How early is TOO early for a QB (1 Viewer)

[Evilgrin 72]

Since the release of the Draft Dominator and VBD App, I've plugged my high-stakes league's parameters in, and Aaron Rodgers comes back as the clear-cut #1 pick by VBD.

I'm picking #4 and if, as I expect, Foster, Peterson, and C. Johnson come off 1-2-3, I'm strongly considering Rodgers. The league scores all TDs as 6 points and only gives 1 point per 50 yards passing or 20 rushing/receiving (no PPR). In addition, for RBs, the receiving and rushing yards aren't lumped together, they're scored separately at 1 pt/20 yards. With that scoring, Charles and Rice's values drop precipitously - with the projections loaded into the DD, Mendenhall is equal to Charles in points, and both are ahead of Rice, MJD, etc. Andre Johnson is the top rated WR and carries a VBD of about 6 or 7.

I also watched last year as QBs went with picks 5-6-7 (Rodgers, Brees, Manning...I took Andre 8th and regretted it) another went at #10 (Brady) and yet another at 2.3 (Rivers.) This year, I imagine Vick will be among the top 20 picks, so by the time I get around to 2.9, there may be as many as 6 QBs off the board.

I mention all these circumstances only to illustrate why I'm strongly considering Rodgers at #4. I want the "first round is too early for a QB" crowd to tell me what they would do given all the above circumstances. Mendenhall/Charles in the first, a receiver in the second, sit back and wait on Eli/Roethlisberger/Freeman in the 4th-6th rounds?

 

[Captain Hook]

Do you want the best Team or the best QB?

Do you want the highest scoring player in the league or the highest scoring team?

Both answers say WAIT

Look at the distribution of points for the Top X quarterbacks in your league (x being the number of teams) I am willing to bet the dropoffs arene't anywhere close to the dropoffs for top RB and top WR - you HAVE to compare QB points to QB points not to all other players.

 

[hostile]

Depends on the scoring format for QBs...

 

[fightingillini]

What Captain Hook says.....saying it a different way,

What matters is the dynamic VBD value of Rodgers vs Charles. You pass on Charles, which RB will be available in Round 2? Likely RB12 or RB13. You pass on Rodgers, which QB will be available in Round 2? Likely QB6 or QB7. If the difference between Charles and your best Round 2 RB exceeds the difference between Rodgers and your best Round 2 QB, you pass on Rodgers and take Charles.

If it were me, I take Charles with the 4th pick and hope that Romo or Vick slides to me in Round 2.....which should happen.

 

[Instinctive]

That depends:

QBs are significantly more consistent and less likely to get injured than RBs. Guaranteeing top 5 or so production from a position is a nice way to avoid a first round bust. Now, the same holds true for WRs, and that's the direction I would go at around pick 6 or 7...

At pick 4? I would probably take Charles. But I wouldn't fault anyone for taking Rodgers. RBs are a lot more likely to pop up and produce significant numbers from the later rounds and the WW than other positions due to the nature of injury at that position.

I would try to trade the pick - that way I could draft my style, with value, by taking a guy like Calvin or Nicks late in the first and moving up in other rounds, perhaps gaining an extra 2nd or 3rd in the process.

 

[thriftyrocker]

When you guys say Rodgers at 4, you guys are assuming Vick is taken at 3?

 

[Instinctive]

When you guys say Rodgers at 4, you guys are assuming Vick is taken at 3?

I only say that because the OP said it. I too would rather have Vick than Rodgers for a year. Then again - injury risk is very real with Vick, even though I'm practically the driver for the no-such-thing-as-injury-prone bandwagon.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

When you guys say Rodgers at 4, you guys are assuming Vick is taken at 3?

no. Vick is a headache waiting to happen. Give me Rodgers all day over Vick.Given the league scoring rules, I would go Rodgers. With receiving/rushing split that devalues the rb position, as scoring will get closer and I don't think people are giving it enough consideration.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

really depends on league and scoring and the other members of your league.

Personally I always seem to take one of the big 7 early

 

[ZWK]

A lot depends on the league's scoring format. In TD-heavy leagues where passing TDs are worth as much as rush/rec TDs, QBs should go early, since the spread between starting QBs with that scoring system is similar to the spread between RBs or WRs. In the one TD-only-scoring league that I did, the first few players off the board were QBs (and that was the right decision) - your league's scoring doesn't quite go that far but it's in that direction. So if VBD says Rodgers (and it isn't close), and you buy the numbers that it's based on, and you aren't likely to be able to get someone similar if you wait until the 2nd for your QB, then go with Rodgers.

 

[Kleck]

really depends on league and scoring and the other members of your league.Personally I always seem to take one of the big 7 early

Well said. Knowing and understanding your league's tendencies is key.

 

[hotboyz]

A lot depends on the league's scoring format. In TD-heavy leagues where passing TDs are worth as much as rush/rec TDs, QBs should go early, since the spread between starting QBs with that scoring system is similar to the spread between RBs or WRs. In the one TD-only-scoring league that I did, the first few players off the board were QBs (and that was the right decision) - your league's scoring doesn't quite go that far but it's in that direction. So if VBD says Rodgers (and it isn't close), and you buy the numbers that it's based on, and you aren't likely to be able to get someone similar if you wait until the 2nd for your QB, then go with Rodgers.

[/quote)

That's not true just because qb Pts go to 6pts instead of 3pts does not increase difference between qbs

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Many of these leagues seem to take QB early, so taking QB early isn't as bad as it used to be, especially if you're drafting well before the season is starting and there's so many questions in terms of who's going to be where.

With that said, I still think waiting until later is the way to go. Rodgers is awesome, but he's still an injury risk with the concussions himself. I think the problem you're having is that you don't love the No.4 spot and don't like picking after those top 3. If i were you I'd take Charles if all 3 of those guys are gone and build around him. Don't plan on taking QB in the 2nd round unless Rivers is there, if he's not then go WR, WR or WR, RB. I believe the TE position is pretty deep too so going TE top 3 rounds doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.

You can get someone like an Eli Manning or possibly a Stafford a lot later and go QBBC around a solid lineup instead of taking Rodgers and then being weak in other areas. All of a sudden Rodgers takes a kneed to the head and you're team is crappy and you're reminded of why you don't take a QB as early as No.4 overall after you've been playing fantasy football for years.

 

[Dez]

I don't know of any of the high stakes contests out there that run that scoring system. Which one are you talking about ? It isn't the WCOFF, FFPC or NFFC. Those are all PPR and 1 pt per 10/20 yards.

 

[ZWK]

A lot depends on the league's scoring format. In TD-heavy leagues where passing TDs are worth as much as rush/rec TDs, QBs should go early, since the spread between starting QBs with that scoring system is similar to the spread between RBs or WRs. In the one TD-only-scoring league that I did, the first few players off the board were QBs (and that was the right decision) - your league's scoring doesn't quite go that far but it's in that direction. So if VBD says Rodgers (and it isn't close), and you buy the numbers that it's based on, and you aren't likely to be able to get someone similar if you wait until the 2nd for your QB, then go with Rodgers.

That's not true just because qb Pts go to 6pts instead of 3pts does not increase difference between qbs

Sure it does. That doubles the difference. 36 TDs vs. 26 TDs is a 60 point gap with 6/TD but only a 30 point gap with 3/TD. If it's 6/TD rushing and receiving and TD-heavy scoring, then RBs would have a lot more value than QBs in a 3pt passing TD league, but not in a 6pt passing TD league.

 

[moderated]

Do you want the best Team or the best QB?Do you want the highest scoring player in the league or the highest scoring team?Both answers say WAITLook at the distribution of points for the Top X quarterbacks in your league (x being the number of teams) I am willing to bet the dropoffs arene't anywhere close to the dropoffs for top RB and top WR - you HAVE to compare QB points to QB points not to all other players.

Vick scored 28+ PPG last season, the 8th ranked qb scored around 19. That is a huge drop off and the Vick owner had a big advantage even over the #2 ranked qb, and blew any qb's ranked after 10 away.

 

[GridironMenace]

When you guys say Rodgers at 4, you guys are assuming Vick is taken at 3?

no. Vick is a headache waiting to happen. Give me Rodgers all day over Vick.

Actually, Rodgers is the headache (concussion) waiting to happen.Have some/most/all of you guys forgotten about Rodgers concussions? One bad hit and he's done for an extended time if not the season. I'm putting Rodgers squarely on my 'do-not-draft-unless-he-drops-to-the-3rd-round list'.

 

[hotboyz]

A lot depends on the league's scoring format. In TD-heavy leagues where passing TDs are worth as much as rush/rec TDs, QBs should go early, since the spread between starting QBs with that scoring system is similar to the spread between RBs or WRs. In the one TD-only-scoring league that I did, the first few players off the board were QBs (and that was the right decision) - your league's scoring doesn't quite go that far but it's in that direction. So if VBD says Rodgers (and it isn't close), and you buy the numbers that it's based on, and you aren't likely to be able to get someone similar if you wait until the 2nd for your QB, then go with Rodgers.

That's not true just because qb Pts go to 6pts instead of 3pts does not increase difference between qbs

Sure it does. That doubles the difference. 36 TDs vs. 26 TDs is a 60 point gap with 6/TD but only a 30 point gap with 3/TD. If it's 6/TD rushing and receiving and TD-heavy scoring, then RBs would have a lot more value than QBs in a 3pt passing TD league, but not in a 6pt passing TD league.

Ok I see what you're saying

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Do you want the best Team or the best QB?Do you want the highest scoring player in the league or the highest scoring team?Both answers say WAITLook at the distribution of points for the Top X quarterbacks in your league (x being the number of teams) I am willing to bet the dropoffs arene't anywhere close to the dropoffs for top RB and top WR - you HAVE to compare QB points to QB points not to all other players.

Are you comparing QB12 to RB24 and WR36, since those are the starter baselines? If so, the dropoffs are as follows :QB1 (Rodgers) to QB12 (Freeman) - 90 pointsRB1 (Peterson) to RB 24 (Best) - 76 pointsWR1 (Andre) to WR 36 (Manningham) - 72 points

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Depends on the scoring format for QBs...

In the OP, 1 pt/50 yards passing, all TDs 6 points

 

[Evilgrin 72]

What Captain Hook says.....saying it a different way,What matters is the dynamic VBD value of Rodgers vs Charles. You pass on Charles, which RB will be available in Round 2? Likely RB12 or RB13. You pass on Rodgers, which QB will be available in Round 2? Likely QB6 or QB7. If the difference between Charles and your best Round 2 RB exceeds the difference between Rodgers and your best Round 2 QB, you pass on Rodgers and take Charles.If it were me, I take Charles with the 4th pick and hope that Romo or Vick slides to me in Round 2.....which should happen.

I expect the following distribution of picks before my 2nd rounder (20 picks - 6 QB, 10 RB,4 WR)So, at #21, I'm looking at QB7 (using VBD App, that's Romo or Eli), RB 11 (Forte), or WR 5 (V-Jax)Drop off from Rodgers to Romo - 68 pointsDrop off from Charles to Forte - 24 pointsDrop off from Andre to VJax - 30 pointsAgain, using my league scoring/tendencies to hopefully illustrate a scenario where taking a QB in the top 5 WOULD be a good move, keep firing devil's advocate at me, I want to know if the "NEVER EVER EVER take a QB in the 1st contingent will acquiesce within this paradigm or not.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

That depends:QBs are significantly more consistent and less likely to get injured than RBs. Guaranteeing top 5 or so production from a position is a nice way to avoid a first round bust. Now, the same holds true for WRs, and that's the direction I would go at around pick 6 or 7...At pick 4? I would probably take Charles. But I wouldn't fault anyone for taking Rodgers. RBs are a lot more likely to pop up and produce significant numbers from the later rounds and the WW than other positions due to the nature of injury at that position.I would try to trade the pick - that way I could draft my style, with value, by taking a guy like Calvin or Nicks late in the first and moving up in other rounds, perhaps gaining an extra 2nd or 3rd in the process.

I'm currently trying to trade the pick, but no nibbles yet. Trades are uncommon in this league.

When you guys say Rodgers at 4, you guys are assuming Vick is taken at 3?

Vick is devalued in our odd scoring system. Rushing yards are only 1 pt/25 yards for QBs, so Vick's 50-60 yards a game only goes for 2 points. In addition, he doesn't get any extra benefit for rushing TDs over passing TDs, since they're all 6 points. Vick is actually QB5 based on our scoring and the default projections in the VBD app, well behind Rodgers and Brees and 2 points behind Brady and Manning.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Many of these leagues seem to take QB early, so taking QB early isn't as bad as it used to be, especially if you're drafting well before the season is starting and there's so many questions in terms of who's going to be where.

With that said, I still think waiting until later is the way to go. Rodgers is awesome, but he's still an injury risk with the concussions himself. I think the problem you're having is that you don't love the No.4 spot and don't like picking after those top 3. If i were you I'd take Charles if all 3 of those guys are gone and build around him. Don't plan on taking QB in the 2nd round unless Rivers is there, if he's not then go WR, WR or WR, RB. I believe the TE position is pretty deep too so going TE top 3 rounds doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.

You can get someone like an Eli Manning or possibly a Stafford a lot later and go QBBC around a solid lineup instead of taking Rodgers and then being weak in other areas. All of a sudden Rodgers takes a kneed to the head and you're team is crappy and you're reminded of why you don't take a QB as early as No.4 overall after you've been playing fantasy football for years.

*ding ding ding ding ding*Also was burned by taking Brady at #6 overall the year after his 50 TD season. he lasted 1 1/2 quarters and my year was effectively over.

Charles actually ranks below Mendenhall in my scoring system, so are you advocating taking him #4 because he has the most upside behind the top 3?

 

[Instinctive]

I'd probably go for Brees. Least likely to bust, IMO, of the top QBs. Rodgers and Manning could be injured bad with one wrong hit to the head, and I just don;t like Brady so I have never had him on a team haha.

Especially with rushing yards devalued, the value of Rodgers over Brees is pretty small, no?

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I'd probably go for Brees. Least likely to bust, IMO, of the top QBs. Rodgers and Manning could be injured bad with one wrong hit to the head, and I just don;t like Brady so I have never had him on a team haha.Especially with rushing yards devalued, the value of Rodgers over Brees is pretty small, no?

Rodgers to Brees - 22 point dropoff.

 

[Instinctive]

I'd probably go for Brees. Least likely to bust, IMO, of the top QBs. Rodgers and Manning could be injured bad with one wrong hit to the head, and I just don;t like Brady so I have never had him on a team haha.Especially with rushing yards devalued, the value of Rodgers over Brees is pretty small, no?

Rodgers to Brees - 22 point dropoff.

So....yeah, a very slight difference. Less than 1.5 ppg. Well - probably closer to 2 or 3 ppg since Rodgers missed a game or two last year. Then again - I'm going with Brees because one wrong hit on Rodgers.........In my league - where rush yards matter more - I go for Vick or Rodgers. In your league, I go Brees. And I definitely take a QB in the first. If only because the history of the other drafters shows that they'll take QBs and value will fall to me in the 2nd.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I'd probably go for Brees. Least likely to bust, IMO, of the top QBs. Rodgers and Manning could be injured bad with one wrong hit to the head, and I just don;t like Brady so I have never had him on a team haha.Especially with rushing yards devalued, the value of Rodgers over Brees is pretty small, no?

Rodgers to Brees - 22 point dropoff.

So....yeah, a very slight difference. Less than 1.5 ppg. Well - probably closer to 2 or 3 ppg since Rodgers missed a game or two last year. Then again - I'm going with Brees because one wrong hit on Rodgers.........In my league - where rush yards matter more - I go for Vick or Rodgers. In your league, I go Brees. And I definitely take a QB in the first. If only because the history of the other drafters shows that they'll take QBs and value will fall to me in the 2nd.

QB projected scoring (top 12) :Rodgers - 303Brees - 281P. Manning - 265Brady - 265Vick - 263Rivers - 241Romo - 235E. Manning - 234Schaub - 229Roethlisberger - 222Ryan - 218Freeman - 213The run on QBs last year is what has me strongly considering this move. It took me by surprise as last year, I was having a very similar debate with myself over drafting a QB at #8. That decision was made for me when Brees, Rodgers, and Manning went 5-6-7. I don't see any reason that trend won't hold as of right now, our scoring devalues RBs (particularly those who catch a lot of passes) and with the increased use of RBBC, they're even less valuable. I'm thinking at this point that a combo of Rodgers and Forte or Hillis might be preferable to a Mendenhall/Charles and Romo combination. If I could be assured of grabbing Rivers at 2.9, I'd consider it, but again, he went 2.3 last year. If 6 of the top 20 picks are QBs, then I know I have no worse than Hillis/Forte/Bradshaw and VJax/Fitzgerald/Jennings/Wallace/DeSean out there for my second and third round choices.

 

[Touchdown There]

Do you want the best Team or the best QB?Do you want the highest scoring player in the league or the highest scoring team?Both answers say WAITLook at the distribution of points for the Top X quarterbacks in your league (x being the number of teams) I am willing to bet the dropoffs arene't anywhere close to the dropoffs for top RB and top WR - you HAVE to compare QB points to QB points not to all other players.

This is an old school way of thinking. Point distribution is not only starting to favor early QB selection (because of RBBC and increased productivity of QBs in the league), but it also reduces your overall draft risk. Think about these two things:1. You want safe points out of your Round 1 selection. Rodgers is very likely to produces to expectations. RBs are twice as likely to be injured. Last year Gore broke his hip and MJD fell short with a meniscus.2. Overall draft risk. If you skip Rodgers in the first, you are then on a "value" search the rest of the draft for QB. This leaves open the possibility that you do not end up with a top QB. Results of the poll I posted a few weeks back showed that 58% of dynasty league winners had a top 6 (top half) QB, with most winners having Rodgers or Vick.Drafting is so much easier when you slam dunk the QB position and then remove it from your mind. Now all you are looking at is RB-WR-TE. If you trust your later round RB-WR-TE value picks, go with Rodgers.

 

[Touchdown There]

I expect the following distribution of picks before my 2nd rounder (20 picks - 6 QB, 10 RB,4 WR)So, at #21, I'm looking at QB7 (using VBD App, that's Romo or Eli), RB 11 (Forte), or WR 5 (V-Jax)Drop off from Rodgers to Romo - 68 pointsDrop off from Charles to Forte - 24 pointsDrop off from Andre to VJax - 30 pointsAgain, using my league scoring/tendencies to hopefully illustrate a scenario where taking a QB in the top 5 WOULD be a good move, keep firing devil's advocate at me, I want to know if the "NEVER EVER EVER take a QB in the 1st contingent will acquiesce within this paradigm or not.

The new reality is that the team with the best QBs earn the most points and have the best chance at winning their league.

 

[Captain Hook]

What Captain Hook says.....saying it a different way,What matters is the dynamic VBD value of Rodgers vs Charles. You pass on Charles, which RB will be available in Round 2? Likely RB12 or RB13. You pass on Rodgers, which QB will be available in Round 2? Likely QB6 or QB7. If the difference between Charles and your best Round 2 RB exceeds the difference between Rodgers and your best Round 2 QB, you pass on Rodgers and take Charles.If it were me, I take Charles with the 4th pick and hope that Romo or Vick slides to me in Round 2.....which should happen.

I expect the following distribution of picks before my 2nd rounder (20 picks - 6 QB, 10 RB,4 WR)So, at #21, I'm looking at QB7 (using VBD App, that's Romo or Eli), RB 11 (Forte), or WR 5 (V-Jax)Drop off from Rodgers to Romo - 68 pointsDrop off from Charles to Forte - 24 pointsDrop off from Andre to VJax - 30 pointsAgain, using my league scoring/tendencies to hopefully illustrate a scenario where taking a QB in the top 5 WOULD be a good move, keep firing devil's advocate at me, I want to know if the "NEVER EVER EVER take a QB in the 1st contingent will acquiesce within this paradigm or not.

Specific scoring systems DO alter draft plans and IF your league is that skewed then I will concede you need to be open minded about taking a QB at 1.04...............BUT of course it just takes one of the first three drafters to decide they want Rodgers or Vick to present you with one of the Top 3 RB..............so you should have plan A and plan B ready to gne comment on the Rodgers vs Brees point that was brought up - while the concussion (slight) concern with Rodgers is not to be totally ignored there is nothing to say that Brees couldn't be injured either - the difference is that you can get Flynn with a very late pick to back up Rodgers - we saw what he can do last year. I doubt you want to roll with Chase Daniels.Was last year your first in that league? You are a pretty experienced FF player so I am curious about the comment that the drafting distribution took you by surprise unless it was a new league.

 

[fightingillini]

What Captain Hook says.....saying it a different way,What matters is the dynamic VBD value of Rodgers vs Charles. You pass on Charles, which RB will be available in Round 2? Likely RB12 or RB13. You pass on Rodgers, which QB will be available in Round 2? Likely QB6 or QB7. If the difference between Charles and your best Round 2 RB exceeds the difference between Rodgers and your best Round 2 QB, you pass on Rodgers and take Charles.If it were me, I take Charles with the 4th pick and hope that Romo or Vick slides to me in Round 2.....which should happen.

I expect the following distribution of picks before my 2nd rounder (20 picks - 6 QB, 10 RB,4 WR)So, at #21, I'm looking at QB7 (using VBD App, that's Romo or Eli), RB 11 (Forte), or WR 5 (V-Jax)Drop off from Rodgers to Romo - 68 pointsDrop off from Charles to Forte - 24 pointsDrop off from Andre to VJax - 30 pointsAgain, using my league scoring/tendencies to hopefully illustrate a scenario where taking a QB in the top 5 WOULD be a good move, keep firing devil's advocate at me, I want to know if the "NEVER EVER EVER take a QB in the 1st contingent will acquiesce within this paradigm or not.

If that's your projections and scoring system, then it's a no brainer....take Rodgers and snag up the best RB in Round 2....Forte.Personally, I don't think Romo is 68 points worse than Rodgers, but it's your projections that matter.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

What Captain Hook says.....saying it a different way,What matters is the dynamic VBD value of Rodgers vs Charles. You pass on Charles, which RB will be available in Round 2? Likely RB12 or RB13. You pass on Rodgers, which QB will be available in Round 2? Likely QB6 or QB7. If the difference between Charles and your best Round 2 RB exceeds the difference between Rodgers and your best Round 2 QB, you pass on Rodgers and take Charles.If it were me, I take Charles with the 4th pick and hope that Romo or Vick slides to me in Round 2.....which should happen.

I expect the following distribution of picks before my 2nd rounder (20 picks - 6 QB, 10 RB,4 WR)So, at #21, I'm looking at QB7 (using VBD App, that's Romo or Eli), RB 11 (Forte), or WR 5 (V-Jax)Drop off from Rodgers to Romo - 68 pointsDrop off from Charles to Forte - 24 pointsDrop off from Andre to VJax - 30 pointsAgain, using my league scoring/tendencies to hopefully illustrate a scenario where taking a QB in the top 5 WOULD be a good move, keep firing devil's advocate at me, I want to know if the "NEVER EVER EVER take a QB in the 1st contingent will acquiesce within this paradigm or not.

Specific scoring systems DO alter draft plans and IF your league is that skewed then I will concede you need to be open minded about taking a QB at 1.04...............BUT of course it just takes one of the first three drafters to decide they want Rodgers or Vick to present you with one of the Top 3 RB..............so you should have plan A and plan B ready to gne comment on the Rodgers vs Brees point that was brought up - while the concussion (slight) concern with Rodgers is not to be totally ignored there is nothing to say that Brees couldn't be injured either - the difference is that you can get Flynn with a very late pick to back up Rodgers - we saw what he can do last year. I doubt you want to roll with Chase Daniels.Was last year your first in that league? You are a pretty experienced FF player so I am curious about the comment that the drafting distribution took you by surprise unless it was a new league.

1) If one of the top 3 drafters takes a QB, I will take whoever is left from Peterson, Foster, and C. Johnson. I think I'd take CJIII at #4 before Brees.2) If I drafted Rodgers, I'd probably spend a 16th rounder on Flynn, or at the very least, wait until someone on my active roster got hurt and then pick him up when I IRed someone.3) No, 14th year in this league. However, this phenomenon was brand new. In prior year's drafts, QBs typically went a little earlier than ADP, but not to this extreme. Two years ago, I got Romo and Roethlisberger in the 8th/9th rounds. Last year, the 8-12 range QBs were gobbled up by the fifth. I think it's indicative of the current separation of the "elite" QBs from the field, and the fact that while RB scoring is down, QB scoring is up. The pressure to get a top tier QB caused 4 to go in the top 10 picks, and 7 in the top 32 (I took Schaub at 3.8.) I expect that trend to continue this season.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

What Captain Hook says.....saying it a different way,What matters is the dynamic VBD value of Rodgers vs Charles. You pass on Charles, which RB will be available in Round 2? Likely RB12 or RB13. You pass on Rodgers, which QB will be available in Round 2? Likely QB6 or QB7. If the difference between Charles and your best Round 2 RB exceeds the difference between Rodgers and your best Round 2 QB, you pass on Rodgers and take Charles.If it were me, I take Charles with the 4th pick and hope that Romo or Vick slides to me in Round 2.....which should happen.

I expect the following distribution of picks before my 2nd rounder (20 picks - 6 QB, 10 RB,4 WR)So, at #21, I'm looking at QB7 (using VBD App, that's Romo or Eli), RB 11 (Forte), or WR 5 (V-Jax)Drop off from Rodgers to Romo - 68 pointsDrop off from Charles to Forte - 24 pointsDrop off from Andre to VJax - 30 pointsAgain, using my league scoring/tendencies to hopefully illustrate a scenario where taking a QB in the top 5 WOULD be a good move, keep firing devil's advocate at me, I want to know if the "NEVER EVER EVER take a QB in the 1st contingent will acquiesce within this paradigm or not.

If that's your projections and scoring system, then it's a no brainer....take Rodgers and snag up the best RB in Round 2....Forte.Personally, I don't think Romo is 68 points worse than Rodgers, but it's your projections that matter.

Those are the projections that come loaded into the draft dominator/VBD App (Dodds, I guess?) I haven't done any projections yet... those are just the default projections plugged into this league's scoring system.

 

[mrip541]

I expect the following distribution of picks before my 2nd rounder (20 picks - 6 QB, 10 RB,4 WR)So, at #21, I'm looking at QB7 (using VBD App, that's Romo or Eli), RB 11 (Forte), or WR 5 (V-Jax)Drop off from Rodgers to Romo - 68 pointsDrop off from Charles to Forte - 24 pointsDrop off from Andre to VJax - 30 pointsAgain, using my league scoring/tendencies to hopefully illustrate a scenario where taking a QB in the top 5 WOULD be a good move, keep firing devil's advocate at me, I want to know if the "NEVER EVER EVER take a QB in the 1st contingent will acquiesce within this paradigm or not.

I think those numbers can be misleading. When you drop from Rodgers to Romo you only affect one starter spot in a 1QB league. When you drop from Charles to Forte you affect 2 or 3 (in a way). If you want to compare the point drop using only one starter spot I think it's more accurate to compare the drop from Rodgers to Romo against Charles to your rb3 (Instead of Forte at rb2), because that rb3 is who will fill Charles' spot if you grab a QB instead. You will be pulling out Charles(rb1) and plugging in the first RB on your bench (rb3) if you take a QB in his spot.In a 3rb league you'd need to use your rb4. As the number of spots available to start rbs goes up, the "cost" of taking a qb early goes up as well. Same thing can be said for WRs if you're giving up a wr pick for a top qb.This isn't completely accurate because you'll draft differently if you take a round 1 qb, i.e. taking a rb instead of a top te, but I think it's an improvement over the rb1/rb2 comparison.

 

[gethugefast1]

In years past there would be arguments for selecting WRs or QBs in the first round or trying some type of unique draft strategy...QB-WR, WR-WR, RB-QB, etc. And in those past years, there were times when I strongly agreed with that mentality. This year is NOT one of those years.

In fact, I think this year is the most important year ever to get 2 RBs locked up before addressing any other position.

Top 12:

Foster

Johnson

Peterson

Rice

Charles

McCoy

Jones-Drew

McFadden

Mendenhall

Jackson

Gore

Turner

All solid backs(some with injury concerns(Jackson,Gore,MJD), others with "Letdown Year Concerns(Charles,McCoy,McFadden)). But overall that is what you have to work with because after that there is a giant drop-off of both talent and uncertainty. Unless you like to gamble ALOT, it is essential to try and grab 2 of the 11 above(thus greatly helping the later picks in the 1st round for sure).

Here are some of the RBs left after the TOP 12 have been chosen...

Blount

Forte

Mathews

Best

Bradshaw

Stewart

Hillis

DWilliams

Greene

Felix Jones

Ingram

Lynch

Addai

Grant

etc.(in no order clearly)

As much as I am positive someone out of that group will have a good year, its difficult to tell. I'd rather do some research and try to snag one of them if I can..but the bottom line is the RB pool is extremely thin this year.

Last year, I saw the WR pool as very thin, whereas this year I find it to be much larger. The opposite can be said for the RBs.

I think there will be an enormous difference in teams that are able to get 2 of the Top 12 vs those that settle for 1 in the Top 12 or even 0 in the Top 12. I just don't think a team this year will be successful if they are chosing from 2 of the lower level RBs. If there is uncertainty for RBs in the TOP12 then there is even greater uncertainty for those after that top Tier.

 

[Kwai Chang Caine]

Do you want the best Team or the best QB?Do you want the highest scoring player in the league or the highest scoring team?Both answers say WAITLook at the distribution of points for the Top X quarterbacks in your league (x being the number of teams) I am willing to bet the dropoffs arene't anywhere close to the dropoffs for top RB and top WR - you HAVE to compare QB points to QB points not to all other players.

This is an old school way of thinking. Point distribution is not only starting to favor early QB selection (because of RBBC and increased productivity of QBs in the league), but it also reduces your overall draft risk. Think about these two things:1. You want safe points out of your Round 1 selection. Rodgers is very likely to produces to expectations. RBs are twice as likely to be injured. Last year Gore broke his hip and MJD fell short with a meniscus.2. Overall draft risk. If you skip Rodgers in the first, you are then on a "value" search the rest of the draft for QB. This leaves open the possibility that you do not end up with a top QB. Results of the poll I posted a few weeks back showed that 58% of dynasty league winners had a top 6 (top half) QB, with most winners having Rodgers or Vick.Drafting is so much easier when you slam dunk the QB position and then remove it from your mind. Now all you are looking at is RB-WR-TE. If you trust your later round RB-WR-TE value picks, go with Rodgers.

This! For what it's worth I play in a one player keeper. Last year I won with Rodgers, Peterson and Charles (I made some good trades early). Anyway, I am keeping Rodgers and not even thinking twice about it. This is my 20th year in this league and and I've noticed that the owners with the top QBs are consistantly making the playoffs year after year. Hell, I didn't even use Peterson in the playoffs last year.

 

[the spanker]

In years past there would be arguments for selecting WRs or QBs in the first round or trying some type of unique draft strategy...QB-WR, WR-WR, RB-QB, etc. And in those past years, there were times when I strongly agreed with that mentality. This year is NOT one of those years.In fact, I think this year is the most important year ever to get 2 RBs locked up before addressing any other position.Top 12:FosterJohnsonPetersonRiceCharlesMcCoyJones-DrewMcFaddenMendenhallJacksonGoreTurnerAll solid backs(some with injury concerns(Jackson,Gore,MJD), others with "Letdown Year Concerns(Charles,McCoy,McFadden)). But overall that is what you have to work with because after that there is a giant drop-off of both talent and uncertainty. Unless you like to gamble ALOT, it is essential to try and grab 2 of the 11 above(thus greatly helping the later picks in the 1st round for sure). Here are some of the RBs left after the TOP 12 have been chosen...BlountForteMathewsBestBradshawStewartHillisDWilliamsGreeneFelix JonesIngramLynchAddaiGrantetc.(in no order clearly)As much as I am positive someone out of that group will have a good year, its difficult to tell. I'd rather do some research and try to snag one of them if I can..but the bottom line is the RB pool is extremely thin this year. Last year, I saw the WR pool as very thin, whereas this year I find it to be much larger. The opposite can be said for the RBs. I think there will be an enormous difference in teams that are able to get 2 of the Top 12 vs those that settle for 1 in the Top 12 or even 0 in the Top 12. I just don't think a team this year will be successful if they are chosing from 2 of the lower level RBs. If there is uncertainty for RBs in the TOP12 then there is even greater uncertainty for those after that top Tier.

Please excuse me for not reading the entire thread but are you referring to PPR or another scoring format in your analysis?

 

[gethugefast1]

In years past there would be arguments for selecting WRs or QBs in the first round or trying some type of unique draft strategy...QB-WR, WR-WR, RB-QB, etc. And in those past years, there were times when I strongly agreed with that mentality. This year is NOT one of those years.In fact, I think this year is the most important year ever to get 2 RBs locked up before addressing any other position.Top 12:FosterJohnsonPetersonRiceCharlesMcCoyJones-DrewMcFaddenMendenhallJacksonGoreTurnerAll solid backs(some with injury concerns(Jackson,Gore,MJD), others with "Letdown Year Concerns(Charles,McCoy,McFadden)). But overall that is what you have to work with because after that there is a giant drop-off of both talent and uncertainty. Unless you like to gamble ALOT, it is essential to try and grab 2 of the 11 above(thus greatly helping the later picks in the 1st round for sure). Here are some of the RBs left after the TOP 12 have been chosen...BlountForteMathewsBestBradshawStewartHillisDWilliamsGreeneFelix JonesIngramLynchAddaiGrantetc.(in no order clearly)As much as I am positive someone out of that group will have a good year, its difficult to tell. I'd rather do some research and try to snag one of them if I can..but the bottom line is the RB pool is extremely thin this year. Last year, I saw the WR pool as very thin, whereas this year I find it to be much larger. The opposite can be said for the RBs. I think there will be an enormous difference in teams that are able to get 2 of the Top 12 vs those that settle for 1 in the Top 12 or even 0 in the Top 12. I just don't think a team this year will be successful if they are chosing from 2 of the lower level RBs. If there is uncertainty for RBs in the TOP12 then there is even greater uncertainty for those after that top Tier.

Please excuse me for not reading the entire thread but are you referring to PPR or another scoring format in your analysis?

Non-PPR...to add to my original post...having a clear cut and in stone strategy of this is what im doing this during a draft can get you into trouble, just make your rankings and go with what comes, every draft you do will be different. So being able to spot when a run of certain positions will happen will be just as helpful etc...The most important thing in the draft is not the first few rounds. It's the middle rounds and waivers that will win you the gold. That's where the focus should remain. As an example, I won my money league last year because I bought into the Arian Foster cool-aid and overspent on him by a couple rounds (this was before everyone in the fantasy world wanted to draft him). That is the move that won it for me, not the RB-WR-RB strategy I used at the start.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Do you want the best Team or the best QB?Do you want the highest scoring player in the league or the highest scoring team?Both answers say WAITLook at the distribution of points for the Top X quarterbacks in your league (x being the number of teams) I am willing to bet the dropoffs arene't anywhere close to the dropoffs for top RB and top WR - you HAVE to compare QB points to QB points not to all other players.

This is an old school way of thinking. Point distribution is not only starting to favor early QB selection (because of RBBC and increased productivity of QBs in the league), but it also reduces your overall draft risk. Think about these two things:1. You want safe points out of your Round 1 selection. Rodgers is very likely to produces to expectations. RBs are twice as likely to be injured. Last year Gore broke his hip and MJD fell short with a meniscus.2. Overall draft risk. If you skip Rodgers in the first, you are then on a "value" search the rest of the draft for QB. This leaves open the possibility that you do not end up with a top QB. Results of the poll I posted a few weeks back showed that 58% of dynasty league winners had a top 6 (top half) QB, with most winners having Rodgers or Vick.Drafting is so much easier when you slam dunk the QB position and then remove it from your mind. Now all you are looking at is RB-WR-TE. If you trust your later round RB-WR-TE value picks, go with Rodgers.

We seem to be confusing player performance after the fact with where these players were drafted.Of course 58% of winners last year had a top 6 QB. I'll bet they also had several Top 10 RB's and several Top 10 WR's. After all, that's what makes you good, is having good players. Now I understand the poll was dynasty leagues, but I wonder how many owners in redrafts or similar DRAFTED those players in the first rounds of their drafts. Last year if someone drafted Michael Vick in the 1st round of their draft they would have been laughed out of the room. Of course, they would have been laughing in December, but you get my point.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I expect the following distribution of picks before my 2nd rounder (20 picks - 6 QB, 10 RB,4 WR)So, at #21, I'm looking at QB7 (using VBD App, that's Romo or Eli), RB 11 (Forte), or WR 5 (V-Jax)Drop off from Rodgers to Romo - 68 pointsDrop off from Charles to Forte - 24 pointsDrop off from Andre to VJax - 30 pointsAgain, using my league scoring/tendencies to hopefully illustrate a scenario where taking a QB in the top 5 WOULD be a good move, keep firing devil's advocate at me, I want to know if the "NEVER EVER EVER take a QB in the 1st contingent will acquiesce within this paradigm or not.

I think those numbers can be misleading. When you drop from Rodgers to Romo you only affect one starter spot in a 1QB league. When you drop from Charles to Forte you affect 2 or 3 (in a way). If you want to compare the point drop using only one starter spot I think it's more accurate to compare the drop from Rodgers to Romo against Charles to your rb3 (Instead of Forte at rb2), because that rb3 is who will fill Charles' spot if you grab a QB instead. You will be pulling out Charles(rb1) and plugging in the first RB on your bench (rb3) if you take a QB in his spot.In a 3rb league you'd need to use your rb4. As the number of spots available to start rbs goes up, the "cost" of taking a qb early goes up as well. Same thing can be said for WRs if you're giving up a wr pick for a top qb.This isn't completely accurate because you'll draft differently if you take a round 1 qb, i.e. taking a rb instead of a top te, but I think it's an improvement over the rb1/rb2 comparison.

That's a legitimate point. Assuming I'll draft an RB2 in the 4th round, that would mean the drop off at RB wouldn't be from Charles to Forte, it would be from Charles to whoever was available at 4.9. Using ADP, that would mean someone like Daniel Thomas. Even with that, the drop-off from Charles to Thomas is only 39 points, which still doesn't come close to eating up the 68 point cushion from Rodgers to Romo.

 

[fightingillini]

I expect the following distribution of picks before my 2nd rounder (20 picks - 6 QB, 10 RB,4 WR)So, at #21, I'm looking at QB7 (using VBD App, that's Romo or Eli), RB 11 (Forte), or WR 5 (V-Jax)Drop off from Rodgers to Romo - 68 pointsDrop off from Charles to Forte - 24 pointsDrop off from Andre to VJax - 30 pointsAgain, using my league scoring/tendencies to hopefully illustrate a scenario where taking a QB in the top 5 WOULD be a good move, keep firing devil's advocate at me, I want to know if the "NEVER EVER EVER take a QB in the 1st contingent will acquiesce within this paradigm or not.

I think those numbers can be misleading. When you drop from Rodgers to Romo you only affect one starter spot in a 1QB league. When you drop from Charles to Forte you affect 2 or 3 (in a way). If you want to compare the point drop using only one starter spot I think it's more accurate to compare the drop from Rodgers to Romo against Charles to your rb3 (Instead of Forte at rb2), because that rb3 is who will fill Charles' spot if you grab a QB instead. You will be pulling out Charles(rb1) and plugging in the first RB on your bench (rb3) if you take a QB in his spot.In a 3rb league you'd need to use your rb4. As the number of spots available to start rbs goes up, the "cost" of taking a qb early goes up as well. Same thing can be said for WRs if you're giving up a wr pick for a top qb.This isn't completely accurate because you'll draft differently if you take a round 1 qb, i.e. taking a rb instead of a top te, but I think it's an improvement over the rb1/rb2 comparison.

You have to remember that in this type of league with this type of QB scoring, QBs are going to go much earlier than usual. You can't wait and get a Roethlisberger or Eli Manning in the 6th round. Almost everyone will have their starting QB by round 4. You can't afford not to. So you can't say that picking a QB in round 1 will affect all of his other starting RB and WR positions, since that would only be the case if you were debating between picking a QB in round 1 or a QB in round 6.With this format, Evil's dilemma is simplied since he has to take a QB by Round 3, or risk getting stuck with a Cutler or a Bradford as his starting QB. So it comes down to taking QB1 at pick 4 (Rodgers) or picking QB7 in the 2nd round (Romo) or picking, say QB10 in the 3rd round (say that's Eli). Which scenario will produce the best 3 player combo? With a 68 point edge between Rodgers and Romo, IMO the decision is fairly easy....take Rodgers at 4, a RB in Round 2 (say Forte) and the best value of RB/WR in Round 3 (I would guess it's another RB). It's awfully nice to have a 4 pt advantage a week at QB against the average starting QB.Now my projections would show a much closer distribution from Romo to Rodgers (say only 20 pts, since I think Romo is going to have a big year). With my projections, I take Charles at 4 and Romo with my 2nd round pick. But if I truly believed Rodgers was 68 points better than my QB7, then it's a no brainer...take Rodgers and don't look back.

 

[mrip541]

You have to remember that in this type of league with this type of QB scoring, QBs are going to go much earlier than usual. You can't wait and get a Roethlisberger or Eli Manning in the 6th round. Almost everyone will have their starting QB by round 4. You can't afford not to. So you can't say that picking a QB in round 1 will affect all of his other starting RB and WR positions, since that would only be the case if you were debating between picking a QB in round 1 or a QB in round 6.With this format, Evil's dilemma is simplied since he has to take a QB by Round 3, or risk getting stuck with a Cutler or a Bradford as his starting QB. So it comes down to taking QB1 at pick 4 (Rodgers) or picking QB7 in the 2nd round (Romo) or picking, say QB10 in the 3rd round (say that's Eli). Which scenario will produce the best 3 player combo? With a 68 point edge between Rodgers and Romo, IMO the decision is fairly easy....take Rodgers at 4, a RB in Round 2 (say Forte) and the best value of RB/WR in Round 3 (I would guess it's another RB). It's awfully nice to have a 4 pt advantage a week at QB against the average starting QB.Now my projections would show a much closer distribution from Romo to Rodgers (say only 20 pts, since I think Romo is going to have a big year). With my projections, I take Charles at 4 and Romo with my 2nd round pick. But if I truly believed Rodgers was 68 points better than my QB7, then it's a no brainer...take Rodgers and don't look back.

Yep, the whole math bit and who you'd need to compare changes depending on scoring, how long you wait to pick up your qb, how other people draft, etc. I think the general idea of looking at the rb you'll need to start instead of the next rb you take is still valid. I don't think people realize how complicated vbd would get if you really sat down and did the math for all factors. I mean, each pick affects all other picks regardless of position.I get the feeling I'm missing something here but can't quite figure out what it is. hmm...

 

[greggorymac]

I expect the following distribution of picks before my 2nd rounder (20 picks - 6 QB, 10 RB,4 WR)So, at #21, I'm looking at QB7 (using VBD App, that's Romo or Eli), RB 11 (Forte), or WR 5 (V-Jax)Drop off from Rodgers to Romo - 68 pointsDrop off from Charles to Forte - 24 pointsDrop off from Andre to VJax - 30 pointsAgain, using my league scoring/tendencies to hopefully illustrate a scenario where taking a QB in the top 5 WOULD be a good move, keep firing devil's advocate at me, I want to know if the "NEVER EVER EVER take a QB in the 1st contingent will acquiesce within this paradigm or not.

I think those numbers can be misleading. When you drop from Rodgers to Romo you only affect one starter spot in a 1QB league. When you drop from Charles to Forte you affect 2 or 3 (in a way). If you want to compare the point drop using only one starter spot I think it's more accurate to compare the drop from Rodgers to Romo against Charles to your rb3 (Instead of Forte at rb2), because that rb3 is who will fill Charles' spot if you grab a QB instead. You will be pulling out Charles(rb1) and plugging in the first RB on your bench (rb3) if you take a QB in his spot.In a 3rb league you'd need to use your rb4. As the number of spots available to start rbs goes up, the "cost" of taking a qb early goes up as well. Same thing can be said for WRs if you're giving up a wr pick for a top qb.This isn't completely accurate because you'll draft differently if you take a round 1 qb, i.e. taking a rb instead of a top te, but I think it's an improvement over the rb1/rb2 comparison.

You have to remember that in this type of league with this type of QB scoring, QBs are going to go much earlier than usual. You can't wait and get a Roethlisberger or Eli Manning in the 6th round. Almost everyone will have their starting QB by round 4. You can't afford not to. So you can't say that picking a QB in round 1 will affect all of his other starting RB and WR positions, since that would only be the case if you were debating between picking a QB in round 1 or a QB in round 6.With this format, Evil's dilemma is simplied since he has to take a QB by Round 3, or risk getting stuck with a Cutler or a Bradford as his starting QB. So it comes down to taking QB1 at pick 4 (Rodgers) or picking QB7 in the 2nd round (Romo) or picking, say QB10 in the 3rd round (say that's Eli). Which scenario will produce the best 3 player combo? With a 68 point edge between Rodgers and Romo, IMO the decision is fairly easy....take Rodgers at 4, a RB in Round 2 (say Forte) and the best value of RB/WR in Round 3 (I would guess it's another RB). It's awfully nice to have a 4 pt advantage a week at QB against the average starting QB.Now my projections would show a much closer distribution from Romo to Rodgers (say only 20 pts, since I think Romo is going to have a big year). With my projections, I take Charles at 4 and Romo with my 2nd round pick. But if I truly believed Rodgers was 68 points better than my QB7, then it's a no brainer...take Rodgers and don't look back.

fightingillini articulated this very well.

 

[cobalt_27]

Do you want the best Team or the best QB?Do you want the highest scoring player in the league or the highest scoring team?Both answers say WAITLook at the distribution of points for the Top X quarterbacks in your league (x being the number of teams) I am willing to bet the dropoffs arene't anywhere close to the dropoffs for top RB and top WR - you HAVE to compare QB points to QB points not to all other players.

Personally, I want the best team, not the best RB-RB-RB-RB-RB-RB-RB-RB-WR-WR-RB-RB-RB-RB-RB-RB-QB team like a lot of "experts" here espouse based on long-standing dogma.Take Rodgers at 4 and be happy.

 

[Badgers Fan]

Depends your league settings and scoring settings.

Personally, I wouldn't draft a qb that early. There is a TON of early talent from the rb/wr spot, I have no problem having 4 studs there and have an Eli or Big Ben at qb (however, Romo in round 4 or Rivers in round 3 would very much intrigue me).

I won a title last year passing on a qb till round 7 (Eli) but I also won drafting a qb round 2 a few years back (peyton). So I don't think it matters a whole lot. Have a good draft, make some good trades, and you'll be fine. Also, I like to draft players I like. If you really like Rodgers, draft him, you'll be happy

 

[LittlePhatty]

Well said. Knowing and understanding your league's tendencies is key.

Exactly. If you know most of the other owners in your league are consistently QB-grabby then there will be RB1 talent left over in Round 2.

 

[fightingillini]

Depends your league settings and scoring settings.Personally, I wouldn't draft a qb that early. There is a TON of early talent from the rb/wr spot, I have no problem having 4 studs there and have an Eli or Big Ben at qb (however, Romo in round 4 or Rivers in round 3 would very much intrigue me).I won a title last year passing on a qb till round 7 (Eli) but I also won drafting a qb round 2 a few years back (peyton). So I don't think it matters a whole lot. Have a good draft, make some good trades, and you'll be fine. Also, I like to draft players I like. If you really like Rodgers, draft him, you'll be happy

Rivers will never be there in round 3 or Romo in Round 4, or Eli in Round 7.Read the scoring system Evilgrin72 outlined. No PPR, 1 pt per 20 yards rushing/receiving, 1 pt per 50 yds passing, 6 pts all TDs. You probably don't play in a league with this kind of scoring system. QBs are king here, and are going to be taken much earlier than usual. You're going to have to take a QB in round 3 here or risk getting stuck with Cutler or Bradford as your starter.That said, personally I agree with you that I wouldn't take Rodgers at 4, since my projections have the top QBs much closer bunched together, and IMO I have Romo at QB4 with a QB7 ADP. I take Charles at 4 and hope Romo slides to me at pick 21. Worst case scenario I have two top 12 RBs and someone like Roethlisberger, Ryan or Eli at QB.

 

[fightingillini]

Another argument for drafting Rodgers at 4 is the scoring system in general. It's practically a TD only league. Catching a 1 yard TD pass is worth more than 100 yards receiving, as well as a TD run is worth more than 100 yards rushing. You want guys that can score TDs consistently here. Rodgers will do that with his arm as well as with his legs. Also, stud QB are going to very consistent in this format compared to RBs and WRs. They are going to toss 1-3 TD passes almost every week, as well as get you 4-6 points from passing yards (and Rodgers will likely give you an extra point rushing). Total scoring is going to vary a lot in this league, so it's really nice to have a player on your team that is likely going to put up 14-23 points every week, and Rodgers would do that. Charles will likely have some big games, but some games where he gets you only 3-4 points. Unless the RB is going to get conistently 100 yards and TD every week, it's the QBs (especially the studs) that are going to be the most consistent scorers in this format.

 

[gandalas]

Do you want the best Team or the best QB?Do you want the highest scoring player in the league or the highest scoring team?Both answers say WAITLook at the distribution of points for the Top X quarterbacks in your league (x being the number of teams) I am willing to bet the dropoffs arene't anywhere close to the dropoffs for top RB and top WR - you HAVE to compare QB points to QB points not to all other players.

This is an old school way of thinking. Point distribution is not only starting to favor early QB selection (because of RBBC and increased productivity of QBs in the league), but it also reduces your overall draft risk. Think about these two things:1. You want safe points out of your Round 1 selection. Rodgers is very likely to produces to expectations. RBs are twice as likely to be injured. Last year Gore broke his hip and MJD fell short with a meniscus.

I don't know why people keep busting out that MJD had a bad season last year. He averaged more yards per game than any other year in his career, almost 95 yards per game! And his YPC were still at a respectable 4.4. If that is what he can do on an injured knee, then I can't WAIT to see what he can do on a good one.His TDs were down, yes. But that is more a matter of luck and Marcedes Lewis' breakout in the red zone than anything else.

 

[towney]

Great points on dependent on scoring system. In our league QB's get 4pts pass TD, 6pts rush TD's & .1 for every 2yds passing so we are not quite a QB friendly league unless there is the Vick rushing factor. I usually wait till around early 3rd for a QB.