My QB Targeting Formula (1 Viewer)

[-jb-]

I was posting in the McNabb spotlight, and have since been compelled to start this thread. I was making a half-hearted effort of outlining why I thought he's the guy I want this year, and thought it best to not dillude that thread with non-player-specific information. So, here I am, brand new topic.

I'll start by saying that I bet a lot of folks already do this, if perhaps only in their head...but it's always good to write things out, and to test them in different situations.

To lend some credibility to this formula, I can tell you that it led me to draft Cutler last year (Rodgers for QB2), Big Ben in 2007 (Favre for QB2), and Michael Vick (Bledsoe/Romo for QB2) in 2006. All of these guys finished as top 5 QBs.

So here it is, down and dirty.

A. Look at your top 12 QBs' projections and ADPs

B. Determine the QBs that have higher projections and later ADPs than at least 2 other QBs

C. Calculate the projected point variance between that QB and your next highest projected QB with a later ADP

D. Target the two QBs with the largest trailing variances as your QB1 and QB2

For 2009, this is what I've got. Keep in mind that these projections are for a very QB-friendly format, so let's not discuss the actual points...moreso the variance between players.

A. Top 12 QB projections

1. Drew Brees - 347 / 2.01

2. Tom Brady - 346 / 2.04

3. Peyton Manning 332 / 2.12

4. Kurt Warner - 312 / 4.05

5. Aaron Rodgers - 310 / 3.12

6. Donovan McNabb - 304 / 5.08

7. Philip Rivers - 294 / 4.01

8. Tony Romo - 287 / 4.11

9. Ben Roethlisberger - 284 / 8.03

10. Jay Cutler - 261 / 6.09

11. Matt Schaub - 260 / 6.08

12. Carson Palmer - 256 / 7.03



14. Eli Manning - 252 / 9.10 (projection required to calculate variance)



B. Players with higher projections and later ADPs than at least 2 other QBs

1. Kurt Warner (over Rodgers & Rivers)

2. Donovan McNabb (over Rivers & Romo)

3. Ben Roethlisberger (over Cutler, Schaub, and Palmer)

C. Projected Point Variance

1. Kurt Warner - Next highest projection with a later ADP is McNabb. Point variance is Warner (312) - McNabb (304) = 8 pts

2. Donovan McNabb - Next highest projection with a later ADP is Roethlisberger. Point variance is McNabb (304) - Big Ben (284) = 20 pts

3. Ben Roethlisberger - Next highest projection with a later ADP is Eli Manning. Point variance is Big Ben (284) - Eli Manning (252) = 32 pts

D. Target 2 QBs

Warner offers the least amount of point variance of the three, so McNabb and Big Ben are my guys. Big Ben is the better value, but I won't wait that long to draft my QB1. I need more production from my QB2 than what would be available. Having two #1 QBs is a distinct advantage.

So, what I would like to see, if you would indulge me, is how this formula would apply to YOUR projections. I'd be interested to see who YOU come away with, and whether or not YOUR GUT agrees with you. (eta) This is not a request to validate whether or not McNabb and Big Ben are your guys, too. I'm offering this up as a way to put some science behind what your gut may already be telling you. It may even steer you in another direction.

Any other feedback also welcomed.

EDIT - Added Warner to the breakdown as I did not notice he met the criteria at first. This is why you write it down!

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm interested to hear why Big Ben will rebound. He had one big TD year, but his other numbers have been pretty consistent. In four other seasons his best year was 243 fantasy points. Are you projecting him to have a lot more TD this go round? He had the year with 32 TD, but his next best year was 18 TD.

I don't have a problem with McNabb, as he's always been a big PPG guy. It's just a question of how much time he would miss each year.

 

[-jb-]

I'm interested to hear why Big Ben will rebound. He had one big TD year, but his other numbers have been pretty consistent. In four other seasons his best year was 243 fantasy points. Are you projecting him to have a lot more TD this go round? He had the year with 32 TD, but his next best year was 18 TD.I don't have a problem with McNabb, as he's always been a big PPG guy. It's just a question of how much time he would miss each year.

I've got him at 26 total TDs, an increase of 7 from last year. I think last year was a bit of a fluke. I think 2007 was also a bit of a fluke. "Magically," my projection is right in the middle of the two. Heath Miller - 5 TDs Hines Ward - 7 TDs Santonio Holmes - 7 TDs Big Ben - 2 rush TDs That's 21 TDs from their main playmakers. To think that there are 5 other TDs out there among Mewelde, FWP, Limas, etc, seems pretty reasonable.If you disagree with my projections and rankings, I'm even more interested to see how the general formula works on another set.

 

[JAA]

again ... it starts w your projections. Your formula gives you nothing w/o projections. Now, maybe it helps cut down on variance in conjunction with your personal projection style, but in the end its all about projections.

 

[-jb-]

again ... it starts w your projections. Your formula gives you nothing w/o projections. Now, maybe it helps cut down on variance in conjunction with your personal projection style, but in the end its all about projections.

agreed. which is why i asked others to apply the formula and see what they came away with on their own projections.

 

[Tau837]

again ... it starts w your projections. Your formula gives you nothing w/o projections. Now, maybe it helps cut down on variance in conjunction with your personal projection style, but in the end its all about projections.

agreed. which is why i asked others to apply the formula and see what they came away with on their own projections.

FBGs offers projections from multiple FBGs. Perhaps you should apply this to their projections and see how it turns out.

 

[-jb-]

again ... it starts w your projections. Your formula gives you nothing w/o projections. Now, maybe it helps cut down on variance in conjunction with your personal projection style, but in the end its all about projections.

agreed. which is why i asked others to apply the formula and see what they came away with on their own projections.

FBGs offers projections from multiple FBGs. Perhaps you should apply this to their projections and see how it turns out.

What good would that do you or other people? This a system that works well for me, and I thought I would share it with the board. I don't need to check it against other projections. It would tell me nothing, as their gut is not mine.Thought folks might like to try it on their own set of projections. If so, great. If not, it was cathartic to write it out.

 

[shredhead]

Just out of curiosity, I noticed that if you tiered your top 12, McNabb and Big Ben would both be the last player in their given tier. Since you mentioned the last few years in your OP, I'd be interested to know if that is just a coincidence or if it came true in previous years. Waiting on QB and then snatching the last one in the 2nd or 3rd tier is not a new strategy, I'm wondering if you just scientifically proved what was already kind of known.

I'm not knocking your work, I'm just lazy and wondering if all your work is necessary.

 

[Tau837]

again ... it starts w your projections. Your formula gives you nothing w/o projections. Now, maybe it helps cut down on variance in conjunction with your personal projection style, but in the end its all about projections.

agreed. which is why i asked others to apply the formula and see what they came away with on their own projections.

FBGs offers projections from multiple FBGs. Perhaps you should apply this to their projections and see how it turns out.

What good would that do you or other people? This a system that works well for me, and I thought I would share it with the board. I don't need to check it against other projections. It would tell me nothing, as their gut is not mine.Thought folks might like to try it on their own set of projections. If so, great. If not, it was cathartic to write it out.

I guess I misinterpreted what you were looking for when you suggested that others apply it to other projections.

 

[-jb-]

Just out of curiosity, I noticed that if you tiered your top 12, McNabb and Big Ben would both be the last player in their given tier. Since you mentioned the last few years in your OP, I'd be interested to know if that is just a coincidence or if it came true in previous years. Waiting on QB and then snatching the last one in the 2nd or 3rd tier is not a new strategy, I'm wondering if you just scientifically proved what was already kind of known.I'm not knocking your work, I'm just lazy and wondering if all your work is necessary.

I don't take it as a knock at all...glad it's facilitating discussion. From a logical perspective, I'm sure the tiering has an influence. The one thing that tiering will NOT tell you, though, is where that player will be drafted in comparison to others. Using my 2009 projections as an example, let's say that I projected Rivers with McNabb's numbers and vice versa. Kurt Warner would then become the guy I target, as McNabb would only outrank Romo.

 

[-jb-]

again ... it starts w your projections. Your formula gives you nothing w/o projections. Now, maybe it helps cut down on variance in conjunction with your personal projection style, but in the end its all about projections.

agreed. which is why i asked others to apply the formula and see what they came away with on their own projections.

FBGs offers projections from multiple FBGs. Perhaps you should apply this to their projections and see how it turns out.

What good would that do you or other people? This a system that works well for me, and I thought I would share it with the board. I don't need to check it against other projections. It would tell me nothing, as their gut is not mine.Thought folks might like to try it on their own set of projections. If so, great. If not, it was cathartic to write it out.

I guess I misinterpreted what you were looking for when you suggested that others apply it to other projections.

Roger. Yeah, I'm not looking to see if McNabb and Big Ben will be "the guys" regardless of who's projections are used. That would be unrealistic. I'm just curious to see if someone gains some confidence in what their gut may already be telling them, or even lose confidence based on it.

 

[GregR_2]

...

A. Look at your top 12 QBs' projections and ADPs

B. Determine the QBs that have higher projections and later ADPs than at least 2 other QBs

C. Calculate the projected point variance between that QB and your next highest projected QB with a later ADP

D. Target the two QBs with the largest trailing variances as your QB1 and QB2

...

I'm with you that a good draft strategy should include comparing expected draft position to where you think they SHOULD be drafted, and trying to take advantage of that fact.But I don't like how step D is stated. That would be a good way of stating it if you play in a league where QB is the only position. In real leagues it isn't as simple as find the 2 QBs whose ADP differ from what you think it should be and go get them.

The goal is to maximize your entire team. Locking into your best QBs may or may not do that for you depending on your exact circumstance. Taking the top QB according to your analysis could result in a drop off at other positions that worsens your team more than getting that QB helps you.

Again, the general thought of identifying value players and where they are available is spot on. But then it needs to be applied to your draft as a whole taking all picks and positions into account.

You need to figure out first the best way to steer through the draft to hit the combination of players at all positions that give you the highest value back for your picks as a whole, and give you the best team as a whole. But when you do that, you also need to prepare for the fact that you will be wrong about where some players will be taken. You need to run multiple scenarios such as, "I expected to take one of two QBs in this round, but what happens if neither of them is there?" and "What happens if a value WR falls to me in the third round and I pass on my 2nd RB to take him? How do all my other picks change now that I'm scrambling to have better RB depth since my RB2 is worse than I'd expected." You run through these scenarios in mock drafts against yourself so you can see just what effects ripple through the rest of your draft. The idea being that when things don't go as you expect, whether good or bad, you have already thought through the possible outcomes and can make very well informed decisions.

 

[-jb-]

...

A. Look at your top 12 QBs' projections and ADPs

B. Determine the QBs that have higher projections and later ADPs than at least 2 other QBs

C. Calculate the projected point variance between that QB and your next highest projected QB with a later ADP

D. Target the two QBs with the largest trailing variances as your QB1 and QB2

...

I'm with you that a good draft strategy should include comparing expected draft position to where you think they SHOULD be drafted, and trying to take advantage of that fact.But I don't like how step D is stated. That would be a good way of stating it if you play in a league where QB is the only position. In real leagues it isn't as simple as find the 2 QBs whose ADP differ from what you think it should be and go get them.

The goal is to maximize your entire team. Locking into your best QBs may or may not do that for you depending on your exact circumstance. Taking the top QB according to your analysis could result in a drop off at other positions that worsens your team more than getting that QB helps you.

Again, the general thought of identifying value players and where they are available is spot on. But then it needs to be applied to your draft as a whole taking all picks and positions into account.

You need to figure out first the best way to steer through the draft to hit the combination of players at all positions that give you the highest value back for your picks as a whole, and give you the best team as a whole. But when you do that, you also need to prepare for the fact that you will be wrong about where some players will be taken. You need to run multiple scenarios such as, "I expected to take one of two QBs in this round, but what happens if neither of them is there?" and "What happens if a value WR falls to me in the third round and I pass on my 2nd RB to take him? How do all my other picks change now that I'm scrambling to have better RB depth since my RB2 is worse than I'd expected." You run through these scenarios in mock drafts against yourself so you can see just what effects ripple through the rest of your draft. The idea being that when things don't go as you expect, whether good or bad, you have already thought through the possible outcomes and can make very well informed decisions.

Excellent points, GregR. In fact, the only thing that is making me the slightest bit reticent on McNabb is the fact that he's going in the 5th round. This is a very critical round in terms of value play, and that may inhibit me from grabbing McNabb. I actually started a thread on the subject. Assuming I maintain McNabb as my target, my first four rounds will be shaped somewhat differently. Knowing that I will forego 5th round RB talent, I will be more compelled to grab a Ronnie Brown or Pierre Thomas type earlier on. Of course, if I miss on one of those guys, then I will need to focus on a 4th/5th round RB, which would inhibit my ability to grab McNabb.One thing I will add is that, in the league that I am referring to with these projections, 7 QBs are selected by the end of the 5th round. That has been the case for the past 6 years, so I'm anticipating the same. With McNabb at an ADP of QB8, it's logical that he will be there. If he's not, it's also logical that I can grab one of the other guys (Romo, Rivers, etc) and not be damaged. I won't get full value, but to your point, there is a plan B that I can default to should the ideal plan not be executed.

Thanks for the post...

 

[Eminence]

All you need to know.

Draft Schaub and Palmer.

...both can be had late, and have tremendous upside. If they both flop, you should have tremendous depth elsewhere to make a deal.

 

[-jb-]

All you need to know.

Draft Schaub and Palmer.

...both can be had late, and have tremendous upside. If they both flop, you should have tremendous depth elsewhere to make a deal.

I like both guys, and consider them nice alternatives to Roethlisberger. Schaub's ability to stay on the field concerns me, and I'd like to see a little more out of Palmer in preseason. He could nudge up in my projections if I see enough in preseason from the Bengals.One issue with both guys is that you really don't get them as late as you think. End of the 6th / beginning of the 7th isn't exactly late.