My Personal QBBC for 2006 (1 Viewer)

[Hear-the-Footsteps]

Warning: Extremely Long Read

(FBG puts out a great article each year on QBBC. Great read. However, I like to come up with mine BEFORE they do theirs. Simply put, I have always loved the wait-on-QB approach - used it before I even heard of FBG. Plus, I just like to do my own analysis.)

A common strategy used by many FFers is to hold off on QBs in the early rounds. I do this in just about every redraft league I am in - every year.

Let others take a Manning or Palmer early. You can load up on extra RBs and WRs.

Even in those next few rounds, while others are grabbing Hasselbeck, Bulger, and Brady - you can load up on even more RBs and WRs.

Then in the mid rounds - grab a few QBs.

I like this for a few reasons.

First, using an early pick on a stud QB means that QB better pan out.

(2005: Culpepper went very early in many drafts based on his insane 2004. That did not play out well at all. And no, the reason that did not work was not simply b/c he got injured - even before his injury, his level of play was pretty poor.)

Second, by not taking a QB in the first 6-7 rounds or so, you can take a chance on some RB or WR.

(2005: Example- There was tons of talk about Benson being such a talented RB and a great fit for Chicago. After all, he was the 2nd rb drafted and 4th overall. However, due to his contract issues, lots of FFers kept their eye on Thomas Jones. Now to have drafted Jones in an early round may have been dumb, since so many were banking on Benson coming around - signing his contract and becoming the starter. But with an ADP last year of 71st (which equates to the 6th round in a 12 team league), by holding off on QBs, lots of FFers were able to take a chance on Thomas Jones in the 5th.

Now had someone already rostered a QB in rounds 1-4, it is highly doubtful that person would have then taken a chance on Thomas Jones in the 5th. Quite frankly, they would have needed another RB or WR.

But for those holding off on QBs, Thomas Jones in the 5th was a smart play (which did happen to work out - obviously they don't all pan out.)

An even hotter topic last year was Larry Johnson. Would he push Holmes even more than he did the year before? Would Holmes again get injured? How long until Holmes got injured? What would LJ do if given the chance to take over behind that KC o-line?

If you were on these boards at all last summer - you know how many Holmes/LJ threads there were.

Well, to those that decided to wait on QBs - that left the opportunity open to take a flyer on LJ. His ADP last year was 68th (putting him in the 6th round of a 12 team league). So many took a roll of the dice with him in the 5th (and pissed off the many who took Holmes in the 1st). If someone took Manning or CPep in the 1st or 2nd last year; or McNabb or Bulger in the 3rd or 4th last year - they couldn't really afford to take Larry Johnson in the 5th.)

So reason #2: I love being able to grab an extra RB or WR that could potentially be big. (But the above analysis also supports the first reason above (ie, that guy better pan out) b/c look at the top 4 QBs drafted in the early rounds last year: Manning, Culpepper, Bulger, McNabb. While Manning played in all 16 games, CPep only played in 7, McNabb in 9, and Bulger in 8.)

The third reason I love the wait-on-QBs strategy is because instead of taking the best QBs, you can take from the mid-level guys (who drop much further), grab 2-3 of them, and play the matchups.

(And I am sure anyone could see the benefit in playing the matchups - so I won't explain that.)

So enough rambling and onto my picks (at this point in time: June 3) for the upcoming 2006 season.

Disclaimer: the major flaw in my QBBC is that I have not accounted for 2006 changes yet. I will revisit this in mid-August once 06 changes are easier to measure. Meaning that my QBBC is based on last years defenses. It is based on crummy pass protection from last year; defenses that gave up lots of passing tds last year; etc. Obviously changes are made to each defense in the offseason, but it is still too early to see how some of those changes will play out. For instance, several teams address defensive weaknesses through the draft. However, it is still early and we don't know for sure which drafted rookies will be day 1 starters. And if the team goes with the incumbent, then that is very similar to last year's defense. However, even if they go with the rookie to start - while that changes the landscape of that team's D - most rookies take a while to get it going.

So I understand that coaching changes, free agent signings, the draft, etc all affect each team's defense --- which again is why I will revisit this committee in August after I get a better idea of how those changes will play out. But for now, this is based on last year's defenses since that is still one of the best indicators of the upcoming season. (Meaning if SF was a bottom 5 D last year, no matter how many changes they made - it will be very difficult for them to become a top 5 D this year.)

First, I went through all 32 teams to figure out the worst 6 (27th -32nd) in passing yards allowed (that got one score). Then the next 6 worst (ranking 21st - 26th) got another score.

Second, I figured out the worst 6 teams in passing TDs allowed (attributed a score for that). Then the next 6 worst got another score.

Third, I figured out which teams were the worst at interceptions. The scores given to that were not weighted as much as the scores given to the worst passing rankings. (My rationale there is simply that while many INTs are based on skill - some are picked off by luck. Meaning that it was thrown right to you possibly due to bad QB play. Again, there is a lot of skill in INTs - but I just don't think as much as keeping a team to very few passing yards or TDs on a consistent basis.)

I combined these weighted averages to figure out the worst defenses last year in passing yards, passing tds, and INTs.

The worst 5 (not in order): Houston, SanFran, NewEng, StLouis, and KC.

The next 2: SanDiego and Tennessee

My committee has a QB playing one of the above 7 teams in 13 of the 16 weeks of fantasy play (week 17 left out b/c none of my leagues play games in that week).

-- Again, these have to be QBs that should be available after the first 6-7 rounds. Peyton, for instance, has 5 games against the above teams. But he will likely be drafted well before I would feel comfortable drafting him.

-- I eliminated any QB currently ranked in the top 10 according to FBG most recent redraft rankings. (Because they may get selected early.)

-- I also eliminated some QBs outside the top 10 - if their situation scared me too much.

For instance, Buffalo has 5 games against the above 7 bad defenses. However, that situation is still up in the air (Losman? Holcomb? Nall?) So while any of the QBs can be had late - it would seem to me like you would need all 3 just to have 1 QB spot locked up.

Another example is Tennessee, who has 4 games against the above Ds. Will it be Volek? Will it be Young? And if it is Young, while he is certainly talented and has a lot of upside - it is very hard to imagine that he will hit that potential in his rookie year.

-- I also have to like the QB's receiving options.

For instance, A.Smith so far meets the above criteria (ie, available after the 7th round, not a top 10 qb (hand in hand with available after 7th), situation is not scary based on whether he will start or not (like Buffalo or Tenn above). Yet his receiving options are sub-par.

Finally, keep in mind that I like having 3 QBs with this method. You need an absolute minimum of 2 even if you take a Manning early (for his bye week or in case he is injured). So this committee has 3 QBs, not 2.

As many on these boards always point out as well in discussing QBBCs, this also gives you an extra chance to hit a homerun (ie, Palmer in the 7th last year (his ADP)).

In addition to the extra homerun possibility with a 3rd QB instead of just 2 - you are also better protected against injuries AND you often have a couple of good choices each week.

The 2006 committee (again, as of now: June 3):

Plummer - FBG has him as the 11th ranked QB in redraft. His current ADP is 87 - making him an 8th round pick and the 12th QB taken.

Warner - FBG has him as the 16th ranked QB in redraft. His current ADP is 98 - making him a 9th round pick and the 17th QB taken.

Leftwich - FBG has him as the 19th ranked QB in redraft. His current ADP is 116 - making him a 10th round pick and the 19th QB taken.

- All three of these guys have ADPs outside the first 7 rounds (and consequently are not ranked as top 10 QBs for this season).

- All three of these guys are their team's current starters. (Yes, Warner hurt his hand right now - but you could always grab Leinart really late if you are that worried he won't start. Leinart's ADP is 196 making him a 17th round pick.)

Receiving options:

Plummer - anytime a QB's top WR (who broke 1000 yards 8 of the last 9 seasons) moves to WR2, you gotta be excited. With the recent addition of Javon Walker, Rod Smith moves to WR2 - Lelie to WR3 (for now - could move elsewhere). Did I mention Javon Walker?!

Warner - Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin. Nuff said.

Leftwich - J.Smith retiring hurt him a little, but that contributed to why you could get him in the 10th or 11th. He still has Matt Jones (2005 1st round pick) and at 6'6" could become a great endzone target. He has Wilford - who had nearly 700 yards last yeard on only 41 catches - and 7 tds. (He could easily hit 1000 yards this year w/ Jimmy gone.) And Reggie Williams (2004 9th pick overall). Not to mention a 1st round TE in M.Lewis.

Anyway, these 3 QBs face the above 7 bad defenses 13 of the 16 weeks (again, minus week 17 since I don't play FF that week).

Week 1 - Warner faces SF (H); Plummer faces StL (A)

Week 2 - Plummer faces KC (H)

Week 3 - Warner faces StL (H); Plummer faces NewEng (A)

Week 4 - no great matchup; though Warner faces Atl and Leftwich faces Wash - neither were top 10 defenses

Week 5 - Warner faces KC (H)

Week 6 - no great matchup; though Plummer faces Oakland, who ranked very poorily among Ds last year

Week 7 - Leftwich faces Houston (A)

Week 8 - no great matchup; though Warner faces GB and Lefwich faces Philly - these two Ds happened to rank the next worst after the 7 above (placing them as 8th and 9th worst overall)

Week 9 - Leftwich faces Tenn (H)

Week 10 - Leftwich faces Hous (H)

Week 11 - Plummer faces SD (H)

Week 12 - Plummer faces KC (A)

Week 13 - Warner faces StL (A)

Week 14 - Plummer faces SD (A)

Week 15 - Leftiwch faces Tenn (A)

Week 16 - Warner faces SF (A); Leftwich faces KC (A)

Again, lots can change between now and when the season kicks off. Some free agents brought in will look great - some won't. Same on the rookies. We will start to see the effects of the coaching changes as the next few months roll on. Injuries can happen.

But for now, I like these 3 - which can all be had from the 8th round on.

And for those of you that don't want to even grab a QB in the 8th (where Plummer is projected), feel free to take Brooks instead. You can probably get him in the 10th. He has Moss (always a plus). He has missed only 3 games in the last 5 years.

And his schedule replaces Plummer's fairly well. Has a great matchup in weeks 1, 11, and 12 - like Plummer. Doesn't have Plummer's great matchup in weeks 2 or 14. Also doesn't have Plummer's great matchup in week 3 - but Warner has a great one that week anyway. He also has great matchups in weeks 5, 13, 15, 16.

Would love to hear any and all thoughts on all of this.

What do you agree with? Disagree with?

What did I overlook?

What should be weighted better when looking at the weak Ds for 2006?

Feel free to rip me a new one!

 

[Musesboy]

It's a very well thought out suggestion. I like that strategy and have used it myself often.

There are problems with it however:

The defenses will vary from one year to the next, often by a huge amount. Part of that can be predicted but there are a lot of variables. You need to take into account players added through the draft or free agency, players returning from injury, and the overall dynamic and philosophy of the team.

For example: Green Bay gave up the fewest passing yards of any team last year. In 2004 they were a bottom three defense in terms of points allowed to opposing QBs. Why did it change? The main reason was not that they upgraded their secondary, nor was it that they were simply a great defense. The biggest reason was that teams were able to beat them so easily. They got a lead and ran out the clock. The Packers had the second-fewest passing attempts against in 2005, but they were 20th in that category in 2004. So point one is, a bad team will be too easily beaten on the ground to have teams risking excessive pass attempts against them. It can be difficult to predict. The Saints were another prime example last year of a pass defense that was terrible in 2004 but ranked much higher in 2005. The same reasons apply.

Point two is that a team or two may have had a bad 2005 but could bounce back. New England ranked much lower than normal. They had huge injuries on defense and their running game was also hit. That led to higher scoring games and less ball control when they had the lead. Teams challenged their injury hit secondary.

Point three is some teams favor the run while others favor the pass. Denver had the second ranked running game last year. Plummer could have thrown for 4000 yards like he did in 2004, but there was no need. Denver usually has a strong running game and will favor it over the pass. So even though Denver and Plummer look to have good match ups, they might just run all over those teams after they get a lead, which could hurt your QBBC. Jacksonville also had a top ten running game last year and a strong defense. They might fall into the same category as Denver. Warner is on the team that ranked first in passing last year. But the Cardinals ranked outside the top twenty the previous year. They just added Edgerrin James and their whole dynamic might change. They could run more and win more often, resulting in less passing attempts, or at least less risky ones.

Alternatively, teams with a strong passing game like the Colts or the Rams are capable of good production against good pass defenses. It is their nature to pass and they are more effective by playing to their strengths.

I am not saying your selections are bad ones. I like the trio and it was a logically constructed argument. But there are many factors to consider that are not immediately obvious.

 

[joffer]

If you're a Philip Rivers fan, I like the week-to-week combo schedule than he and Warner present.

 

[Chaz]

I'm a fan of QBBC myself. Nice read, by the way

The only problem I see here is that by draft time, Plummer and Warner may not be such value picks. A fair amount of chatter about Warner especially. If either last into those late middle rounds, I agree that they would be worthwhile.

Another to consider, though I have not checked the schedule, would be Jon Kitna. He is getting a fair amount of talk here, but I believe that he will be a later rounder in most leagues this year.

 

[videoguy505]

Good stuff. Been trying to work out some QBBC things myself. I'm in a 12-team league that starts 1 QB and only has 6 bench spots on the roster, so drafting 3 QBs means I'll be left with only 4 bench slots, so I'm always looking for a 2-QB combo. That said, my early reaction to this is to avoid drafting Leftwich at all. He's QB19, and his first few games are tough Ds: Dal, Pit, Indy, Was, Jets, then the bye week. So I might target Plummer and Warner in the draft, then pick up Leftwich off waivers or around his bye in week 6 (tough work this year with the big bye weeks in 6 & 7). I don't think many teams will hang onto him if he starts slow, and with JAX's bye in week 6 (along with CLE, GB, IND, MIN, and NE), a lot of owners will have to make waiver moves to field a full starting roster those weeks.

On or after wk. 6, I can trade or drop Warner thru his cold run from 7-10 and use Leftwich for Hou, Phi, Ten, and NYG, and alternate him and Plummer the rest of the way out.

Just a quirk based on my league's roster size, but you've got me thinking. Excellent work!

 

[Rubi]

Excellent post,well thought out. I like the idea of qbbc. No formula would be foolproof but your ideas are sound. Maybe more of an eye on bad defenses that MAY have improved but the basic structure is very good,nice job.

 

[David Yudkin]

I often utilize a QBBC approach completely ignoring schedule by picking lower ranked QB from pass happy teams. This year, Brooks, Warner, Kitna, and Rivers are the guys I am predominantly targeting (and maybe Volek if he ends up as the starter).

I would consider taking any combination of those guys most likely after I have 3 RB, 3 WR, and a decent TE. So from that point on I would look QB or WR for a few rounds. I have been known to take 3 QB in a row if that's where the value lies.

Bear in mind that QB scoring is in a pretty tight bandwidth, so investing in a guy only slightly better than a pack of guys many rounds earlier seems like a waste in my book.

 

[Capt Hook]

HTF - very nice post

I like your committee, although frankly even though its early and I have only done four or five drafts, I think it would be impossible to get all three of them - there are bound to be some others that realize the value in waiting on QB and you would need three rounds to get yours in - yes I realize that Warner's ADP is much lower, but the more teams that wait and then add a couple of QBs forces some others to get their second QB earlier than they planned.

Secondly and more importantly I agree with others who question using last year's defenses to make the schedule framework for QBBC for 2006 - things change too much. One of the staffers last year - sorry I just can't remember the guy (maybe Chase Stuart) did articles on QBBC and DSTBC but they were purely based on the previous years performances and without any adjustments right before the season (at least you realize that and suggest it be reviewed) it fell apart because the schedule framework was not viable.

Anyway, I love the subject and even like your committee - in fact in the FIX draft which has the Dynasty element added, I selected Plummer (11-12) and Warner (12-1) after taking Cutler (9-12) earlier. I also added Frye in the 15th round.

Make sure you resurrect this in August so we can look at the candidates again

 

[Chase Stuart]

Thanks to Hear-The-Footsteps for bringing up the QBBC idea.

Secondly and more importantly I agree with others who question using last year's defenses to make the schedule framework for QBBC for 2006 - things change too much. One of the staffers last year - sorry I just can't remember the guy (maybe Chase Stuart) did articles on QBBC and DSTBC but they were purely based on the previous years performances and without any adjustments right before the season (at least you realize that and suggest it be reviewed) it fell apart because the schedule framework was not viable.

Here's the 2005 article

So how do we rank the defenses? I used a variety of sources to help determine which teams would yield the best opponents for our QBBC. I factored in the following 2004 stats: fantasy points allowed to QBs (thanks to Clayton Gray), passing fantasy points allowed to QBs, quarterback rating allowed and yards per attempt allowed. Additionally, I added some personal opinion of offseason moves, to finalize the list.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I like Plummer as well this year. At worst he will put up numbers comparable to last year. However, we've seen what kind of numbers he is capable of in Denver.

Only thing I'd take issue with is your immediately considering Rod Smith WR2. Rod has been the sheriff in town for a while and Walker (so far a one year wonder under Favre) is coming off ACL surgery.

 

[GetThePoint]

LOVE the QBBC talk. There are a lot of QBBC detrators out there so last year I ran 2 separate committes with the top 13 consensus QBs excluded, And I think I at least convinced myself the there is REAL value in running the QBBC.

One committee put up a combined 25 TDs and 4000 yards with guys like Griese, Leftwich and Warner. And the other, while not quite as impressive, would have finished as a top 10 QB as well. It was truly amazing to see how the season pieced together if you really played the match-ups. I do agree that more than any other position the Qbs are most effected by schedule considerations. If anyone is interested, I documented the results of my committees last year. Results are available at my website if you are interested.

Footsteps, I love the forethought that went into the schedule planning. I do the same thing every year, but the QBBC thinking always seems to change 100 times once the season starts. As long as you are flexible, and plan ahead for the match-ups, there's usually someone you can pick up and plug in. Of course, if you do the strength of schedule legwork, things do tend to fall into place a lot easier.

Leftwich and Warner are also 2 of my favorite QBBC'ers for next year, but I think Plummer may get drafted a bit sooner and I don't think you could really count of him as a part of a structured committee. Philip Rivers is untested, but his schedule is a gem. Kitna is also not bad, and personally, I will be watching the NY Jets QB competition very closely because that schedule offers some real gems and the Jets defense won't be stopping too many people in the upcoming year.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

One committee put up a combined 25 TDs and 4000 yards with guys like Griese, Leftwich and Warner. And the other, while not quite as impressive, would have finished as a top 10 QB as well. It was truly amazing to see how the season pieced together if you really played the match-ups. I do agree that more than any other position the Qbs are most effected by schedule considerations. If anyone is interested, I documented the results of my committees last year. Results are available at my website if you are interested.

I'd be interested in any research you've done comparing the effect of the opposing defense on the offensive skill positions.

 

[Hear-the-Footsteps]

One committee put up a combined 25 TDs and 4000 yards with guys like Griese, Leftwich and Warner. And the other, while not quite as impressive,  would have finished as a top 10 QB as well. It was truly amazing to see how the season pieced together if you really played the match-ups. I do agree that more than any other position the Qbs are most effected by schedule considerations. If anyone is interested, I documented the results  of my committees last year. Results are available at my website if you are interested.

I'd be interested in any research you've done comparing the effect of the opposing defense on the offensive skill positions.

Me too.

 

[thecardiackid]

HTF - very nice post

I like your committee, although frankly even though its early and I have only done four or five drafts, I think it would be impossible to get all three of them - there are bound to be some others that realize the value in waiting on QB and you would need three rounds to get yours in - yes I realize that Warner's ADP is much lower, but the more teams that wait and then add a couple of QBs forces some others to get their second QB earlier than they planned.

Make sure you resurrect this in August so we can look at the candidates again

I tend to be a QBBC drafter also, so on the thread!

Capt. makes a good point that while your committee is solid and well thought out, considering the work you put into the D's and the upcoming schedule, it'd be tough to target and get 2 let alone all 3 of these guys in rds. 7/8/9 (even IF their ADPs stayed the same till Sept) It's possible, but I'd have my backup plan ready - and it looks like you already do.

I know for a fact that 2/3 of the 14 owners in my league will be looking to "lock-up" a backup qb for thier "stud" or get some future QB trade bait by the 9th - likely grabbing one of these options. (maybe more common in 14 team leagues since a lot of QB 2's will fall to the mid 20's in the rankings) We also must roster 2 qbs w/ 2 "flex" options - but even though a team could carry 4 qbs, very few have more than 2.

I can't say I really put as much effort into breaking down the #s from the previous year's Defenses, as much as targeting proven undervalued QBs in more "pass happy" situations w/ dependable WRs. Then checking the byes for conflicts, and finally hoping for the best matchup wise to take advantage of during the season (more luck here than science admittedly). Lastly, I'll try to avoid anyone (especailly QB wise) coming into a new system or dealing w/ a HC/OC change - being forced to execute a new system. Warner, Plummer, and Lefty are all working w/ the same system, but Brooks' situation (even w/ Moss) will ususally persuade me to look elsewhere. This year Culpepper dropping to R6+ *doubtful* might change my mind.

Funny though that my qbbc last year was Plummer and Warner. I never went back to see exactly what I got out of the QBBC (stats wise), but overall I was happy, considering where I took them in the draft value wise (8th/14th IIRC). Jake (IMO) is one of those streaky qbs that will get a lot of their stats in 8-10 games (hopefully when you started him) - then disappear for 2/3 weeks (even w/ juicy matchups). That was my experience anyway. Warner and Lefty both have some trouble staying on the field.

I'd also agree w/ Muse's post about QBs on teams like DEN that don't need to pass considering their running games. Although Plummer will be good for a couple bootleg TDs along with a couple FB/TE rec. scores in the flat via playaction since Shanny seems to pull those out a couple times a game.

One last random thought... looking @ your "system" you're targeting KC a lot. While I don't think Herm will get KC's D looking like TB anytime soon, I do think he'll improve their production to a point where they're respectable on D (16-20th)- much like he did @ the Jets w/ "average" defensive talent IMO. He's got many valuable battle scars after facing the Pats 2x a season for the past several years.

Great post again! And thanks for sharing your thoughts & theories. We need a lot more of this stuff vs. re-re-re ranking LT/LJ/SA or hearing about who got busted this week.

I'll try to do some homework and see if I can come up w/ another option.

 

[CA_7]

 

[ravnzfan]

solid work, A...

let's keep an eye on this thread thru the summer, and see if there is a QB or 2 we can utilize as Plan B---my gut tells me those QB's listed won't be avauilable as late as you suggest...for example, I think AZ position players will be a hot commodity

think about where Edge, Fitz and Boldin go (top 25-ish)...I don't see anyone wanting to use your plan wait that long to get the guy pulling the trigger (Warner), who I think will seriously out perform his ADP

there has been mention of Kitna---how does he factor in this?

w/Martz aboard and 3-#1's at wide out...not to mention a RB like KJ...Kitna is high on my list to out perform his ADP also

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Good idea HTF.

The problem is that I think some people will value Warner alot higher thus his ADP come August is gonna be much higher than it is now.

 

[Hear-the-Footsteps]

A few of you have pointed out the need for a backup plan if you are unable to grab all three of these QBs.

First, to the guy in the 14 team league who said that some of these QBs would go earlier - you are right. I think grabbing all 3 in a 14 teamer would be much more difficult. Simple math - instead of 12 guys needing 1 starting QB - now there's 14. My analysis was targeted towards 12 team leagues.

Nonetheless, I still agree that sometimes things just don't go according to plan. Just when you think the QB you are targeting may fall to you cause the guy on the clock already has one and you are on deck...bam, the guy ends up taking his QB2 in the 8th (not unheard of at all).

Anyway, b/c you need a backup plan - that is precisely why I mentioned Brooks. 1) He has several nice games. 2) It turns out that many of his nice games are when Plummer's are - so if you miss out on Plummer - Brooks works well. 3) Brooks has Moss this year - a great guy to have if you want to show everyone that last year was a fluke.

Not exactly someone I'd want to ride my QB hopes on all year - but to go along with Warner and Leftwich - it isn't so bad.

 

[Chase Stuart]

One committee put up a combined 25 TDs and 4000 yards with guys like Griese, Leftwich and Warner. And the other, while not quite as impressive, would have finished as a top 10 QB as well. It was truly amazing to see how the season pieced together if you really played the match-ups. I do agree that more than any other position the Qbs are most effected by schedule considerations. If anyone is interested, I documented the results of my committees last year. Results are available at my website if you are interested.

I'd be interested in any research you've done comparing the effect of the opposing defense on the offensive skill positions.

Me too.

I've done some (more on QBs than the other positions), but I agree with HTF. QBs are very dependent on their schedules. Analyzing RBs is a different animal -- does Tatum Bell not do well against Def X because Def X shut him down, or because Mike Anderson got lots of carries that day? Because of the way carries break down (vs. team pass attempts) it's harder to isolate the cause of a RB's performance.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I also think this is a pretty weird year for QBs, since so many for studs (McNabb, Culpepper, Bulger, Palmer) should drop a good deal. Guys like Warner and Rivers are real interesting, as is Brooks. I'm as big a QBBC fan as there is, but I think ADP might be more important than QBBC this year. I expect there to be a couple of guys with real low ADPs that I think will be in the top ten outright, making QBBC less attractive.

 

[mueller54]

Like who? Brooks, others?

 

[The Ref]

Used this for the last two years with great results. I'll give this a more in depth read tommorrow, but I can tell this is well done after scaning the article!

 

[renesauz]

Chase has it right. I've used QBBC many times, successfully, but this may not be one of those years.

Last year, I had planned to use QBBC, but watched my target QB chosen 1-6 picks ahead of me 3 rounds in a row. In the end, I took my first QB in the 11th round, because I simply couldn't see appropriate value in any of the QB's left on the board.

It worked out extremely well when I finally did take a QB who turned out to be a gem overlooked by my admittedly guppy-heavy league...Carson Palmer.

I never did get a decent second QB, but when Carson worked out, coupled with incredible RB/WR depth, (after all, five owners had taken their SECOND QB and a TE before I had my first QB, let alone TE), I RAN AWAY with the regular season scoring title. I lost the Super Bowl due to hard luck (What's harder then sitting two of your top studs because their teams are playing in lame duck games...like Edge?)

The bottom line is this...You can plan, you can plot, you can figure out all the best matchups and scenarios, but if you can't stay flexible and smart when some idiot takes your target guy 3 picks in front of you (as his THIRD QB), you'll still fail.

That's not to say you should ignore research, or not plot strategies, but very few major battle go as planned. Great Generals aren't the ones who devise terrific strategies, but the ones who can adjust their strategies on the fly to take advantage of the enemies weaknesses.

 

[John Mamula]

I also think this is a pretty weird year for QBs, since so many for studs (McNabb, Culpepper, Bulger, Palmer) should drop a good deal. Guys like Warner and Rivers are real interesting, as is Brooks. I'm as big a QBBC fan as there is, but I think ADP might be more important than QBBC this year. I expect there to be a couple of guys with real low ADPs that I think will be in the top ten outright, making QBBC less attractive.

i would say this is the case every year.you don't need to do qbbc per se but rather draft two qbs late who you think have adps out of whack with your expected production.

one should emerge as a legit every week starter and be top 10 if not better, especially if you go after some top ppg candidates.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I also think this is a pretty weird year for QBs, since so many for studs (McNabb, Culpepper, Bulger, Palmer) should drop a good deal. Guys like Warner and Rivers are real interesting, as is Brooks. I'm as big a QBBC fan as there is, but I think ADP might be more important than QBBC this year. I expect there to be a couple of guys with real low ADPs that I think will be in the top ten outright, making QBBC less attractive.

i would say this is the case every year.you don't need to do qbbc per se but rather draft two qbs late who you think have adps out of whack with your expected production.

one should emerge as a legit every week starter and be top 10 if not better, especially if you go after some top ppg candidates.

Personally, I think this year ADP seems far more out of whack with my expectations than it normally does. When ADP is in line with my thinking, QBBC helps to give me an advantage. That's unnecessary in some years. It's still early and I haven't done projections yet, so my opinion is very likely to change. It will be certainly something to keep an eye on, and regardless I'll run this year's numbers through my QBBC machine and see what emerges.

But for guys like you that always are able to draft two sleeper qbs late that turn out well, you're a step ahead of the game.

 

[videoguy505]

Personally, I think this year ADP seems far more out of whack with my expectations than it normally does. When ADP is in line with my thinking, QBBC helps to give me an advantage. That's unnecessary in some years.

It's still early and I haven't done projections yet, so my opinion is very likely to change. It will be certainly something to keep an eye on, and regardless I'll run this year's numbers through my QBBC machine and see what emerges.

But for guys like you that always are able to draft two sleeper qbs late that turn out well, you're a step ahead of the game.

Step on it Chase! Your QBBC and DST-BC articles last year were fantastic. I used them both to dominate my league--at least until my Bulger/Leftwich combo fell apart (your suggested triumvirate wasn't possible with the keepers my opponents had, but I ran your numbers on other combos in our scoring system and I sailed through the first half of the season). Your analyzing the schedules week-by-week also helped a lot.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Personally, I think this year ADP seems far more out of whack with my expectations than it normally does. When ADP is in line with my thinking, QBBC helps to give me an advantage. That's unnecessary in some years.

It's still early and I haven't done projections yet, so my opinion is very likely to change. It will be certainly something to keep an eye on, and regardless I'll run this year's numbers through my QBBC machine and see what emerges.

But for guys like you that always are able to draft two sleeper qbs late that turn out well, you're a step ahead of the game.

Step on it Chase! Your QBBC and DST-BC articles last year were fantastic. I used them both to dominate my league--at least until my Bulger/Leftwich combo fell apart (your suggested triumvirate wasn't possible with the keepers my opponents had, but I ran your numbers on other combos in our scoring system and I sailed through the first half of the season). Your analyzing the schedules week-by-week also helped a lot.

Hey videoguy,Thanks for the kind words, and congrats on dominating your league last year. Sorry for the confusion -- my projections are my personal individual projections. Things like Marc Bulger will have 4000 passing yards and Eli Manning will throw for 35 TDs. My QBBC and DTBC articles are based entirely* off of Footballguys.com projections, for a few reasons. This lets me use an unbiased source of projection for the article, I know they'll be as good as anything I can find, and if everything goes wrong I can always blame Dodds.

QBBC came out August 8th last year, and DTBC on July 26th. I'd expect similar release dates this year.

*For the DTBC article, this is true. For the QBBC version, some personal subjectivity is thrown in due to the nature of the article. The DTBC runs as the flip side of the offensive player projections: we want to know which offenses are bad. Since FBGs doesn't post defensive team projections (I don't believe any website does), something different needs to be used. I've found a formula that is a great starting point for future projections, that needs tweaking because of off-season movement. That tweaking is where my personal opinions come in.

 

[videoguy505]

Oh, the laughter when I picked up the Bungles D in a late round of my draft... when they were putting up 25-30 points a week (we highly value turnovers, and a 5INT game here and there would outscore any player but SA) my team could not be stopped.