How Would You Start an NFL Franchise (1 Viewer)

[FUBAR]

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

Are we ignoring OL?

Get me a young stud QB and I'll build a Line. Then decent running backs and receivers will be better than they are.

 

[Shawn]

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

Are we ignoring OL?

Get me a young stud QB and I'll build a Line. Then decent running backs and receivers will be better than they are.

well yes. I would build the line and get a good blocking FB before my franchise Rb as well unless I got lucky on. A late round flier or udfa like foster.

 

[cobalt_27]

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?

No, I think that's the issue I have and nothing more. I'd tinker with your wording slightly because it makes a difference: I think we have set up FF in a way to make QB less important than it should be. The first point of the thread was to capture just how strongly we feel QB is important to an NFL franchise, and I think we have that answer (out of 100 votes so far, 97 would take a QB over RB, WR, TE). And, yet, in the prevailing standard FF leagues, the position is so marginalized that not one team will take a QB in the first round, they just are not that important to success, and you'll be lucky if you see even three QBs taken by the end of the third round. So, the second point of the thread was to explore this disconnect between real life value (97% would start an NFL team with a QB) versus FF (most teams wouldn't touch a QB in the first three rounds of a draft because they are not that important).

I hear folks say, "Yeah but FF doesn't have to be like real life...that's why it's fantasy." But, I don't buy that one bit. The reason we stick with the standard format is because it looks like a traditional offense on the field. i recently had a friend join my league, both of us have been playing since the early 80s, and he couldn't get over the start 2 QB system, saying, "But, what team snaps the ball with 2 QBs on the field for a season?" That's what's become so engrained, so entrenched that the importance of the standard setup is that it resembles reality.

I work off the premise that most of us got into this hobby because we're dorks and want to act like NFL GMs. Draft a good team, scour waiver wire for talent, make trades that benefit the team. Of course we want this to behave like the real thing on some level. But, when you operate based on a system that values the RB position so overwhelmingly so as to retain some cosmetic resemblance to reality, you lose a great deal of the functional similarity...to the extent that LeVeon Bell is a more valuable commodity than Tom Brady or Andrew Luck or Matthew Stafford, which in standard FF is the case based on FBG rankings, but laughable to how NFL GMs would perceive relative functional value.

And as I've mentioned several times as it applies to FBG, the SP is lacking on the QB discussion end. The standard setup creates the perception that QBs are generally unimportant, they are separated by just a fraction here/there after you get past the first 5 or whatever, that they simply are not that important. I'd gather that for every thread about a QB, there are 15 started on middling RBs. It doesn't have to be this way, and I argue that it shouldn't be this way. Not to protect the cosmetic integrity of a Start 1QB/2RB format. So much richness and strategy is lost when one position dominates another, which is where I agree with Adam is the main point of reducing the impact of the RB position.

 

[We Tigers]

Why don't you just start some leagues that create greater separation between QBs, then? Score QB yardage at 10-15 yards/point instead of 20-25, increase interception penalties to something like -4, make sure all TDs are 6 points--then you'll have your "QBs are the most important!" league without having to resort to eye-rolly troll statements like calling people "1 QB/2 RB dinosaurs." You have some good points but they're a bit mired in your general premise of "I've tricked you all!"

 

[Adam Harstad]

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.

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.

I'd say the blame for QBs being ignored deserves to be spread around much more broadly. A lot of it is lineup requirements and positional scarcity, as you point out. Some of it is on format- I guarantee you that there's a lot more discussion about QBs going on in dynasty leagues than there is in redraft leagues. Mostly, though, I think a lot of the silence on quarterbacks stems from the fact that it's the least uncertain position. There's less turnover from year to year at QB than at other positions. Guys like Peyton, Brees, and Rodgers have dominated for years and have no question marks surrounding them, so there's not a whole lot to discuss. Brady, too, although now there are a couple of topics on how the offensive turnover will impact him. Newton's pretty much shown what you're going to get already. Griffin, Wilson, Luck, and Kaepernick are all interesting and uncertain, but by this point of the season, most have already burned themselves out on threads comparing the four, which were a staple of the offseason. The top of the QB rankings are all either settled or already discussed to death, so there's less room for further discussion to add any value.

 

[The Claymaker]

I can't say that I disagree with you. But I am curious if this started because of the back-up situation?

For example, Priest Holmes goes down, this back-up (Larry Johnson) who has never had more than a few carries comes in and does nothing more than win quite a few people FF championships that year. There are cases like this almost every year, the RB position while it obviously takes great skill, is a much more replaceable part then the QB is.

In my opinion it's much easier to replace a RB then a QB, so if we placed the same value on a QB we do on a RB in FF terms and if QB1 was injured in week one, what is the likely-hood of getting the same value from that back-up as say almost any back-up RB? Of course you have some RB's that are above that because they are so dominant, but for the most part teams have 2 to 3 RB's that could start any week and be just as good as the regular "starter". Your season is not ruined by losing a RB, if you put the same value on a QB and you lost that QB, most teams would struggle to make up the value, in mho. I have also played FF since the 80's but I have never known the actual reason why we devalued the QB, and obviously it is not a popular topic as this is the first time I have seen it discussed.

Just my

 

[cobalt_27]

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.

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.

I'd say the blame for QBs being ignored deserves to be spread around much more broadly. A lot of it is lineup requirements and positional scarcity, as you point out. Some of it is on format- I guarantee you that there's a lot more discussion about QBs going on in dynasty leagues than there is in redraft leagues. Mostly, though, I think a lot of the silence on quarterbacks stems from the fact that it's the least uncertain position. There's less turnover from year to year at QB than at other positions. Guys like Peyton, Brees, and Rodgers have dominated for years and have no question marks surrounding them, so there's not a whole lot to discuss. Brady, too, although now there are a couple of topics on how the offensive turnover will impact him. Newton's pretty much shown what you're going to get already. Griffin, Wilson, Luck, and Kaepernick are all interesting and uncertain, but by this point of the season, most have already burned themselves out on threads comparing the four, which were a staple of the offseason. The top of the QB rankings are all either settled or already discussed to death, so there's less room for further discussion to add any value.

I'll buy that. Incidentally, it's one of the reasons I like picking QBs higher than most even in standard setups. Barring significant injury, the top guys do what they do year in, year out. But, I do feel there is a lot of uncertainty once you get past the top 4 or 5 and warrants discussion. I have thrown out ideas/questions before, and it's :crickets: in here. Nobody seems particularly interested in the position...not to the extent they are with finding 4th/5th option gems at RB, which (in large part) is driven by tradition and standard league setups that require so much attention be paid to the position.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Vote and describe why you voted the way you did.

The QB touches the ball every play, he is your coach on the field. There's no more important position as the QB.

With that said, I would also build an offensive line. You win in the trenches and you have to protect the franchise. I would be a massive, athletic offensive line that would allow my stud QB to stand tall and lead the team.

 

[ghostguy123]

Well lets see Cobalt. At any one given stretch of time there are generally a handful or less of the top end elite QBs.

Most fantasy football leagues have 12 teams.

If you make Qbs as important in fantasy as they are in the real NFL, the top 4-5 picks in every draft will be QBs, and 99.999% of the time the league champ will be one of those 4-5 teams.

Sounds really stupid to me if that is what you would like to see.

 

[ghostguy123]

Oh, and I think people talk about QBs less because.................there is less to talk about. Generally the QB predictions are wayyyyyyyyyy more accurate than the predictions for any other position.

There is simply a ton more to debate with RBs and WRs

 

[Saint]

So the title of this thread was "How Would You Start an NFL Franchise," yet all the discussion has been centered around fantasy, not reality. True to this thread's title, if you target a QB and do not have a decent O-Line, that QB will get killed. Period. Look at some of the young QBs that have done well, and recognize that they had a solid O-Line in front of them to start.

I would add the thought that it would be better to invest in a LT and RT first, before targeting a QB next. If a QB is the face of the franchise and he is getting killed on every play, there will be no tickets and no sales (aka Jacksonville). If you can protect the investment first, then the rest will come.

I would have welcomed the poll to include Offensive Line and then I think this thread may have been more realistic. My opinion.

 

[cobalt_27]

Well lets see Cobalt. At any one given stretch of time there are generally a handful or less of the top end elite QBs.

Most fantasy football leagues have 12 teams.

If you make Qbs as important in fantasy as they are in the real NFL, the top 4-5 picks in every draft will be QBs, and 99.999% of the time the league champ will be one of those 4-5 teams.

Sounds really stupid to me if that is what you would like to see.

If you set up your league on a 2QB/2RB or 1QB/1RB setup, that is absolutely not the case. If you haven't been exposed to these leagues before, I wouldn't expect you to know. But, try it out. The growth to this model (especially 2:2) has been pretty significant and rising over the past 5 years. What happens is you get a correction/balance in scoring, and it allows an enormous amount of flexibility for owners to build a team without being tethered to the tired old RB-RB model. For example, I won my 16-team league last year with RG3/Locker (and their backups). It's not an issue. Drafting well and not relying on one position is what matters. Balance.

Standard format does not promote that one bit.

 

[cobalt_27]

Oh, and I think people talk about QBs less because.................there is less to talk about. Generally the QB predictions are wayyyyyyyyyy more accurate than the predictions for any other position.

There is simply a ton more to debate with RBs and WRs

Perhaps that is one variable, but I don't think it's the only one or even the most important. The most important reason is that the position is drastically marginalized in standard FF setups. There's lots to discuss, many changes that can impact the position. If you have a league setup where only the top 12 matter, then of course you won't care about discussing the other 66% of the players once you get your QB in the 7th-10th round of your RB draft.

 

[GregR]

For me there are a number of different factors that go into my preference. How they are going to weigh out is hard to say on any given specific situation. But in general...

I want fantasy to resemble NFL unless there's a good reason not to. I also think there are a lot of good reasons not to.

One is that I want the game to be an intellectual challenge. If a rule or setup makes thing so unbalanced that the right decision blatantly obvious, then I would rather give up looking like the NFL to achieve something more challenging.

Another is that I want the the fantasy league to use most of the significant NFL players. All NFL starting QBs are significant players. Even some of their backups are significant because of how important the position is. I would rather see a league where once you've finished filling reasonable backups and sleepers, that all significant NFL players are on roster for a given position. This means there has to be 2 slots that QBs can start in (though best if one is a flex). At least 2 RBs, and at least 4 WRs and 2 TEs (and I'd argue for a flex for the latter two).

I favor positions that have some predictability over those that are very random, but I don't want to say, totally give up PK just because it's so random. Balance.. I can make it less valuable to where having it keeps it similar to the NFL yet doesn't let randomness drive results overly. (Edit to add: I do the same with IDP, I think they are very hard to predict well as a whole and so I adjust scoring systems so they are less valuable than offensive players normally, but they are not a total afterthought either.)

Those are the kind of trade offs I have. Since I've gone to a 2 QB league format (with the second slot being a flex QB/RB), I've thought the QB values compared to other positions are much more realistic. And it causes most all NFL QBs to have some value and even backups, which is also a plus. And it undoes the problem of RB uber values making too many decisions obvious. So for me it addresses many of the things I want to see, at the only downside of the cosmetic "but we're starting 2 QBs". I can completely live with that.

 

[ghostguy123]

Oh, and I think people talk about QBs less because.................there is less to talk about. Generally the QB predictions are wayyyyyyyyyy more accurate than the predictions for any other position.

There is simply a ton more to debate with RBs and WRs

Perhaps that is one variable, but I don't think it's the only one or even the most important. The most important reason is that the position is drastically marginalized in standard FF setups. There's lots to discuss, many changes that can impact the position. If you have a league setup where only the top 12 matter, then of course you won't care about discussing the other 66% of the players once you get your QB in the 7th-10th round of your RB draft.

No, it's probably moreso that the QBs are much more stable year in and year out. We have to talk about 75 RBs because over the next 3-4 years that is about how many will have fantasy relevance, while only like 15-20 QBs will. If that. Less variance, so less to talk about since less changes, and it changes less often.

 

[ghostguy123]

So the title of this thread was "How Would You Start an NFL Franchise," yet all the discussion has been centered around fantasy, not reality. True to this thread's title, if you target a QB and do not have a decent O-Line, that QB will get killed. Period. Look at some of the young QBs that have done well, and recognize that they had a solid O-Line in front of them to start.

I would add the thought that it would be better to invest in a LT and RT first, before targeting a QB next. If a QB is the face of the franchise and he is getting killed on every play, there will be no tickets and no sales (aka Jacksonville). If you can protect the investment first, then the rest will come.

I would have welcomed the poll to include Offensive Line and then I think this thread may have been more realistic. My opinion.

Partially true.................but you MUST take the franchise QB when one is available. If it's not year 1, then sure, go get that stud LT. BUt if you ever pass on a legit franchise QB to get a something else, you may NEVER be able to find another franchise QB.

 

[cobalt_27]

Oh, and I think people talk about QBs less because.................there is less to talk about. Generally the QB predictions are wayyyyyyyyyy more accurate than the predictions for any other position.

There is simply a ton more to debate with RBs and WRs

Perhaps that is one variable, but I don't think it's the only one or even the most important. The most important reason is that the position is drastically marginalized in standard FF setups. There's lots to discuss, many changes that can impact the position. If you have a league setup where only the top 12 matter, then of course you won't care about discussing the other 66% of the players once you get your QB in the 7th-10th round of your RB draft.

No, it's probably moreso that the QBs are much more stable year in and year out. We have to talk about 75 RBs because over the next 3-4 years that is about how many will have fantasy relevance, while only like 15-20 QBs will. If that. Less variance, so less to talk about since less changes, and it changes less often.

Well, I suppose you are right about this much: If you set up your leagues in such a way that you only need to focus on 10 QBs each year, then there really is no point in discussing them. You've artificially restricted your range. Which is exactly my point.

But, just because you choose this model does not mean it has to be this way.

 

[ghostguy123]

Oh, and I think people talk about QBs less because.................there is less to talk about. Generally the QB predictions are wayyyyyyyyyy more accurate than the predictions for any other position.

There is simply a ton more to debate with RBs and WRs

Perhaps that is one variable, but I don't think it's the only one or even the most important. The most important reason is that the position is drastically marginalized in standard FF setups. There's lots to discuss, many changes that can impact the position. If you have a league setup where only the top 12 matter, then of course you won't care about discussing the other 66% of the players once you get your QB in the 7th-10th round of your RB draft.

No, it's probably moreso that the QBs are much more stable year in and year out. We have to talk about 75 RBs because over the next 3-4 years that is about how many will have fantasy relevance, while only like 15-20 QBs will. If that. Less variance, so less to talk about since less changes, and it changes less often.

Well, I suppose you are right about this much: If you set up your leagues in such a way that you only need to focus on 10 QBs each year, then there really is no point in discussing them. You've artificially restricted your range. Which is exactly my point.

But, just because you choose this model does not mean it has to be this way.

I don't think you realize why it is restricted.

In most formats, there only HAS to be 24 running backs that are started. Yet, about 50 more on top of that are debated because of short shelf lives, injuries, and much more variance or stability of production.

So 12 QBs start, so really only about 15 or so are relevant.

Only 24 RBs start...............but you have to discuss about 3x more than that due to the factors I mentioned.

RBs are not necessarly talked about more because of their importance, they are talked about more because...............as I mentioned.....there is more to talk about. More changes, and it changes more often. Once you get a top stable QB, you don't have to worry about finding another QB for several years. Whereas no matter who your RBs are, you HAVE to stay on top of things and get good RBs when you can.

And I am not saying it "has to be this way". There are plenty of 2 QB leagues out there. Go play one. And if there isn't the exact type of league you want, go create one.

 

[Manster]

I get the point you are trying to make.

I'm sure someone made this point already but, the bottom line is its about the drop off of production at the different positions. QB's take every snap, typically. RB's share time. WR's and TE"s get limited touches. The drop off is much steeper at other skill positions than QB, period. To me, thats the fun of FF. Trying to figure out the relative values. AND building a team based on how the draft goes. Am I going to build a team around ADP, Megatron, or Rodgers? Am I going to try to get a stud at RB/WR/TE and go QBBC? Will Romo or Kaep be available in the 4th or 5th? Russell Wilson, Alex Smith, Mike Vick?

 

[cobalt_27]

Oh, and I think people talk about QBs less because.................there is less to talk about. Generally the QB predictions are wayyyyyyyyyy more accurate than the predictions for any other position.

There is simply a ton more to debate with RBs and WRs

Perhaps that is one variable, but I don't think it's the only one or even the most important. The most important reason is that the position is drastically marginalized in standard FF setups. There's lots to discuss, many changes that can impact the position. If you have a league setup where only the top 12 matter, then of course you won't care about discussing the other 66% of the players once you get your QB in the 7th-10th round of your RB draft.

No, it's probably moreso that the QBs are much more stable year in and year out. We have to talk about 75 RBs because over the next 3-4 years that is about how many will have fantasy relevance, while only like 15-20 QBs will. If that. Less variance, so less to talk about since less changes, and it changes less often.

Well, I suppose you are right about this much: If you set up your leagues in such a way that you only need to focus on 10 QBs each year, then there really is no point in discussing them. You've artificially restricted your range. Which is exactly my point.

But, just because you choose this model does not mean it has to be this way.

I don't think you realize why it is restricted.

In most formats, there only HAS to be 24 running backs that are started. Yet, about 50 more on top of that are debated because of short shelf lives, injuries, and much more variance or stability of production.

So 12 QBs start, so really only about 15 or so are relevant.

Only 24 RBs start...............but you have to discuss about 3x more than that due to the factors I mentioned.

RBs are not necessarly talked about more because of their importance, they are talked about more because...............as I mentioned.....there is more to talk about. More changes, and it changes more often. Once you get a top stable QB, you don't have to worry about finding another QB for several years. Whereas no matter who your RBs are, you HAVE to stay on top of things and get good RBs when you can.

And I am not saying it "has to be this way". There are plenty of 2 QB leagues out there. Go play one. And if there isn't the exact type of league you want, go create one.

Been commish 26 years. Got it covered on our end here.

Anyway, while you are doing an excellent job making my point for me, all i would reiterate is that the discourse would change in the SP if the model changed. In the 12 team leagues that start 24 QBs, just like the RBs, and you have to be aware of all the potential backup scenarios, change in OC/HC, changes in personnel, bye week replacements, etc.

You dont play these leagues, so youre engaging in guesswork. I run these leagues and play in them exclusively. My fellow owners in my long-running 16-team league are up to speed and covering their butts on all 32 starters and backups. More than 60 QBs are fully vetted and valuated every year, and typically 50 rostered throughout the year.

So, with all due respect, I can speak from experience having played the "standard" leagues and variations on the start-2 QB leagues, it does make a difference the league setup. In standard leagues you're right, it doesn't really pull for much discussion. That's been my point all along. But, hang out in one of these start 2 QB leagues one day, and you'll see why it's important to be well versed in the QB position.

 

[cobalt_27]

I get the point you are trying to make.

I'm sure someone made this point already but, the bottom line is its about the drop off of production at the different positions. QB's take every snap, typically. RB's share time. WR's and TE"s get limited touches. The drop off is much steeper at other skill positions than QB, period. To me, thats the fun of FF. Trying to figure out the relative values. AND building a team based on how the draft goes. Am I going to build a team around ADP, Megatron, or Rodgers? Am I going to try to get a stud at RB/WR/TE and go QBBC? Will Romo or Kaep be available in the 4th or 5th? Russell Wilson, Alex Smith, Mike Vick?

I think I'd disagree with you in that the drop-offs with RB and QB are relatively similar, and I know I'd disagree with you on the WR-QB comparison where the drop-off after the top 2 or 3 is equally steep at the two positions, but while QBs continue to decline precipitously in terms of production, WRs have a smooth gradual degradation as you go further down the rankings. It's not as severe, not as sharpe as the QB or RB positions.

 

[ghostguy123]

Been commish 26 years. Got it covered on our end here.Anyway, while you are doing an excellent job making my point for me, all i would reiterate is that the discourse would change in the SP if the model changed. In the 12 team leagues that start 24 QBs, just like the RBs, and you have to be aware of all the potential backup scenarios, change in OC/HC, changes in personnel, bye week replacements, etc.

You dont play these leagues, so youre engaging in guesswork. I run these leagues and play in them exclusively. My fellow owners in my long-running 16-team league are up to speed and covering their butts on all 32 starters and backups. More than 60 QBs are fully vetted and valuated every year, and typically 50 rostered throughout the year.

So, with all due respect, I can speak from experience having played the "standard" leagues and variations on the start-2 QB leagues, it does make a difference the league setup. In standard leagues you're right, it doesn't really pull for much discussion. That's been my point all along. But, hang out in one of these start 2 QB leagues one day, and you'll see why it's important to be well versed in the QB position.

Again, you are completely missing what I am saying, and somehow miraculously thinking I am helping you "make your point for you".

We are talking about..................."why isn't there more talk about QBs on the boards?" Well, my reason that I have to say for the third time now is that the variance of QB production is nowhere close to the constant changing in production of RBs, or even WR and TEs for that matter. Hence, there is more to talk about. That has much more to do with it than the idea that QBs are less important. If you had to start more QBs, there would be more discussion than there is now..............but still nowhere near as much as RBs.

Now, while you are enjoying hanging out on your high horse and talking to me like I only know the names of 15 NFL QBs.........I play in dynasty leagues with very large rosters and carry 4-5 QBs in those leagues, plus my annual redraft league has the option of using a QB as a flex. So while in those other two leagues I don't HAVE to start a 2nd QB, I still have to do all the necessary work to make sure I have other quality QBs on my roster, considering there is never anything available on waivers. Not to mention it is fantastic to have two stud QBs to use one as trade bait at some point. So in those leagues, it is ALMOST as important to have several quality QBs on the roster as it is in the awesome leagues you do.

I also do a couple other dynasty leagues with much smaller rosters, in most cases only rostering one QB at any given time. I also enjoy these leagues quite a bit, even more than the others actually.

More people prefer the start 1 QB leagues. You are having a very hard time accepting this for some reason. Therapy is available, just an FYI. If more people preferred the start 2 QB leagues, I wouldn't care at all. I would still play start 1 QB leagues, unless there wasn't any available, then I would just play the start 2 QB leagues, and not complain one bit.

So your dream vision is for fantasy to move to a 2 QB format. Well, most people disagree. Get over it. There are enough people out there who want to play in 2 QB leagues, so don't worry bud, you will have plenty of opportunities to play in 2 QB leagues.

Some people (like me) enjoy playing in a few different kinds of leagues. So the whole "standardized league" thing doesn't make that much sense anyway since there are TONS of different types of leagues and formats out there.

Did I make your point for you again???? damn it

 

[ghostguy123]

I get the point you are trying to make.

I'm sure someone made this point already but, the bottom line is its about the drop off of production at the different positions. QB's take every snap, typically. RB's share time. WR's and TE"s get limited touches. The drop off is much steeper at other skill positions than QB, period. To me, thats the fun of FF. Trying to figure out the relative values. AND building a team based on how the draft goes. Am I going to build a team around ADP, Megatron, or Rodgers? Am I going to try to get a stud at RB/WR/TE and go QBBC? Will Romo or Kaep be available in the 4th or 5th? Russell Wilson, Alex Smith, Mike Vick?

I think I'd disagree with you in that the drop-offs with RB and QB are relatively similar, and I know I'd disagree with you on the WR-QB comparison where the drop-off after the top 2 or 3 is equally steep at the two positions, but while QBs continue to decline precipitously in terms of production, WRs have a smooth gradual degradation as you go further down the rankings. It's not as severe, not as sharpe as the QB or RB positions.

It is if you factor in that you need to look at way more players. So when you are looking at the difference from QB-5 to QB-10, that is like looking at the difference from WR-5 to about WR-25.

 

[drummer]

I don't think I need to even say what my vote is. This is kind of silly.

I don't play FF. But thinking you can build and run a franchise because of certain concepts playing FF is whack. Thinking that they can do it is just thinking too much self importance.

Besides, the last people I would want running the franchise I root for are FF people.

 

[mjr]

Starting 2 QBs is just as much a disconnect from actual football as is the whole RB-centric thing you're harping on.

That essentially boils the whole thread down to the simple fact that you simply dislike "standard, dinosaur" fantasy leagues. Then don't play in them. Problem solved.

 

[Manster]

I get the point you are trying to make.

I'm sure someone made this point already but, the bottom line is its about the drop off of production at the different positions. QB's take every snap, typically. RB's share time. WR's and TE"s get limited touches. The drop off is much steeper at other skill positions than QB, period. To me, thats the fun of FF. Trying to figure out the relative values. AND building a team based on how the draft goes. Am I going to build a team around ADP, Megatron, or Rodgers? Am I going to try to get a stud at RB/WR/TE and go QBBC? Will Romo or Kaep be available in the 4th or 5th? Russell Wilson, Alex Smith, Mike Vick?

I think I'd disagree with you in that the drop-offs with RB and QB are relatively similar, and I know I'd disagree with you on the WR-QB comparison where the drop-off after the top 2 or 3 is equally steep at the two positions, but while QBs continue to decline precipitously in terms of production, WRs have a smooth gradual degradation as you go further down the rankings. It's not as severe, not as sharpe as the QB or RB positions.

Actually thats not what I said. The point I was trying to make was, There are fewer options at RB/WR/TE's than QB's. There are only a handful of RB's you can count on to be a "bellcow", especially in todays NFL with specialization, COP backs, thunder and lightning, etc...... Also, as we all know, RB's get hurt. You not only need bellcows, you also need depth.

There are a handful of Megatron's, AJ Green and Dez Bryants. You will get much more consistent production from elite WR's. You can piece together midround WR's and make it work, but having AJ or Mega on your team sure helps! At TE you have a couple elite scorers and then quite a few decent options. The Wittens and Gonzo's of the world.

In a redraft, typically you're better off trying to get a stud at RB/WR/TE and waiting for QB. There is gonna be value to be had in mid rounds at QB, after the stud RBs and WRs are gone. Now you're draftin depth and for upside at those positions.

I guess by starting two QB's you increase the demand on better QB's. I've never done it, but know guys who like the setup. To each their own.

 

[Sarnoff]

Yeah, because a 12-team, single-season, redraft league should mirror the relative value someone would assign when creating a 33rd franchise to last for decades into the future.