Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
How Would You Start an NFL Franchise (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter cobalt_27
- Start date
Donsmith753
Footballguy
I don't think this will be close, QB.
Long life span, far more chance of being successful with just a franchise QB than any other position and also far harder to find.
Long life span, far more chance of being successful with just a franchise QB than any other position and also far harder to find.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Is this a joke??
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Not a joke. Not at all.
Small sample size, but it seems fair to conclude from the comments here that if we were to continue this poll ad infinitum, that QBs would continue the clear runaway.
It just seems very strange to me. Everyone agrees the QB position is the absolute most important position in the game. Now go look at the FBG rankings. Does it feel like QBs are the most important position to fill in fantasy world? This board is littered with RB-RB-RB discussions. Maybe a TE or a WR would be worthy of a pick in the first 3 rounds. But, the quarterback position is completely marginalized in most leagues. Based on "standard" league setups, FBG recommend you take 9 RB out of the first 10 selections. FBG recommends 13 RBs be selected before taking the very best player at the most important position (as agreed upon in this thread) in football. FBG feels that LeVeon Bell is more valuable than Tom Brady, Colin Kaepernick, Matthew Stafford...basically LeVeon Bell is more valuable than all but 5 QBs.
And yet here we are saying without question QB is most important. Seems like a huge disconnect.
Maybe we should rename these leagues Fantasy RB--not fantasy football.
Small sample size, but it seems fair to conclude from the comments here that if we were to continue this poll ad infinitum, that QBs would continue the clear runaway.
It just seems very strange to me. Everyone agrees the QB position is the absolute most important position in the game. Now go look at the FBG rankings. Does it feel like QBs are the most important position to fill in fantasy world? This board is littered with RB-RB-RB discussions. Maybe a TE or a WR would be worthy of a pick in the first 3 rounds. But, the quarterback position is completely marginalized in most leagues. Based on "standard" league setups, FBG recommend you take 9 RB out of the first 10 selections. FBG recommends 13 RBs be selected before taking the very best player at the most important position (as agreed upon in this thread) in football. FBG feels that LeVeon Bell is more valuable than Tom Brady, Colin Kaepernick, Matthew Stafford...basically LeVeon Bell is more valuable than all but 5 QBs.
And yet here we are saying without question QB is most important. Seems like a huge disconnect.
Maybe we should rename these leagues Fantasy RB--not fantasy football.
sho nuff
Footballguy
RB will never win in a poll like this.
Their shelf life in the NFL is just too short.
WRs can be had easier later and you can build an average group up with the help of a good QB.
If these are the options...QB will always (and rightfully so) run away with this.
shader
Footballguy
Yeah..FBG is ranking players for fantasy football. Your thread asked if we were building a franchise.
There is no disconnect. Building a franchise is different than building a fantasy football team.
TheFootballJesus
Footballguy
A more interesting debate might be would you rather have an elite head coach or elite QB to start an NFL franchise.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Yeah, I have never bought this argument at all. The "fantasy" element is one where we act as though we are GMs and use the NFL valuation/production results as a model of our success. So, I don't buy that these are two orthogonal concepts. The whole premise of the Start 1 QB, 2 RB, 2/3 WR etc lineups was to mimic what a typical football lineup might look like. So, at some point, we have placed a value on cosmetics of what looks like a football team over the value of what's actually out on the field.
And, because it's tradition that we do it that way, few people stop to think about how moronic this whole RB fantasy league model has become.
Touchdown Syndrome
Footballguy
In real life, a franchise QB is more rare, as there are more NFL teams than in typical fantasy leagues.
In real life, a franchise QB is the face of a winning franchise, generating millions in ticket/jersey sales revenue.
In real life, a franchise QB makes his teammates better. He can make decent WRs into stars. Defenses who fear him will not stack the box against your team's RBs. He can conversely demoralize the opponent's defense. None of this applies to your fantasy team. None of this should have to be explained.
What is your solution? How would you apply the above-mentioned factors to a pretend fantasy team?
shader
Footballguy
You are being a little silly. There are many reasons why fantasy is different than running an nfl franchise. Would you like it broken down?
Cobalt, how do the fbg draft rankings differ for start 2 qb leagues?
http://www.rotowire.com/football/showArticle.htm?id=17725
cobalt_27
Footballguy
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Hugely. IMO it doesn't fully calibrate the disparity, but it sure helps them approach the real life valuation.
ImTheScientist
Footballguy
There is a reason its called "FANTASY". Do we draft offensivelinemen? Name me an NFL team that won a SB with a bad OLine.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
What statistic correlates to successful Individual OL play?
Not sure how this defends the archaic RB-RB-RB mantra and associated marginalizing of the most important skill position in the game.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
Chaos Commish
Footballguy
Well Sarnoff, this topic highlights the main reason I gravitated to start 2qb leagues. They become as or more coveted than stud RBs. It just feels right to me.
Junior McSpiffy
Footballguy
If I have an NFL team, I can draft a QB and have him with my franchise for around five years guaranteed, and if I resign him, for a solid 10-15 year career.
In fantasy, I can draft Drew Brees one year and Matt Ryan the next.
If you are talking dynasty, then maybe.... MAYBE.... you have a point. But for straight redraft, it doesn't apply unless you frame the question "If you were starting an NFL franchise but could only sign players to one year contracts so you would have to start your NFL franchise from scratch all over again, what position would you take?"
Junior McSpiffy
Footballguy
Well, then we need a question about "If you are starting an NFL franchise, would you want to start with two running backs... two quarterbacks... blah blah blah." On the one hand, you are striving for some semblance of realism, but on the other, you want to put two QBs on the field. Draft Tim Tebow. Now you have a second QB and you can play him at fullback. Realism achieved.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
In a given year, who is more valuable: Tom Brady or LeVeon Bell?
If your answer is "It depends," then whatever condition makes Bell more valuable than Brady is really screwed up and should be chucked.
Applies to redraft or dynasty. This whole idea of artificially inflating one position at the expense of another just so your lineups look pretty is absurd and favors a higher degree of luck over sound research and strategy. That's the outcome of over-representing one position over another in a start 1QB/2RB system.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Junior McSpiffy
Footballguy
Team ROFLCOPTERS
Footballguy
I don't think I need to even say what my vote is. This is kind of silly.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Not at all. I'm just pointing out that the unintentional outcome of trying to make your fantasy lineup look like what's out there in real life makes a mockery of the relative value of players. And a sad outcome of this is boards like this one become so RB-centric tat no one really cares about evaluating QBs, the most important position on the field. Folks spend an inordinate amount of time pondering which third or fourth tier RB to select in the third round or whether they should "break down" and take Rodgers, Brees, or Manning.
msudaisy26
Footballguy
Just to play devil's advocate, if the NFL did a fantasy style draft this season and I was one of the general managers I would load up on every other position in the NFL and be the last team to take a quarterback. One of two things would happen, I would be so strong compared to all the other teams at other positions that I could get to the Super Bowl with a quarterback like Trent Dilfer or Rex Grossman or the lack of quality quarterback would make the team so bad I would probably end up with the number 1 pick this coming year and take Teddy Bridgewater.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
AP, CJ, DMC, D-Will, McCoy are the highest paid RBs in terms of garenteed money. That's close to 40m for 0 playoff wins. That's inefficient business to say the least. Maybe in the 60-70s RB actually dictated wins/losses, but not today. Winning has more to do with QB's being able to pass the ball efficiently, score TDs and not turnover the ball. The other position I'd spend my money on is for an O-Line. Even after AP's sensational season I'm shocked that I hardly heard about Minn drafting a franchise LT. Kalil should have been in ROY discussions. McCoy's 2011 had a lot to do with bringing in Jason Peters. I'd spend CJ's 10m on a O-line and draft some RBs late like the Pats.
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Completely legit strategy.
But, let's consider that approach to RB and fantasy now. Using the wretched "standard" RB-dominant format, can you imagine waiting on RB, stocking up on other positions? You can't. The deck is stacked so that you HAVE to take 2 RB with your first 3 picks. There is no alternative. You have to take RBs and get them early to have a chance to win.
Which is why there why the "standard" dinosaur really should be replaced, unless you really really want the cosmetic appeal of making your fantasy lineup look like a traditional on-field formation (which in and of itself is completely outdated, as well).
Texasmouth
Footballguy
A great QB makes everyone around him better.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Touchdown Syndrome
Footballguy
Exactly.
I made this point a few posts ago, but it wasn't acknowledged by the OP, which is fine, whatever.
A franchise QB's effect in reality has nothing to do with a fantasy team. It's painfully obvious.
Basically, the point of this thread is "Hey everyone! I'm pretty sure I prefer 2-QB leagues! I'm smart and super special!"
Congratulations?
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Your premise that a franchise QB has nothing to do with a fantasy team applies only if you stack the deck against him, as is the case in the "standars" formation relic from the 1980s. I guarantee a franchise QB is not irrelevant to fantasy once you calibrate lineups out of the RB dominant model.
P.S. I wasn't ignoring you earlier. I just didn't notice your post.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
And, just to respond to a few items above. The point of this thread is not to make myself look smart or to make owners in 1QB/2RB leagues look dumb. The whole point here is to ask the question "Why is it we do what we do?" and to consider some of the unintended consequences of sticking with a model simply because it has cosmetic appeal/similarities to real life and/or that's the way it's always been done.
The unfortunate outcome, IMO, revolves around marginalizing the most important position in the game. On just the first page of the SP, there is virtually no discussion about QBs. Why? Because in "standard" league setups, it really doesn't matter whom you get, so long as you ace the RB (and WR to a lesser degree) test. So, at present, there are more threads about 3rd and 4th tier backup RBs (e.g., Zac Stacy, Christine Michaels, Mark Ingram, Bilal Powell, Donald Brown, Chris Ivory) and WRs (e.g., Early Doucet, Justin Hunter, LaVonn Brazille, Alshon Jeffrey, "Patriots Wide Receivers", Kenbrell Thomkins, DHB)...
...and the only thread on a QB is about Cam Newton.
This isn't by accident. Because so many leagues adopt some variation of the "standard" format, the QB position means squadoosh. And, that limits discussion on the position because why waste time talking about QBs when they don't matter.
I'm suggesting a re-thinking of this for obvious reasons.
The unfortunate outcome, IMO, revolves around marginalizing the most important position in the game. On just the first page of the SP, there is virtually no discussion about QBs. Why? Because in "standard" league setups, it really doesn't matter whom you get, so long as you ace the RB (and WR to a lesser degree) test. So, at present, there are more threads about 3rd and 4th tier backup RBs (e.g., Zac Stacy, Christine Michaels, Mark Ingram, Bilal Powell, Donald Brown, Chris Ivory) and WRs (e.g., Early Doucet, Justin Hunter, LaVonn Brazille, Alshon Jeffrey, "Patriots Wide Receivers", Kenbrell Thomkins, DHB)...
...and the only thread on a QB is about Cam Newton.
This isn't by accident. Because so many leagues adopt some variation of the "standard" format, the QB position means squadoosh. And, that limits discussion on the position because why waste time talking about QBs when they don't matter.
I'm suggesting a re-thinking of this for obvious reasons.
Last edited by a moderator:
Junior McSpiffy
Footballguy
So you want to make it realistic, but you can't do both. You can't have a realistic alignment of what is on the field AND a realistic value assigned to the positions as it mirrors its importance on the field. For whatever reason, most people are fine with the realism aspect being tied to the player distribution mirroring what is on the field during an NFL game.
The fact that you are crusading so hard on this is... well, it makes me glad you don't have my address.
The fact that you are crusading so hard on this is... well, it makes me glad you don't have my address.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Fundamentally it's a choice of making your lineups look like an NFL offense on the field versus calibrating closer approximations to player values in real life. It just perplexes me how much the emphasis on the former stimulates more discussion about marginal RBs and results in ambivalence around the most important position on the field.
LarryAllen'sJockstrap
Footballguy
This is silly. You can make a league with lineups and scoring such that it more closely mirrors the NFL and every pick in the first round might be a QB if you value it that way
Problem is, who wants to randomly draft in an order where unless you're getting a top 2-3 QB, you don't stand a chance. I've played in RB heavy leagues, WR heavy leagues, QB heavy leagues, but the ones I preferred the most were balanced leagues so multiple strategies could' be used and draft position didn't determine EOS results.
Problem is, who wants to randomly draft in an order where unless you're getting a top 2-3 QB, you don't stand a chance. I've played in RB heavy leagues, WR heavy leagues, QB heavy leagues, but the ones I preferred the most were balanced leagues so multiple strategies could' be used and draft position didn't determine EOS results.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Franchise QB, Then WR, Then TE Then RB... you can get young stars at QB. WR and TE that will last years longer than a star RB. I would just go with young guys at RB till someone stuck after building the long term positions up.
Ps. I would get defense before RB as well
Ps. I would get defense before RB as well
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam Harstad
Moderator
Cobalt, I'm not sure if I understand the argument you're making. For starters, you're saying that lineups that require 2 RBs came into existence because it cosmetically resembles the real NFL, and that's a silly reason to do something. Then you say that starting 2 QBs will increase QB value in a manner that cosmetically resembles the real NFL, and that's a good reason to do it.
If you want to say that fantasy football is more fun when positional values are more equal, I agree completely, but I wouldn't hide that argument under the pretense of trying to make fantasy football more closely match the NFL. I'd say that in the real NFL, tight end is probably the least important offensive position, yet I still prefer leagues where TEs get a scoring bonus, because it equalizes the positions and gives me more flexibility in roster construction. Or, to put it another way, I agree with you that fantasy would be more enjoyable if RBs were less valuable and QBs were more valuable, but I disagree that the reason why is because Tim Couch and David Carr and Alex Smith were #1 overall draft picks in the NFL draft.
If you want to say that fantasy football is more fun when positional values are more equal, I agree completely, but I wouldn't hide that argument under the pretense of trying to make fantasy football more closely match the NFL. I'd say that in the real NFL, tight end is probably the least important offensive position, yet I still prefer leagues where TEs get a scoring bonus, because it equalizes the positions and gives me more flexibility in roster construction. Or, to put it another way, I agree with you that fantasy would be more enjoyable if RBs were less valuable and QBs were more valuable, but I disagree that the reason why is because Tim Couch and David Carr and Alex Smith were #1 overall draft picks in the NFL draft.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
No Adam, I didn't say that starting 2QBs would cosmetically resemble the NFL. I didn't even intimate that, and it makes no sense. How dd you even arrive at that interpretation?My point was, as you noted in the opening and closing lines of your second paragraph that the positional values are corrected when you increase the startable QB +1 or reduce the starting RBs -1. I don't have a comment on Carr, Couch, or Smith except to say the value of the QB position with its studs and duds is greater than any of the other skill positions with their own share of studs and duds. The current "standard" model disproportionately overvalues RB and grossly undervalues QB (to near-TE levels). And, it seems the only reason we keep trotting out this formation year after year is because, well, that's the way it's always been done and it looks like an NFL offense.
Functionally, it shapes discourse on boards like this one. Too much hand wringing over crappy RB and too little attention and postings on the nuances/predictions around the QBs. Because in the standard setup, it really doesn't matter which QB you get. Just ace the RBs.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
How bout an extra 10 points for a QB if his team wins................................
Adam Harstad
Moderator
As I understand it, the reason you started this poll is to demonstrate that quarterback is the most valuable position in NFL football and to use that to argue that quarterback should therefore be the most valuable position in fantasy football. That's the same "it's this way in the NFL, so therefore it should be this way in fantasy" argument as the 2-RB reasoning you keep attacking. Just because the NFL starts two RBs doesn't mean fantasy leagues have to start two RBs. Just because QBs are the most valuable players in the NFL doesn't mean they need to be the most valuable players in fantasy.
As I said, I'm all for making quarterbacks more valuable, but it has nothing to do with in some way making fantasy football more closely resemble NFL football. As I said, I think tight ends should be more valuable, too, despite the fact that they're arguably the least valuable players on the entire offense (at least, based on the average contracts awarded to players at the position). If we wanted to make fantasy positional values reflect NFL positional values, then the first round of every fantasy draft would be 12 straight QBs, the guys with a top-3 pick would be absolutely unbeatable, and it wouldn't matter at all what RBs or TEs you bothered to draft. Hell, if we were REALLY trying to make fantasy values more accurately reflect NFL values, defense would be the most valuable position by a huge landslide, as it's responsible for about 40% of the team's success or failure (a higher percentage by far than even quarterback). Instead, in fantasy, defenses are waiver wire fodder and anyone who takes one before the last two rounds will find himself mocked. Should we start playing in leagues that require us to start three defenses a week so that the positional value will line up better with the NFL?
To sum up... I disagree that we should raise quarterback values to more accurately reflect the NFL, but agree that we should raise quarterback values to try to achieve better parity between the positions with the long-run goal of diversifying the number of roster-building strategies capable of achieving success. Or, in other words, I agree with the point you are making, but disagree with the arguments you are using to make it.
Also, I would categorically disagree with your final two sentences. Over the last two years, Aaron Rodgers has produced 308 VBD. Drew Brees has produced 304. Tom Brady has produced 266 VBD. In standard scoring leagues, Arian Foster has produced just 253 VBD over that span (although it's more like 275-280 if you give him backup-quality production during the three games he missed). Calvin Johnson has produced just 251 VBD. In 2011, a team that started Aaron Rodgers (QB1), Mike Tolbert (RB22), and Brandon Jacobs (RB33) would have scored more points than a team that started Ben Roethlisberger (QB13), Marshawn Lynch (RB5), and Michael Turner (RB6) - by a whopping 50 points (757 vs. 705). A team that absolutely ACED the runningbacks- landing two of the top 6- would have been straight smoked by a team that started Rodgers, a crappy RB2, and a crappy RB3. 2011 was a bit of an anomaly, but even last year, QB12 + RB6 + RB12 scored fewer points than QB1 + RB15 + RB22. Over the last 10 years, an average of 2.2 quarterbacks a year have finished in the top 12 in season-ending VBD. That trend has become more pronounced in recent seasons, with an average of 3 QBs per season to reach that threshold. Quarterbacks have 8 total top-3 finishes over that span, and over the last nine years, they have more 200+ VBD seasons than all other positions combined (3 by QBs, 2 by RBs, 0 by any other position). Which doesn't count Peyton Manning's 2004 season, where he sat out most of week 17 and still earned 199 VBD. It very much matters which QB you get. In fact, really nailing the quarterback position will cover for all manners of weakness elsewhere on your roster. You have a strong argument (quarterbacks should be more valuable), you don't need to try to pad it with pointless hyperbole (such as suggesting that if your RBs are good, your QB doesn't matter).
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Why on Earth would anyone argue that fantasy football MUST mimmick the NFL in every way?? I mean, to say that "QB is the most important player in the NFL, so it MUST also be the most important in fantasy" is pretty much saying the same thing as "fantasy must mimmick the NFL in every way". I mean, why take bits and pieces and say it should mimmick the NFL, but leave so many other pieces out?
Where is the fullback position?? Where is the O-line position getting points for pancakes and bonus points for not allowing a sack? Where is a point for a QB throwing the ball away and making a smart decision?
Also, good NFL QB..................is soooooooooooooooooo not the same as a good FANTASY QB. As a general rule, the best NFL QBs will be at the top of the fantasy rankings, sure. But I have seen quite a few QBs score a ton of fantasy points while playing a pretty terrible NFL game. Part of it because they were down 21-0 right away because that QB decided to throw a couple early INTs, maybe one for a pick-6, and now he has to throw 60 times and put up "numbers" to try and get back into a game.
Heck, maybe we also have a FG placeholder position that gets a point for each successful hold.
Bascially.............it's a fun hobby. There are 100 different types of leagues and scoring systems. Pick the one you like the best, they are all over the place. And if you can't find exactly what you want then MAKE A LEAGUE and be the commish.
Some people will absolutely never be a commish, and for those people...............honestly..............how can you complain at all???
Where is the fullback position?? Where is the O-line position getting points for pancakes and bonus points for not allowing a sack? Where is a point for a QB throwing the ball away and making a smart decision?
Also, good NFL QB..................is soooooooooooooooooo not the same as a good FANTASY QB. As a general rule, the best NFL QBs will be at the top of the fantasy rankings, sure. But I have seen quite a few QBs score a ton of fantasy points while playing a pretty terrible NFL game. Part of it because they were down 21-0 right away because that QB decided to throw a couple early INTs, maybe one for a pick-6, and now he has to throw 60 times and put up "numbers" to try and get back into a game.
Heck, maybe we also have a FG placeholder position that gets a point for each successful hold.
Bascially.............it's a fun hobby. There are 100 different types of leagues and scoring systems. Pick the one you like the best, they are all over the place. And if you can't find exactly what you want then MAKE A LEAGUE and be the commish.
Some people will absolutely never be a commish, and for those people...............honestly..............how can you complain at all???
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Whatever works, Adam. Glad you and I are on the same page, despite the fact that you keep making assumptions about my arguments that I never made and then spending an inordinate amount of effort addressing these fictional issues.And, for what it's worth, I categorically disagree with my last two statements (and the "pointless hyperbole") as well. Those statements that concerned you had less to do with my personal beliefs and more to do with the collective voice of the fantasy community who absolutely cannot be bothered with discussions about quarterbacks. Just tabulate the thread topics over the past month and see what proportion are out there discussing RB vs QB. Here at FBG that perception is driven, in large part, by your rankings where I see in a standard setup you have only 2 QBs ranked in the top-30 (QB, RB, WR, TE). And, I know you guys put a lot of fancy math to work to generate those rankings. So, while you and I may agree that getting a QB is important, how important it is is severely limited by the standard league setup. Given that a lot of people come to the SP in July and August to discuss their draft prep questions, this disparity is clearly on display and reflected in the number of topics revolving around crappy RB and so few on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd tier QBs.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Claymaker
Footballguy
cobalt, I think I have read everything in this thread and I appreciate your intelligent responses, it's still early and I am probably just missing it, but what exactly is your point?
I think we can all agree QB is the most important position in the NFL, however, FF is not set up that way. Is this the issue you have or maybe it is deeper than that?
Just in mho, after the top 3-5 QB's you have about 10-15 guys that will probably finish all within 25 or so points of each other, if I don't get one of those top guys, I would probably be looking at another position to pick from, knowing that I can get one of those middle guys much later. Whereas in the NFL, if all teams were picking today, I would be surprised if the top 20-25 picks weren't QB's and as someone else stated, there would be some offensive lineman in there as well.
I think Don Shula said it best, “Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck.”
I think we can all agree QB is the most important position in the NFL, however, FF is not set up that way. Is this the issue you have or maybe it is deeper than that?
Just in mho, after the top 3-5 QB's you have about 10-15 guys that will probably finish all within 25 or so points of each other, if I don't get one of those top guys, I would probably be looking at another position to pick from, knowing that I can get one of those middle guys much later. Whereas in the NFL, if all teams were picking today, I would be surprised if the top 20-25 picks weren't QB's and as someone else stated, there would be some offensive lineman in there as well.
I think Don Shula said it best, “Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck.”
Similar threads
- Poll
