a while as I selected other positions. At some point, I came to the realization that my season is toast anyway if Brady goes down and I have to go on with someone like McNair, Garcia, or someone in that tier as my QB. So I just kept picking other positions until I got to the very last round. At that point I took Leftwich just so I would have a backup. Like Moleculo said I fully expect to be using a QB that is currently on the waiver wire or another team's roster by the time Brady's bye arrives in week 10. I just don't see Leftwich either being healthy, or still being the starter as of Week 10.

Since I plan on starting Brady regardless of the matchup and (knock on wood) he has stayed healthy throughout his career I thought it was a risk worth taking. Now, if I had some of my mid round picks that I traded away I doubt I would have done what I did. Hopefully I don't regret my strategy later this year.

 

[CalBear]

I hope you had a good backup for Manning in weeks 16-17 in 2005.

I think the fact that Manning and Brady are more reliable than McNabb is already priced into their relative draft positions. Because, frankly, McNabb is a better fantasy play than Brady and is probably as good as Manning when he's healthy.

 

[Kevin Ashcraft]

These two (a) have never missed a game, and are therefore unlikely to miss time this season due to injury (knock on wood), and (b) should never get pulled due to unfavorable match-up, if you believe in "always start your studs". * Peyton Manning: 9 seasons with 16 games. Only risk is if Colts bench him to rest for playoffs.* Tom Brady: hasn't missed a game since taking over in week 2 of 2001 - 5 consecutive 16 game seasons.

Fortunately, we can check these things out.Exactly 20 QBs have been starting quarterbacks for five straight seasons and played 80 games over that stretch. How did the other 17 (not including the 2002-2006 Favre, Brady or Manning versions) do the next year?1) Jim Everett started 80 games from 1988-1992. In 1993, he was injured, and played in just 10 games. 2) Brett Favre is on this list 9 other times, besides the 2002-2006 version. He started 16 games the following year each time.3) Trent Green started 80 games from 2001-2005; in 2006, he was injured, and played in just 8 games.4) Peyton Manning is on this list 4 other times, besides the 2002-2006 version. He started 16 games the following year each time.5) Dan Marino started 80 games from 1988-1992. In 1993, he was injured and played in just 5 games.6) From 1997-2001, Kordell Stewart started 80 games. In 2002, he was ineffective and benched, and played in just 8 games.So on one hand, of the 17 QB seasons, only 3 times was the QB injured. On the other hand, outside of Favre and Manning, no QB has ever played six consecutive 16 game seasons. Make of it what you like.

This is the kind of stuff I love Chase....good info.So, is Brady the next guy in this list, to me, that is the real question....does he get into the Favre/Manning club, or does he go into the Green/Everett/Marino club?

 

[JHuber77]

If you never had an accident, would you still carry car insurance?

You can save on your car insurance by switching to Geico! cavemancribs.com rules!

 

[dwarfboy]

I drafted Brady fairly early and he's my only QB on an 18 man roster. He has a late bye week this year so I'll have 9 chances to grab a bye week replacement off the waiver wire. I didn't intend to go without a backup, but value never presented itself.

I had McNabb as my only QB in one league last year and snagged Garcia off the waiver wire after his injury despite picking 12th, and having 7 other team's try to grab all the remaining starters. There is almost always going to be a viable starter on waivers in my 12 team leagues.

 

[dwarfboy]

These two (a) have never missed a game, and are therefore unlikely to miss time this season due to injury (knock on wood), and (b) should never get pulled due to unfavorable match-up, if you believe in "always start your studs". * Peyton Manning: 9 seasons with 16 games. Only risk is if Colts bench him to rest for playoffs.* Tom Brady: hasn't missed a game since taking over in week 2 of 2001 - 5 consecutive 16 game seasons.

Fortunately, we can check these things out.Exactly 20 QBs have been starting quarterbacks for five straight seasons and played 80 games over that stretch. How did the other 17 (not including the 2002-2006 Favre, Brady or Manning versions) do the next year?1) Jim Everett started 80 games from 1988-1992. In 1993, he was injured, and played in just 10 games. 2) Brett Favre is on this list 9 other times, besides the 2002-2006 version. He started 16 games the following year each time.3) Trent Green started 80 games from 2001-2005; in 2006, he was injured, and played in just 8 games.4) Peyton Manning is on this list 4 other times, besides the 2002-2006 version. He started 16 games the following year each time.5) Dan Marino started 80 games from 1988-1992. In 1993, he was injured and played in just 5 games.6) From 1997-2001, Kordell Stewart started 80 games. In 2002, he was ineffective and benched, and played in just 8 games.So on one hand, of the 17 QB seasons, only 3 times was the QB injured. On the other hand, outside of Favre and Manning, no QB has ever played six consecutive 16 game seasons. Make of it what you like.

This is the kind of stuff I love Chase....good info.So, is Brady the next guy in this list, to me, that is the real question....does he get into the Favre/Manning club, or does he go into the Green/Everett/Marino club?

It's also important to note that QBs are protected more than ever by the rules making it even more likely that they will remain uninjured.

 

[nittanylion]

Just playing Devil's Advocate, but one could argue that if you're going to invest an early round pick in a QB, and select one of the 'Big 5', or 6, if you include McNabb among them, you are counting on the QB position to produce a significant amount of points in your weekly totals, thereby making it necessary to take an upper 2nd tier QB to insure the point production out of the position in the (un) likely event of an injury occuring.

Agree with the folks citing that you NEVER give other Teams a chance at obtaining value by ignoring a position once you have a stud on your roster...

...and rules or no rules, all it takes is just one unlucky hit...see Jason Campbell, who dodged a bullet a few weeks ago...

...I drafted Brady in the 3rd Round in a 12-Team / 18-Player League Monday Night. I was counting on Favre dropping far enough to allow me to choose him in an appropriate Round. Fall he did, but I gambled and lost - right Round, went a few picks before I got a shot...to the Palmer owner...bye weeks being what they are, everything 'quality' remaining shared the Brady bye, and I had to take McNair as 'best available'. I'll be sweating that for a while. Ugh...

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I believe that there two QB's in the league today that have value beyond what is captured in the projections - Manning and Brady.

These two (a) have never missed a game, and are therefore unlikely to miss time this season due to injury (knock on wood), and (b) should never get pulled due to unfavorable match-up, if you believe in "always start your studs".

The value lies in that if you have Brady and/or Manning, you really don't need to draft a back-up QB. not having a back-up QB gives you an extra roster spot you can use for a RB or WR who might have a break-out season - a Jacoby Jones, etc. you can have more depth at the RB/WR position because you aren't wasting a roster spot on someone who you hope to never play.

Looking at other top QB's:

* Brees: in 5 seasons as starter, only played in 16 games 3x.

* Bulger: in 4 seasons as starter, only one 16 game season.

* Palmer: only three seasons under his belt, not enough time to assume he is an "iron man".

* Kitna: three 16 game seasons in 10 years, unsure about 2007 health in Martz system & Det O-line.

* Rivers: see Palmer

* Eli Manning: pull him if bad situation

* McNabb: three 16 game seasons in 8 years

* Favre: pull him if bad situation

* Peyton Manning: 9 seasons with 16 games. Only risk is if Colts bench him to rest for playoffs.

* Tom Brady: hasn't missed a game since taking over in week 2 of 2001 - 5 consecutive 16 game seasons.

Again, this extra value in that a backup QB will not be needed is not reflected in any projections. Therefore, I believe that Manning and Brady are actually undervalued at their present ADP.

Last night I drafted Brady and did not take a back-up QB, and I have no regrets.

If thats not a curse foreshadowing Brady's season ender, nothing is.

 

[moleculo]

I hope you had a good backup for Manning in weeks 16-17 in 2005.I think the fact that Manning and Brady are more reliable than McNabb is already priced into their relative draft positions. Because, frankly, McNabb is a better fantasy play than Brady and is probably as good as Manning when he's healthy.

I agree on McNabb - I seem to own him alot. The problem for me has been when he goes down, I tended to never have a decent backup plan ready - caused me to loose in the playoffs in two leagues last year alone. So, this year I wanted to change it up and learn from past mistakes. First reaction is to draft McNabb again and spend an 8th rounder or higher on a back-up, or secondly draft a more reliable QB which allows one to wait later for the back-up. Choosing the latter, extending the notion of drafting a backup late leads you to not draft a back-up at all and wait for free agency, or maybe not carry one.Again, the added value comes not from reliability, it comes from the ability to draft an extra player. I feel like I am playing with an 19 man roster, and everyone else is at 18.I also choose not to carry a back-up TE or kicker. Same principle. When their bye-week comes, I'll find someone on the WW.

 

[moleculo]

These two (a) have never missed a game, and are therefore unlikely to miss time this season due to injury (knock on wood), and (b) should never get pulled due to unfavorable match-up, if you believe in "always start your studs". * Peyton Manning: 9 seasons with 16 games. Only risk is if Colts bench him to rest for playoffs.* Tom Brady: hasn't missed a game since taking over in week 2 of 2001 - 5 consecutive 16 game seasons.

Fortunately, we can check these things out.Exactly 20 QBs have been starting quarterbacks for five straight seasons and played 80 games over that stretch. How did the other 17 (not including the 2002-2006 Favre, Brady or Manning versions) do the next year?1) Jim Everett started 80 games from 1988-1992. In 1993, he was injured, and played in just 10 games. 2) Brett Favre is on this list 9 other times, besides the 2002-2006 version. He started 16 games the following year each time.3) Trent Green started 80 games from 2001-2005; in 2006, he was injured, and played in just 8 games.4) Peyton Manning is on this list 4 other times, besides the 2002-2006 version. He started 16 games the following year each time.5) Dan Marino started 80 games from 1988-1992. In 1993, he was injured and played in just 5 games.6) From 1997-2001, Kordell Stewart started 80 games. In 2002, he was ineffective and benched, and played in just 8 games.So on one hand, of the 17 QB seasons, only 3 times was the QB injured. On the other hand, outside of Favre and Manning, no QB has ever played six consecutive 16 game seasons. Make of it what you like.

This is the kind of stuff I love Chase....good info.So, is Brady the next guy in this list, to me, that is the real question....does he get into the Favre/Manning club, or does he go into the Green/Everett/Marino club?

WEll, Favre/Manning both have SB rings, Green/Everett/Marino do not.

 

[Doug Drinen]

WEll, Favre/Manning both have SB rings, Green/Everett/Marino do not.

I'll shoot for the nitpick of the day by pointing out that Green does have a Super Bowl ring. Perhaps it's not as legit as Favre's or Manning's, but it seems just as relevant for the purpose of projecting injury.

 

[moleculo]

WEll, Favre/Manning both have SB rings, Green/Everett/Marino do not.

I'll shoot for the nitpick of the day by pointing out that Green does have a Super Bowl ring. Perhaps it's not as legit as Favre's or Manning's, but it seems just as relevant for the purpose of projecting injury.

touche'

 

[Tubalcane]

I like your strategy here. Personally I like to hoard RBs any way I can. One less RB on the wire is great for me, and bad for everybody else. The only thing I disagree with is Brady. I’d do this strategy with Manning…but just not Brady. And I have no real reason why…I just don’t trust Brady as much as Manning.

 

[greedygoat]

I hope you had a good backup for Manning in weeks 16-17 in 2005.

I hope you proposed to your league to vote to change your playoffs to week 15 & 16.

I think the fact that Manning and Brady are more reliable than McNabb is already priced into their relative draft positions. Because, frankly, McNabb is a better fantasy play than Brady and is probably as good as Manning when he's healthy.

That's the thing, he hasn't shown the ability to stay healthy and produce like a top 2 QB in the same season, like Manning or Brady.

 

[GregR_2]

Just playing Devil's Advocate, but one could argue that if you're going to invest an early round pick in a QB, and select one of the 'Big 5', or 6, if you include McNabb among them, you are counting on the QB position to produce a significant amount of points in your weekly totals, thereby making it necessary to take an upper 2nd tier QB to insure the point production out of the position in the (un) likely event of an injury occuring.

I don't see it that way at all. I'm taking the guy I consider to be part of the best combination of players. For QB the bigger part of that is the risk that the player you take doesn't perform at the level you take him. There is an injury component which is normally the same for all QBs. (I don't generally buy that a Peyton is less an injury risk than is a Jake Delhomme, but I do buy that scrambler Vince Young is a bigger injury risk than Peyton.) Moreso though is the risk the player plays but doesn't perform as well as you thought (which is the component that makes Peyton a lower risk than Delhomme, not injury risk). That's where Cutler or Rivers is a lot more of a risk than Peyton or Brady.So by taking one of those top QBs I have less risk that I need to take a backup as early because I have more faith they will come close to my projections than if I start Hasselbeck on the belief he'll finish somewhere between his historical top 4 finish and last year's not-worth-being-a-QB1 finish.Ok, all that said, I think owners need to draft offensively as well as for their own team. If the QBs available are as good a value as any other position, and neither fits a particular hole of mine more than the other, if I can create scarcity at the position that increases the player's trade value and helps my team while hurting others, so I might take the extra QBs. This was indeed the case in one of my leagues, though not because I had a top QB. I took Hasselbeck, so took a relatively early backup (Losman) to help cover my risk. Later when my rosters and main backups were set, there were only a couple of capable backups left and some teams hadn't taken them yet, resulting in me grabbing Grossman and Garcia and starting a 2nd backup QB run which put some teams at more risk at the position if their starter is injured. Might pay off, might not, but I think I'm in a better position by doing it than if I'd taken a 7th WR.

 

[CalBear]

I hope you had a good backup for Manning in weeks 16-17 in 2005.

I think the fact that Manning and Brady are more reliable than McNabb is already priced into their relative draft positions. Because, frankly, McNabb is a better fantasy play than Brady and is probably as good as Manning when he's healthy.

I agree on McNabb - I seem to own him alot. The problem for me has been when he goes down, I tended to never have a decent backup plan ready - caused me to loose in the playoffs in two leagues last year alone. So, this year I wanted to change it up and learn from past mistakes. First reaction is to draft McNabb again and spend an 8th rounder or higher on a back-up, or secondly draft a more reliable QB which allows one to wait later for the back-up. Choosing the latter, extending the notion of drafting a backup late leads you to not draft a back-up at all and wait for free agency, or maybe not carry one.

Again, the added value comes not from reliability, it comes from the ability to draft an extra player. I feel like I am playing with an 19 man roster, and everyone else is at 18.

I also choose not to carry a back-up TE or kicker. Same principle. When their bye-week comes, I'll find someone on the WW.

You are paying for that extra roster spot. Paying pretty dearly, really. Look at it this way: Would you trade the 2.01 pick for the 5.02 and 13.01? That's the cost for Manning, McNabb and McNair. So to get that extra roster spot, you're giving up an extremely high pick and getting back a mid-round and late-round pick.Or to put it another way, would you rather have:

Steve Smith (or whoever else is #1 WR on your list)

McNabb

McNair

or

Manning

Calvin Johnson

13th round pick (Wes Welker, say).

And you're still writing off your bye week, and week 17 and possibly 16 if Manning sits.

 

[moleculo]

I hope you had a good backup for Manning in weeks 16-17 in 2005.

I think the fact that Manning and Brady are more reliable than McNabb is already priced into their relative draft positions. Because, frankly, McNabb is a better fantasy play than Brady and is probably as good as Manning when he's healthy.

I agree on McNabb - I seem to own him alot. The problem for me has been when he goes down, I tended to never have a decent backup plan ready - caused me to loose in the playoffs in two leagues last year alone. So, this year I wanted to change it up and learn from past mistakes. First reaction is to draft McNabb again and spend an 8th rounder or higher on a back-up, or secondly draft a more reliable QB which allows one to wait later for the back-up. Choosing the latter, extending the notion of drafting a backup late leads you to not draft a back-up at all and wait for free agency, or maybe not carry one.

Again, the added value comes not from reliability, it comes from the ability to draft an extra player. I feel like I am playing with an 19 man roster, and everyone else is at 18.

I also choose not to carry a back-up TE or kicker. Same principle. When their bye-week comes, I'll find someone on the WW.

You are paying for that extra roster spot. Paying pretty dearly, really. Look at it this way: Would you trade the 2.01 pick for the 5.02 and 13.01? That's the cost for Manning, McNabb and McNair. So to get that extra roster spot, you're giving up an extremely high pick and getting back a mid-round and late-round pick.Or to put it another way, would you rather have:

Steve Smith (or whoever else is #1 WR on your list)

McNabb

McNair

or

Manning

Calvin Johnson

13th round pick (Wes Welker, say).

And you're still writing off your bye week, and week 17 and possibly 16 if Manning sits.

It depends on how the rest of my roster goes, really. Now - assume McNabb does what he does 4 out of the past 5 seasons and doesn't play week 16 - championship week. You have McNair in the finals - I'm not sure that is a championship winning strategy either (there is also no guarantee McNair will be healthy by week 16 either - he missed 12 games between 2003 and 2005).This isn't about McNabb vs Manning in the end and I don't want the debate to go that way. If you think McNabb is a better play, so be it, I think there's a thread on that elsewhere. The general consensus is that Manning warrants a first round pick (or a late second), so it's not like I am advocating overpaying for him.

I am saying if you take Manning or Brady, there is an added bonus in that a back-up is not really necessary. If you choose to replace that backup w/ Wes Welker, that's your business. Some might like Jacoby Jones, or Leon Washington, or maybe even Michael Turner. Any of those guys (including Welker) could turn in a top 15 performance, which could be the difference maker in your league. IMO, leagues are won and lost in the mid to late rounds, and this gives you another chance to find that diamond in the rough.

eta: per my projections, Manning + Calvin = 491. McNabb + Smith = 475. Welker = depth that can be used on 4 roster spots (WR1, WR2, F1 & F2). McNair = depth that can be used at one roster spot. Manning will be effective in playoffs (assuming he doesn't sit in week 16), whereas McNabb is unlikely to be usable in the playoffs, and you will have to limp in w/ the 23rd best QB when the games matter most. I'll take Manning + Calvin here, and it really isn't that close.

 

[moleculo]

Just playing Devil's Advocate, but one could argue that if you're going to invest an early round pick in a QB, and select one of the 'Big 5', or 6, if you include McNabb among them, you are counting on the QB position to produce a significant amount of points in your weekly totals, thereby making it necessary to take an upper 2nd tier QB to insure the point production out of the position in the (un) likely event of an injury occuring.

I don't see it that way at all. I'm taking the guy I consider to be part of the best combination of players. For QB the bigger part of that is the risk that the player you take doesn't perform at the level you take him. There is an injury component which is normally the same for all QBs. (I don't generally buy that a Peyton is less an injury risk than is a Jake Delhomme, but I do buy that scrambler Vince Young is a bigger injury risk than Peyton.) Moreso though is the risk the player plays but doesn't perform as well as you thought (which is the component that makes Peyton a lower risk than Delhomme, not injury risk). That's where Cutler or Rivers is a lot more of a risk than Peyton or Brady.So by taking one of those top QBs I have less risk that I need to take a backup as early because I have more faith they will come close to my projections than if I start Hasselbeck on the belief he'll finish somewhere between his historical top 4 finish and last year's not-worth-being-a-QB1 finish.Ok, all that said, I think owners need to draft offensively as well as for their own team. If the QBs available are as good a value as any other position, and neither fits a particular hole of mine more than the other, if I can create scarcity at the position that increases the player's trade value and helps my team while hurting others, so I might take the extra QBs. This was indeed the case in one of my leagues, though not because I had a top QB. I took Hasselbeck, so took a relatively early backup (Losman) to help cover my risk. Later when my rosters and main backups were set, there were only a couple of capable backups left and some teams hadn't taken them yet, resulting in me grabbing Grossman and Garcia and starting a 2nd backup QB run which put some teams at more risk at the position if their starter is injured. Might pay off, might not, but I think I'm in a better position by doing it than if I'd taken a 7th WR.

What I got out of this post is that bench size makes a difference if you want to do this or not. The deeper your bench (or the deeper the league, for that matter) , the more important it will be to draft a backup QB, simply because some teams will have more than one back-up. My league where I did this, we have a roster of 18 and a starting line-up of 11, so only 7 bench players. I don't know what is typical, but this seems about right to me. People in this league typically don't draft 3 QB's and rarely carry >3 QB's during the season, so there will be starters available on the WW.

 

[GregR_2]

What I got out of this post is that bench size makes a difference if you want to do this or not. The deeper your bench (or the deeper the league, for that matter) , the more important it will be to draft a backup QB, simply because some teams will have more than one back-up. My league where I did this, we have a roster of 18 and a starting line-up of 11, so only 7 bench players. I don't know what is typical, but this seems about right to me. People in this league typically don't draft 3 QB's and rarely carry >3 QB's during the season, so there will be starters available on the WW.

Well, right, but that is more independent of who your QB is. If you have a league where you can always get a backup from waivers who will perform decently, you don't have much need to carry a backup. In that case the only time that carrying a backup is worth while is if you think the player has great upside and so you need to get them when no one else realizes it... otherwise you may lose out on him to the team with better waiver position once his potential is realized.That doesn't matter if it's Phillip Rivers or Manning. Though with Manning you feel more comfortable he will reach your projection for him and so you have less need to take a JP Losman that you think may have a breakout year and outperform a Rivers. That isn't because of injury... Peyton's ligments aren't any stronger or weaker than Phillip River's if a D-lineman goes for his legs. That's because Peyton has proven he's a better QB.

 

[moleculo]

What I got out of this post is that bench size makes a difference if you want to do this or not. The deeper your bench (or the deeper the league, for that matter) , the more important it will be to draft a backup QB, simply because some teams will have more than one back-up. My league where I did this, we have a roster of 18 and a starting line-up of 11, so only 7 bench players. I don't know what is typical, but this seems about right to me. People in this league typically don't draft 3 QB's and rarely carry >3 QB's during the season, so there will be starters available on the WW.

Well, right, but that is more independent of who your QB is. If you have a league where you can always get a backup from waivers who will perform decently, you don't have much need to carry a backup. In that case the only time that carrying a backup is worth while is if you think the player has great upside and so you need to get them when no one else realizes it... otherwise you may lose out on him to the team with better waiver position once his potential is realized.That doesn't matter if it's Phillip Rivers or Manning. Though with Manning you feel more comfortable he will reach your projection for him and so you have less need to take a JP Losman that you think may have a breakout year and outperform a Rivers. That isn't because of injury... Peyton's ligments aren't any stronger or weaker than Phillip River's if a D-lineman goes for his legs. That's because Peyton has proven he's a better QB.

The bold part is absolutely true and I agree 100%, yet I would think that people almost never finish a draft w/o a backup QB.

 

[Bri]

If ANY player on your roster is comparable to a FEW on the WW, you should cut him. It doesn't matter, you can easily replace him. Generally, backup K, TE, and QB can be spots to do this.

You need to be honest about your team and not pretentious.

You don't want to lose value with your cuts so seeing a few comparable players should assure you that's not happennin'

 

[matuski]

whole lot of silly logic in the OP.

 

[moleculo]

whole lot of silly logic in the OP.

explain please.

 

[moleculo]

seven weeks in, I still have no back-up QB. Having the extra roster spot has allowed me to snag Brandon Marshall as my last skill position selection, and has since allowed me the depth to pick up Kenton Keith as a luxury pick, the week before Addai got hurt. Presently, the guy I consider to be the last skill position player (whom I wouldn't have a roster spot for if I kept a back-up QB) is Michael Bennett - maybe he won't pan out, but holding onto him for another week or so to see what happens isn't gonna kill me.

QB's presently on my WW include Warner, Garcia, and Cutler.

Rostering Manning or Brady has allowed me to play w/o a back-up, and the extra spot has allowed me to take a couple of flyers which have worked out in my favor. So far, this strategy as worked out really well.