What's new
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.

Impact of Better QB Health on Fantasy Football? (1 Viewer)

Anarchy99

Footballguy
With the advent of two-hand touch and flag football rules as things pertain to quarterbacks, not surprisingly more NFL QBs have been able to play more throughout the regular season. Below is a chart illustrating how many QBs played in how many games that year. North to South is the year (2012 season, 2011 season, etc.). East to west is how many QBs played in that number of games (16 games, 15 games, etc.) with the last column being the number of NFL teams that did not have a QB play in at least 12 games. For example, there were 21 QBs that played in all 16 games in 2012. The flipside is that only 4 teams did not have a QB play in at least 12 games last year.

16 15 14 13 12 No one 112012 21 5 0 2 0 42011 16 5 2 3 0 62010 12 4 2 6 3 52009 15 5 4 0 3 52008 19 3 2 2 1 52007 12 2 2 3 4 92006 18 3 2 1 3 52005 14 4 1 3 0 102004 13 3 7 1 0 82003 14 2 2 3 2 9What impact does this have in terms of fantasy? Are QBs worth more or less than they used to be? Will fantasy owners carry fewer QBs? Should they get drafted sooner, later, or the same? Will fewer QBs be rostered and therefore more might be on the waiver wire? Does that make it easier or harder to acquire a QB if there is a catastrophic injury to your starter? Those were just some initial questions that came to mind.

 
The biggest thing that I see is that the true rockstars are likely going to be able to play literally as long as they want to, a la Brett Favre. Guys like Peyton, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers aren't taking anywhere near the beating that even Favre did, much less the HOFers from the 80s and 90s. I personally wouldn't be super shocked if the above mentioned 4 are still playing, and playing well into their early 40s, which makes them HUGELY valuable dynasty-wise. Year to year I don't think it has as much of an effect because everyone's numbers should be getting a similar uptick.

ETA Rodgers runs more and has a generally takes more sacks than do the other three, so maybe he'll have a shorter career -- not sure.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From a redraft perspective:

I think it increases the value of the elite QB's. That top tier that will generally week in and week out give you seperation from the field.

Why? Because after maybe the top 2-3 RB's and maybe Calvin, there aren't many safer and productive 1st round picks. If I have a choice of Brees, Brady, Rodgers, I am probably going to take them over a RB I am not sold on, any other WR, or TE.

One of the major reasons is that I don't want to play the QBBC weekly guessing game of who to start between say Freeman and a Big Ben or somebody. IMO there is a ton of value in getting an elite draft, plug and play every week guy and not having to try and play matchups. My weakness as an owner is playing the matchup game.

I know it's really hard to pass on that group of RB's from about RB4 on, but if QB's in general are goingto stay healthier than any other position, give me an elite one.

 
With the advent of two-hand touch and flag football rules as things pertain to quarterbacks, not surprisingly more NFL QBs have been able to play more throughout the regular season. Below is a chart illustrating how many QBs played in how many games that year. North to South is the year (2012 season, 2011 season, etc.). East to west is how many QBs played in that number of games (16 games, 15 games, etc.) with the last column being the number of NFL teams that did not have a QB play in at least 12 games. For example, there were 21 QBs that played in all 16 games in 2012. The flipside is that only 4 teams did not have a QB play in at least 12 games last year.

16 15 14 13 12 No one 112012 21 5 0 2 0 42011 16 5 2 3 0 62010 12 4 2 6 3 52009 15 5 4 0 3 52008 19 3 2 2 1 52007 12 2 2 3 4 92006 18 3 2 1 3 52005 14 4 1 3 0 102004 13 3 7 1 0 82003 14 2 2 3 2 9What impact does this have in terms of fantasy? Are QBs worth more or less than they used to be? Will fantasy owners carry fewer QBs? Should they get drafted sooner, later, or the same? Will fewer QBs be rostered and therefore more might be on the waiver wire? Does that make it easier or harder to acquire a QB if there is a catastrophic injury to your starter? Those were just some initial questions that came to mind.
Just looking at this data, I don't know if we can conclude there is a mean shift rather than 2012 just being an aberration. If we throw out 2012 and look at 2009-2011 relative to 2006-2008 they look virtually identical:

Code:
              16    15-16    14-162009-2011   14.3    19         21.672006-2008   16.3    19         21
 
I think it is fair to assume that restricting hits to essentially the midsection (not the head, not the knees/lower leg, no spearing) should lead to fewer injuries.I agree with Stinkin Ref. If there is less turnover, the guy you get becomes more important.However, it also means the guy coming off the bench has a higher ceiling. Handcuffs for stud QBs and late year flyers on replacements could make all the difference. I think the consideration of handcuffs for stud QBs has more weight with the current rules than before the rule changes..

 
The crop of young running QBs might reverse the trend. You might end up with 2 very different groups--the pocket passers who can basically play forever barring a freak accident, and the running QBs who will probably have a much shorter shelf life, as well as miss significant time to injury.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top