QB by committee article by Stuart (1 Viewer)

[AcerFC]

I have read the QB by Committee article with 3 QBs and find it fascinating and in all likelihood beneficial. Has anyone tried Stuarts theory in the past and can validate if there is any correlation and if it does indeed work. Having 3 QBs is not optimal but if it works, Im for it. Let me know if you have ever tried it

 

[Kub]

I have tried this theory many times, most often with below average results. The problem with the theory is lower level fantasy QBs seldom cannot be counted on to give consistent performances. While starting Aaron Brooks against the 49ers seems like a no-brainer, sometimes he give that "no-brain" performance and you have Jake Plummer sitting on your bench having thrown 2 TDs against New England.

I am leaning toward taking a upper level QB this year. Obviously, I am not going "off board" to take one, but I am going to try to avoid the mistakes of years past and try to get consistent numbers out of my QB on a weekly basis.

 

[dal_boys_phan]

I play in a keeper league where it seems that every year, one of the two or three guys in the best QB by Committee are already kept. So, I have never been able to run with it.

That said, I think that the best part of the article is pointing out the other top 10 QB by Committee combos OR the combos that if you have a stud keeper QB, the complimentary players that you add in the draft (i.e., if you have Eli Manning, here are the four best guys to combo with him).

 

[Colin Dowling]

Yes, I have tried it. 3 (or was it 4?) years ago, the Trent GReen / Matt Hasselbeck combo was a goldmine. The "tough" part is starting the right guy each week. But the strategy and the players suggested are usually very solid.

 

[Charley]

I have tried this theory many times, most often with below average results. The problem with the theory is lower level fantasy QBs seldom cannot be counted on to give consistent performances. While starting Aaron Brooks against the 49ers seems like a no-brainer, sometimes he give that "no-brain" performance and you have Jake Plummer sitting on your bench having thrown 2 TDs against New England. I am leaning toward taking a upper level QB this year. Obviously, I am not going "off board" to take one, but I am going to try to avoid the mistakes of years past and try to get consistent numbers out of my QB on a weekly basis.

Agreed, I guess the theory is that (1) to get a premier QB, you have to "overpay" with a high round pick, (2) there isn't that big a difference between other top-10 QBs and a bunch of mid-level QBs ranked 11-18, (3) you can pick-up 2 (or 3) mid-level QBs very cheaply, and (4) regarding which mid-level QBs to draft (and play during the season), you base your decision on strength of schedule. Thus, by picking 2 (or 3) mid-level QBs with complementary schedules so that one of them is facing "weak" opponents each week, you theoretically wind up with composite fantasy QB scoring at the end of the year similar to a premier (or top-5) QB.If you use this approach, sometimes you luck into a "mid-level ranked" QB who has a very good to excellent year, and you wind up playing that QB for most if not all of the latter part of the season. But if you play each QB in your QBBC according to the "schedule determined by SoS," one of the mid-level QBs you've selected usually has a mediocre year, and your overall results at the end of the year (from the QB position) are substandard.I think the problem is that QBBC goes against the "play your studs" maxim. It basically overvalues SoS compared to the intrinsic quality of the QBs who you draft on your roster. Sure, a stud can get hurt or have a disappointing year for whatever reason. But when you start with 2 (or 3) mid-level QBs, your composite production from them is not going to be that much higher than QB12-15, regardless of what SoS the combination faces (unless you get lucky and draft someone who has a great year -- looking for undervalued QBs who fall to mid-level is always a good strategy, but it's good because you expect them to significantly outperform their draft position).Another way of looking at it -- suppose Peyton Manning has a schedule where he's facing the 16 toughest defenses, and a mid-level QB is facing the 16 easiest defenses. What are the end-of-year stats going to look like? Player quality is much more important than SoS, IMO.A better approach IMO is to examine the top-10 QBs (by ADP) and determine the 2-3 who you think have the most upside and are likely to fall the furthest in drafts. Then either focus on drafting an "undervalued" QB who you think has the most upside, or try to get the one who falls the furthest. Then focus on QBs in the 11-18 range, and do the same thing. Then look for lower-ranked QBs (QB19+) and target a couple with high upside to draft in later rounds of the draft.My favorites this year:Top-10 ADP - Culpepper (by far), VickQB11-18 - Favre (for consistency), Brooks (for upside), Brees, McNairQB19+ - Rivers (for upside), Simms (for consistency)And with this approach, you don't look to SoS to determine who to start each week. You play your stud (unless he gets hurt or your 2nd QB outperforms your QB1). I believe the expected value of pts with this approach is significantly higher than the QBBC approach.

 

[Sweet Love]

I do it every year. The best QB I have ever had (at the start of the year) was Favre a couple of years ago because he just presented so much value in that particular draft. My most success time was in 2002, when Green and Brady (12th and 20th QBs off the board respectively) had like 27 and 28 TDs...In fact, they absolutely carried my team to our Super Bowl.

I have never thought about taking a QB in the first two rounds and unless Manning falls to me late in the 2nd (which he won't), I will probably target guys like Brooks, Simms.

 

[AcerFC]

I guess my biggest concern is that I would waste a roster spot on the 3rd QB while I may be able to land better value with a sleeper RB. My draft is tomorrow and I cant even figure out what Im doing with my first round pick let alone later on with my QBs. I do subscribe to the theory of taking one late though

 

[Capt Hook]

Several good points already made. Let me just add that my main problem is not the theory - in general I am a very late QB drafter to get best value and to make sure the rest of my team is very good, but in the QBBC articles, the SOS is based on LAST year's numbers. Some of the defenses have made improvements. others had injuries last year that people don't recall and thereby don't give them any credit for "improving" with essentially the same players.

Having a QBBC also requires the right "guess" each week on who to start - and you will drive yourself crazy with the woulda, coulda shouldas

I did follow Chase's guidelines in one year but the QBBC was essentially blown up by Brees having such a good year that the rest of the committee sat. BUT again I do love his work on this and the DS by committee and the articles - I just don't think they "play" as well as they read.

 

[thecardiackid]

I understand the concern w/ carrying 3 qbs, and would agree that unless you play in a 14+ team league it's not necessary. (unless you're following the script). IMO - the theory behind this is after Peyton and maybe CP/Hass/Brady there's about 14 qbs that "should" pass for 18-22 tds in 06. Now you need to target a few of em', look @ the schedules, and cross your fingers.

I'm a QBBC'er and have been for many years. Granted, my "system" less scientific than pouring through the schedule for weekly potential matchups over the entire season.

The modified version is DONT ever take a qb till at least R6/7/8 and another before the main backup run which happens *typically* around R11/12. Last year mine was Plummer in the 9th and Warner late (b/u w/ McCown off WW in season). Worked out well for me - providing around QB10-12 results combined. Sure, you'll occasionally guess wrong w/ the starter even with the "better" matchup. But your improved depth @ RB and WR to cover byes and inevitable injuries makes up for it IMHO.

This year I splurged and took Dante in the 6th and Lefty in the 11th. (make sure you look @ the bye weeks and those matchups) Since I play in 14+ team leagues, it can get more complicated w/ the diluted talent, but just make a short list of the targets and run w/ it.

Personally I like the fact that you're focusing on matchups and looking for some advantage, vs. taking Bledsoe in the 5th, plugging him in every week, and praying he doesn't get hurt/benched/shut out every week. When your back up is Lossman/Frye/Grossman, etc. QBBC can provide better coverage for injury (to the lead guy) and if you play it right, you can get essentially top 10 qb overall #s - without spending a 3-5 round pick to get it.

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

I have read the QB by Committee article with 3 QBs and find it fascinating and in all likelihood beneficial. Has anyone tried Stuarts theory in the past and can validate if there is any correlation and if it does indeed work. Having 3 QBs is not optimal but if it works, Im for it. Let me know if you have ever tried it

I used it last year and it worked very well.

 

[Charley]

Yes, I have tried it. 3 (or was it 4?) years ago, the Trent GReen / Matt Hasselbeck combo was a goldmine. The "tough" part is starting the right guy each week. But the strategy and the players suggested are usually very solid.

No offense intended, but have you ever gone back and compared the "recommended QB" and actual results, on a week by week basis, and then added up the results for weeks 1-16 of each season. I have and, even substituting the highest actual pts (of the other QBs) when the recommended QB was injured or did not play, the results were not good.I was puzzled because I thought the QBBC theory had a lot of merit (and the article was very well-written and compelling). So I tried to figure out why the results weren't better. My conclusions are summarized above, but the two major reasons are (1) I think SoS is trumped by player quality as a predictor of performance, and (2) you should always play your stud (or best player if you don't have a stud) regardless of SoS (unless you have 2 players who are close and then use SoS to decide).

 

[Charley]

Several good points already made. Let me just add that my main problem is not the theory - in general I am a very late QB drafter to get best value and to make sure the rest of my team is very good, but in the QBBC articles, the SOS is based on LAST year's numbers. Some of the defenses have made improvements. others had injuries last year that people don't recall and thereby don't give them any credit for "improving" with essentially the same players.Having a QBBC also requires the right "guess" each week on who to start - and you will drive yourself crazy with the woulda, coulda shouldasI did follow Chase's guidelines in one year but the QBBC was essentially blown up by Brees having such a good year that the rest of the committee sat. BUT again I do love his work on this and the DS by committee and the articles - I just don't think they "play" as well as they read.

Good points -- I'm usually a very late QB drafter, too (start thinking about QB after 10-12 have been taken and then try to pick-up at least 3 and hopefully 4 decent QBs, and then one of them usually has a good-to-excellent year -- or I play SoS and match-ups for the rest of the season). But trying to analyze the QBBC approach in June, I started thinking about the "undervalued stud QB" that you could potentially draft in the 6th round (or later). The thought process led me to Culpepper, so I tried to watch him very carefully in July and during TC and preseason games. I think he's going to have a huge year, and I've gotten him relatively late (for a top-10 QB) in every draft so far. I did a search and there were no threads with Culpepper (or Duante) in the title during the month of August -- he's really been under the radar -- I think most drafters have written him off and draft him only if he falls really far. His injury and surgery were major concerns, but I think he's fully recovered.

 

[AcerFC]

Yes, I have tried it. 3 (or was it 4?) years ago, the Trent GReen / Matt Hasselbeck combo was a goldmine. The "tough" part is starting the right guy each week. But the strategy and the players suggested are usually very solid.

No offense intended, but have you ever gone back and compared the "recommended QB" and actual results and then added up the results for weeks 1-16 of each season. I have and, even substituting the highest actual pts (of the other QBs) when the recommended QB was injured or did not play, the results were not good.I was puzzled because I thought the QBBC theory had a lot of merit (and the article was very well-written and compelling). So I tried to figure out why the results weren't better. My conclusions are summarized above, but the two major reasons are (1) I think SoS is trumped by player quality as a predictor of performance, and (2) you should always play your stud (or best player if you don't have a stud) regardless of SoS (unless you have 2 players who are close and then use SoS to decide).

Thanks Charley. That is exactly what I was looking for. I dont think I will follow the article to a T, however I will be targeting some of the QBs he mentioned. Now the problem is deciding whether to draft Warner and snatch Leinert up later in the draft as insurance. My league has a $30 Free agency budget and you can keep 2 players selected in Round 6 and below. I dont want 3 QBs but if I take Warner I might have to take Leinert for insurance and keeper potential

 

[Headbutts]

Would like to try this but one of my leagues has really funky rules. We have two QBs on our roster and play them both, but you can only have a QB on your bench if one of your two starters is on a bye or listed as OUT.

I still think I'm going to wait -- load up on RBs (play three) and WRs (play three) then grab a couple QBs in the 18-24 range.

Scoring is head-to-head by position, so your RBs against your opponents, etc. If I end up losing QBs each week I'm hoping to make it up with stronger RB and WR performances.

 

[Disco Stu]

Yes, I have tried it. 3 (or was it 4?) years ago, the Trent GReen / Matt Hasselbeck combo was a goldmine. The "tough" part is starting the right guy each week. But the strategy and the players suggested are usually very solid.

No offense intended, but have you ever gone back and compared the "recommended QB" and actual results, on a week by week basis, and then added up the results for weeks 1-16 of each season. I have and, even substituting the highest actual pts (of the other QBs) when the recommended QB was injured or did not play, the results were not good.I was puzzled because I thought the QBBC theory had a lot of merit (and the article was very well-written and compelling). So I tried to figure out why the results weren't better. My conclusions are summarized above, but the two major reasons are (1) I think SoS is trumped by player quality as a predictor of performance, and (2) you should always play your stud (or best player if you don't have a stud) regardless of SoS (unless you have 2 players who are close and then use SoS to decide).

My actual results were very good two years ago using Plummer and Delhomme. I came out of the auction with the second cheapest QB group in the league, but was in the top half of the league in QB starter points.I didn't do it last season, because I got Hasselbeck at a discount. But the recommended Brees/Ben combo would have given me more points than Hass did.It's a solid strategy that I hope to use again this year. One thing I'll say in judging its effectiveness is to not take the preseason recommended starter as gospel. Things change, and you obviously can better evaluate the matchups as the season progresses.

 

[Dickie Dunn]

The biggest problem I see this year is that a lot of the recommended QBs are playing against the Patriots, a defense I believe is ranked far too low according to the system.

I've had decent luck starting out with a QBBC (only 2 QBs allowed, as well) and at least getting one that outperforms his projections.

 

[Charley]

Yes, I have tried it. 3 (or was it 4?) years ago, the Trent GReen / Matt Hasselbeck combo was a goldmine. The "tough" part is starting the right guy each week. But the strategy and the players suggested are usually very solid.

No offense intended, but have you ever gone back and compared the "recommended QB" and actual results, on a week by week basis, and then added up the results for weeks 1-16 of each season. I have and, even substituting the highest actual pts (of the other QBs) when the recommended QB was injured or did not play, the results were not good.I was puzzled because I thought the QBBC theory had a lot of merit (and the article was very well-written and compelling). So I tried to figure out why the results weren't better. My conclusions are summarized above, but the two major reasons are (1) I think SoS is trumped by player quality as a predictor of performance, and (2) you should always play your stud (or best player if you don't have a stud) regardless of SoS (unless you have 2 players who are close and then use SoS to decide).

My actual results were very good two years ago using Plummer and Delhomme. I came out of the auction with the second cheapest QB group in the league, but was in the top half of the league in QB starter points.I didn't do it last season, because I got Hasselbeck at a discount. But the recommended Brees/Ben combo would have given me more points than Hass did.

It's a solid strategy that I hope to use again this year. One thing I'll say in judging its effectiveness is to not take the preseason recommended starter as gospel. Things change, and you obviously can better evaluate the matchups as the season progresses.

Last year, Hasselbeck's ADP was 67, and he was QB10 off the board, on average. Sounds like he fell significantly below his ADP, and you got a bargain and great value at QB in your draft. Over the 2005 season, Hasselbeck played all 16 games and posted 278 pts using FBG's scoring system.The recommended QBBC combination was Brees/Carr/Roethlisberger with ADPs 90, 107 and 126, respectively. Brees was QB14 according to ADP, Carr was QB17, and Ben was QB22. Brees finished the season with 271 pts (QB7), Carr had 206 pts (QB18), and Ben posted 203 pts (QB19).

The actual recommendation was to play Brees in games [3,6,8,13,15,16], play Carr in games [4,5,7,10,11,14], and play Ben in games [1,2,9,12]. This was according to SoS match-ups and is a key part of the QBBC system (if I understand the method correctly). Using the recommended QB, you would have had a total of 221 pts in weeks 1-16 (237 pts including substitution of the highest actual pts of the other QBs if the recommended QB was hurt or did not play).

Since Brees had an excellent year, an owner would have done much better just playing him all year. But even so, Brees still wouldn't have posted as many pts., compared to playing your starter, Hasselbeck, every game.

Perhaps I'm confused, but I didn't think the QBBC approach was to pick 3 mid-level QBs with the best complementary schedules by SoS, and then wait to see if one of them got hot, and then play them for the rest of the year (which I think is the preferred strategy and is equivalent to the "always play your studs" maxim).

Rather, the emphasis in the QBBC article is always on the SoS analysis and playing match-ups based on which QB of the combo is facing the easiest defense -- and this approach is the one that does not appear to produce good results. Whereas waiting late to draft 3 mid-level QBs and then playing whichever best-performing QB emerges over the season is a good "cost-effective" strategy.

In fact, I'd take it one step further and try to draft a very late-round "flyer" as a 4th QB -- someone like A. Smith -- longshots that sometimes pay off handsomely, especially if a QB on a good offensive team goes down in late preseason. In 1999, I drafted an unknown named Kurt Warner with the last pick in my main draft because Trent Green had just blown out his knee and the STL offense looked good -- I didn't have the guts to start him until week 4, but he was my QB for the rest of the season (although I had drafted 3 other decent mid-level QBs) -- I kept starting him and keeping my fingers crossed, even though other QBs I had on the roster had much better match-ups -- anyway, he finished as QB1 overall. (Disclaimer - I do this every year in 3 drafts and I've never gotten another great starter out of it, but it's a longshot play.)

Basically, I guess what I'm advocating is that if you draft 3 or 4 QBs (by whatever method) and one starts off the season strong, then ride him and forget about playing match-ups based on SoS. If he fades and another QB emerges as the best performer, then switch and ride him as long as possible. Player quality trumps SoS match-ups, IMO.

I apologize in advance if I have misinterpreted any aspect of the QBBC approach. I'm very willing to stand corrected.

 

[mojorizin]

I typically use a QBBC with mid range QBs, but for a way different reason. Honestly, I think playing low-middling QBs against lousy competition is a recipe for failure. Its pretty much a guarantee with guys in games like that that its nip and tuck with a ton of three and outs or its over before the third quarter and you are looking at a statline of 180 yards, 1TD, 1INT. No thanks. Even worse if his team plays good defense.

What I am looking for is a guy, preferably a gunslinger, that plays on a team with a good offense, not much defense, thats going to be involved in a good number of shootouts. I want him involved and throwing the ball downfield to the final whistle. In a high performance league, the difference could be 100 yards, a chance to break 300, and another garbage TD. Thats a difference of 20+ points in my leagues. Garbage time is money time in fantasy football, baby.

I won't be cobbling together chumps and hoping they and their questionable teams actually does something against Houston or Tennessee. It looks tempting, but the chances of them having huge games against lousy teams is pretty remote IMO. I'm not that much a geek to go break it all down, but I have success playing these guys against the Denvers, KCs, STL, Seattles, Cincy's of the world. I dont want them playing the toughest D in the league, but I want them playing against teams that can score at will and hopefully beat their team leaving my guy tossing the ball all day. An INT or two doesnt hurt when he's scored an extra 15 points for me.

I ALWAYS target guys that I rank around QB9 - QB16 and typically take them as close to back to back as possible. I want to be at the end of the 1st QB run and at the start of the 2nd run.

If I can get two of the following between Rounds 8 and 11: Warner, Green, Plummer, Brees, Johnson, Vick (I get a point per QB carry)Favre, McNair......I will be a happy sonuvagun.

 

[Dentist]

I went with the QBBC this year in both of my leagues.. couldn't get the optimum Warner/brooks/rivers

But did get the secondary choice of favre brooks rivers.

And of course everyone else lambasted me for taking QBs after others had not only had their starter, but their backup.

 

[djcolts]

From what I've seen so far in drafts - Warner goes too high in drafts to wait too long - but Favre, Brooks and Rivers or Leftwich is gettable after about 12 to 14 QBs are already taken.

 

[Warpig]

My favorites this year:Top-10 ADP - Culpepper (by far), VickQB11-18 - Favre (for consistency), Brooks (for upside), Brees, McNairQB19+ - Rivers (for upside), Simms (for consistency)And with this approach, you don't look to SoS to determine who to start each week. You play your stud (unless he gets hurt or your 2nd QB outperforms your QB1). I believe the expected value of pts with this approach is significantly higher than the QBBC approach.

Awesome! I will be utilizing this QBBC approach this year and my 3 qb's are all mentioned in your list!Culpepper, Vick, and Brooks. In my league all rush/rec TD's are 7 points so I figured I'd grab as many scrambling qb's that I could steal. I guess ideally, I should have picked up McNair since I think he will resort to his old habits and vulture TD's from Lewis. But I like Brooks' upside and Vick, though not a very good NFL qb, is a top 5 talent in fantasy almost every year.

 

[Winning IS Everything]

I went with the QBBC this year in both of my leagues.. couldn't get the optimum Warner/brooks/riversBut did get the secondary choice of favre brooks rivers.And of course everyone else lambasted me for taking QBs after others had not only had their starter, but their backup.

I was similar, I got Favre, Brooks, Leftwich........

 

[jpwest]

In my league all rush/rec TD's are 7 points so I figured I'd grab as many scrambling qb's that I could steal. I guess ideally, I should have picked up McNair since I think he will resort to his old habits and vulture TD's from Lewis. But I like Brooks' upside and Vick, though not a very good NFL qb, is a top 5 talent in fantasy almost every year.

I never thought I would be thinking this way 8 hours before draft time, but Vick is starting to stand out in my rankings. He's the 11th QB in ADP (9.05), but ranked #2 in my scoring system (#25 overall) per DD. If he hangs around until round 7 or 8, I will have to seriously consider him.

 

[Warpig]

In my league all rush/rec TD's are 7 points so I figured I'd grab as many scrambling qb's that I could steal. I guess ideally, I should have picked up McNair since I think he will resort to his old habits and vulture TD's from Lewis. But I like Brooks' upside and Vick, though not a very good NFL qb, is a top 5 talent in fantasy almost every year.

I never thought I would be thinking this way 8 hours before draft time, but Vick is starting to stand out in my rankings. He's the 11th QB in ADP (9.05), but ranked #2 in my scoring system (#25 overall) per DD. If he hangs around until round 7 or 8, I will have to seriously consider him.

I think Vick's time as far as being over-rated is done. He went for $24 two years ago (when our cap was only $50!), and last year he went for something in the teens. To show how far he's dropped, I got him this year for $6 ($100 cap)! I think he will be even greater value this year since I foresee him taking ALOT of goalline TD's now that Duckett is gone. Normally I would never have drafted him, but the stats don't lie!

 

[da_budman]

In my league all rush/rec TD's are 7 points so I figured I'd grab as many scrambling qb's that I could steal. I guess ideally, I should have picked up McNair since I think he will resort to his old habits and vulture TD's from Lewis. But I like Brooks' upside and Vick, though not a very good NFL qb, is a top 5 talent in fantasy almost every year.

I never thought I would be thinking this way 8 hours before draft time, but Vick is starting to stand out in my rankings. He's the 11th QB in ADP (9.05), but ranked #2 in my scoring system (#25 overall) per DD. If he hangs around until round 7 or 8, I will have to seriously consider him.

I have used qbbc now for several years...with mostly positive results.... yws it can be frustrating playing the wrong qb and watching the other one blow up but the challenge of getting it right is what i like....

there are SEVERAL advantages of DRAFTING qbbc.....

1. the goal of getting an above average qb without having to pay the price for him meanwhile loading up on rb's (i almost always have 4 starting rb's in my first 6 picks)

2.if you have to draft 3 qb's in your league like i do you have 3 chances for a breakout qb... the guy who drafts the mid range qb's say ranked 6-10likely banking on them as starters and do not have a bachup worth starting over them if they turn out to be a bust ( I know im generalizing but its my theory and im entitled to it)

3. injuries..... I know manning is a stud and doesnt get hurt....but it could happen and he IS the exception ...QB's get hurt...its a given... anybody remember when bulger went down last year? in my league that sunk the owner with bukger.... with qbbc your qb's dont have such a steep dropoff in production and it will not devastate your team to lose one ( this goes for your stable of 's you should have by going qbbc )

4 one COULD and usually DOES break out..... the beauty of qbbc is that it doesnt even have to work as prescribed to benefit you.... last year it was hasslebeck...the year before jake plummer..... usually one of my qb's seems to distance himself from the pack and becomes my starter.....all for the price of 3 picks from rounds 8-12 or so. so in rounds 8-12 while others are picking speculative rb's and wr's and te's that are a dime a dozen you are snagging starting qb's

so putting my money where my mouth is here is how my draft turned out from the 10 position:

ronnie brown

torry holt

warrick dunn

donald driver

reuben droughns

kevan barlow

lee evans

donte stallworth

brett favre

aaron brooks

jerry porter

tb defense

miami defense

ben watson

phillip rivers

matt stover

gostkowski

i will be following this all year and if it doesnt work out? its still fun to me...and isnt that what ff is all about? nice article chase !!!!

 

[Leo2228]

Yes, I have tried it. 3 (or was it 4?) years ago, the Trent GReen / Matt Hasselbeck combo was a goldmine. The "tough" part is starting the right guy each week. But the strategy and the players suggested are usually very solid.

I have Favre and River so i guess am going to have to play the best matchup every weekwe still have these guys on wwCollins, KerryCarr, DavidJohnson, BradHolcomb, KellyGriese, BrianFrye, CharlieVolek, Billy

 

[-OZ-]

I'm doing it this year with 2. Ben and Warner. Not sure how it will work out, but it will be interesting.

 

[Leo2228]

In my league all rush/rec TD's are 7 points so I figured I'd grab as many scrambling qb's that I could steal. I guess ideally, I should have picked up McNair since I think he will resort to his old habits and vulture TD's from Lewis. But I like Brooks' upside and Vick, though not a very good NFL qb, is a top 5 talent in fantasy almost every year.

I never thought I would be thinking this way 8 hours before draft time, but Vick is starting to stand out in my rankings. He's the 11th QB in ADP (9.05), but ranked #2 in my scoring system (#25 overall) per DD. If he hangs around until round 7 or 8, I will have to seriously consider him.

I have used qbbc now for several years...with mostly positive results.... yws it can be frustrating playing the wrong qb and watching the other one blow up but the challenge of getting it right is what i like....

there are SEVERAL advantages of DRAFTING qbbc.....

1. the goal of getting an above average qb without having to pay the price for him meanwhile loading up on rb's (i almost always have 4 starting rb's in my first 6 picks)

2.if you have to draft 3 qb's in your league like i do you have 3 chances for a breakout qb... the guy who drafts the mid range qb's say ranked 6-10likely banking on them as starters and do not have a bachup worth starting over them if they turn out to be a bust ( I know im generalizing but its my theory and im entitled to it)

3. injuries..... I know manning is a stud and doesnt get hurt....but it could happen and he IS the exception ...QB's get hurt...its a given... anybody remember when bulger went down last year? in my league that sunk the owner with bukger.... with qbbc your qb's dont have such a steep dropoff in production and it will not devastate your team to lose one ( this goes for your stable of 's you should have by going qbbc )

4 one COULD and usually DOES break out..... the beauty of qbbc is that it doesnt even have to work as prescribed to benefit you.... last year it was hasslebeck...the year before jake plummer..... usually one of my qb's seems to distance himself from the pack and becomes my starter.....all for the price of 3 picks from rounds 8-12 or so. so in rounds 8-12 while others are picking speculative rb's and wr's and te's that are a dime a dozen you are snagging starting qb's

so putting my money where my mouth is here is how my draft turned out from the 10 position:

ronnie brown

torry holt

warrick dunn

donald driver

reuben droughns

kevan barlow

lee evans

donte stallworth

brett favre

aaron brooks

jerry porter

tb defense

miami defense

ben watson

phillip rivers

matt stover

gostkowski

i will be following this all year and if it doesnt work out? its still fun to me...and isnt that what ff is all about? nice article chase !!!!

So who your starter favre ,brooks or rivers or are you just going to play machup

 

[Disco Stu]

My actual results were very good two years ago using Plummer and Delhomme. I came out of the auction with the second cheapest QB group in the league, but was in the top half of the league in QB starter points.

I didn't do it last season, because I got Hasselbeck at a discount. But the recommended Brees/Ben combo would have given me more points than Hass did.

It's a solid strategy that I hope to use again this year. One thing I'll say in judging its effectiveness is to not take the preseason recommended starter as gospel. Things change, and you obviously can better evaluate the matchups as the season progresses.

Last year, Hasselbeck's ADP was 67, and he was QB10 off the board, on average. Sounds like he fell significantly below his ADP, and you got a bargain and great value at QB in your draft. Over the 2005 season, Hasselbeck played all 16 games and posted 278 pts using FBG's scoring system.The recommended QBBC combination was Brees/Carr/Roethlisberger with ADPs 90, 107 and 126, respectively. Brees was QB14 according to ADP, Carr was QB17, and Ben was QB22. Brees finished the season with 271 pts (QB7), Carr had 206 pts (QB18), and Ben posted 203 pts (QB19).

The actual recommendation was to play Brees in games [3,6,8,13,15,16], play Carr in games [4,5,7,10,11,14], and play Ben in games [1,2,9,12]. This was according to SoS match-ups and is a key part of the QBBC system (if I understand the method correctly). Using the recommended QB, you would have had a total of 221 pts in weeks 1-16 (237 pts including substitution of the highest actual pts of the other QBs if the recommended QB was hurt or did not play).

Since Brees had an excellent year, an owner would have done much better just playing him all year. But even so, Brees still wouldn't have posted as many pts., compared to playing your starter, Hasselbeck, every game.

Perhaps I'm confused, but I didn't think the QBBC approach was to pick 3 mid-level QBs with the best complementary schedules by SoS, and then wait to see if one of them got hot, and then play them for the rest of the year (which I think is the preferred strategy and is equivalent to the "always play your studs" maxim).

Rather, the emphasis in the QBBC article is always on the SoS analysis and playing match-ups based on which QB of the combo is facing the easiest defense -- and this approach is the one that does not appear to produce good results. Whereas waiting late to draft 3 mid-level QBs and then playing whichever best-performing QB emerges over the season is a good "cost-effective" strategy.

Like I said, you can't take the preseason recommended starter as gospel. Last season it became quickly obvious that Carr wasn't going to keep pace with Brees and Ben. Therefore, I feel it's safe to assume that he would only be used in an emergency, thus shortening the original QBBC to basically a two man rotation.Using QBBC doesn't mean that you can't make weekly lineup decisions. Just because Chase said in August that Philip Rivers should be my starter in week 10, don't think that's what I'm forced to do.

 

[jpeeters]

I went with the QBBC this year in both of my leagues.. couldn't get the optimum Warner/brooks/riversBut did get the secondary choice of favre brooks rivers.And of course everyone else lambasted me for taking QBs after others had not only had their starter, but their backup.

I'm on board with the same same Brooks-Favre-Rivers combo myself in my keeper league. Got Favre in a pre-draft trade for almost nothing, then grabbed Brooks and Rivers even as my league mates were watching the Raiders game on NFL Network and laughing about how bad he is. Warner was there, but I was concerned with injuries/Leinart, and I'm a huge Warner mark too.This is my first time trying it, I know it'll give me ulcers to run it, but I'll be interested to see how it works out. I like the theory, I just hope my stomach can handle it.

 

[Dentist]

From what I've seen so far in drafts - Warner goes too high in drafts to wait too long - but Favre, Brooks and Rivers or Leftwich is gettable after about 12 to 14 QBs are already taken.

That's precisely what happened to me

 

[Dentist]

In my league all rush/rec TD's are 7 points so I figured I'd grab as many scrambling qb's that I could steal. I guess ideally, I should have picked up McNair since I think he will resort to his old habits and vulture TD's from Lewis. But I like Brooks' upside and Vick, though not a very good NFL qb, is a top 5 talent in fantasy almost every year.

I never thought I would be thinking this way 8 hours before draft time, but Vick is starting to stand out in my rankings. He's the 11th QB in ADP (9.05), but ranked #2 in my scoring system (#25 overall) per DD. If he hangs around until round 7 or 8, I will have to seriously consider him.

I have used qbbc now for several years...with mostly positive results.... yws it can be frustrating playing the wrong qb and watching the other one blow up but the challenge of getting it right is what i like....

there are SEVERAL advantages of DRAFTING qbbc.....

1. the goal of getting an above average qb without having to pay the price for him meanwhile loading up on rb's (i almost always have 4 starting rb's in my first 6 picks)

2.if you have to draft 3 qb's in your league like i do you have 3 chances for a breakout qb... the guy who drafts the mid range qb's say ranked 6-10likely banking on them as starters and do not have a bachup worth starting over them if they turn out to be a bust ( I know im generalizing but its my theory and im entitled to it)

3. injuries..... I know manning is a stud and doesnt get hurt....but it could happen and he IS the exception ...QB's get hurt...its a given... anybody remember when bulger went down last year? in my league that sunk the owner with bukger.... with qbbc your qb's dont have such a steep dropoff in production and it will not devastate your team to lose one ( this goes for your stable of 's you should have by going qbbc )

4 one COULD and usually DOES break out..... the beauty of qbbc is that it doesnt even have to work as prescribed to benefit you.... last year it was hasslebeck...the year before jake plummer..... usually one of my qb's seems to distance himself from the pack and becomes my starter.....all for the price of 3 picks from rounds 8-12 or so. so in rounds 8-12 while others are picking speculative rb's and wr's and te's that are a dime a dozen you are snagging starting qb's

so putting my money where my mouth is here is how my draft turned out from the 10 position:

ronnie brown

torry holt

warrick dunn

donald driver

reuben droughns

kevan barlow

lee evans

donte stallworth

brett favre

aaron brooks

jerry porter

tb defense

miami defense

ben watson

phillip rivers

matt stover

gostkowski

i will be following this all year and if it doesnt work out? its still fun to me...and isnt that what ff is all about? nice article chase !!!!

good posting about all the advantages.Very solid

our teams are quite similar

 

[jeremyx13]

Several good points already made. Let me just add that my main problem is not the theory - in general I am a very late QB drafter to get best value and to make sure the rest of my team is very good, but in the QBBC articles, the SOS is based on LAST year's numbers. Some of the defenses have made improvements. others had injuries last year that people don't recall and thereby don't give them any credit for "improving" with essentially the same players.Having a QBBC also requires the right "guess" each week on who to start - and you will drive yourself crazy with the woulda, coulda shouldasI did follow Chase's guidelines in one year but the QBBC was essentially blown up by Brees having such a good year that the rest of the committee sat. BUT again I do love his work on this and the DS by committee and the articles - I just don't think they "play" as well as they read.

I agree with the idea of having to "guess" each week who to start will drive you crazy. I have found that if you take two 11-18 range QB's who have upside, one of the two will perform higher than expected and you can play him out for most of the season. If you feel that you just "MUST" play SOS for those few games where the other QB is playing Cleveland or Detroit then by all means do it. But, by relying on just two QB's who have QB1 potential, you can stockpile an extra RB or WR with sleeper potential. For example, would you have rather had Chris Simms on your bench for most of the year last season or have stashed on your bench S. Gado? All this really does is give you one more shot at hitting the "FWP" type of guy which can be the difference between 3rd or 4th in your league to being the "CHAMPION". Just my opinion.

 

[GDogg]

I ended up going with the QBBC recommended by Chase Stuart. Because we have limited roster spots in my league (15 total), I could only grab the QBBC pair. Pair #1 was not an option, so I went with pair #2, Favre and Rivers.

My question here is who was Stuart recommending in Week 1? My guess is that it is Rivers (Oakland D), but all of the projections have Favre outproducing Rivers (slightly). So, if I were so inclined (and I have 99.9% made up my mind on who I am going with) to follow Stuart's strategy to a T, who was the recommended start this week to achieve those max points that got this pair to be #2?

My league penalizes for INT's, so Rivers is pretty much my guy here, but I was curious as to what Stuart's model suggests.

Thanks in advance!

 

[PsychoMan]

i grabbed aaron brooks in the 9th ... then picked up brunell and kitna very late. after looking at their schedules, it looks like i've got great matchups all season long. the one terrible matchup is when 2 of them have byes and the other has pittsburg :(

 

[wolfie]

I ended up going with the QBBC recommended by Chase Stuart. Because we have limited roster spots in my league (15 total), I could only grab the QBBC pair. Pair #1 was not an option, so I went with pair #2, Favre and Rivers.My question here is who was Stuart recommending in Week 1? My guess is that it is Rivers (Oakland D), but all of the projections have Favre outproducing Rivers (slightly). So, if I were so inclined (and I have 99.9% made up my mind on who I am going with) to follow Stuart's strategy to a T, who was the recommended start this week to achieve those max points that got this pair to be #2?My league penalizes for INT's, so Rivers is pretty much my guy here, but I was curious as to what Stuart's model suggests.Thanks in advance!

Followed Stuart's model, too. 14 team league, auction, got Favre & Rivers, cheapest qb combo in the league. I am thinking he meant Rivers, who I am inclined to start. But I am getting the itch to go Favre at Lambeau, he's got to play better than last year, home openner and all. I think I need a magic eightball, if it's going to be like all year.

 

[The Redbeard]

Have used the QBBC for years - mainly because in a 3RB, 3WR league I can never seem to find the value in taking a QB earlier than the 8th round. Won it all with Plummer/Brees last year. Crashed and burned with the same two guys the year before. Can it be maddening when your #2 QB goes off and your #1 gets you negative 2? Absolutely. But, I enjoy crunching the numbers and arguing the pros and cons of each QB's match-up with my co-owner, so it is part of the fun for me.

Had never had a plan of which QB's to take late until Stuart's article. Was able to get Warner in the 11th, Farve in the 12th and then Rivers in the 15th. IT is his top ranked group of 3.

It could all crash and burn, but when I look at my potential matchups for the year. . .

 

[Joe Kidd]

I ended up going with the QBBC recommended by Chase Stuart. Because we have limited roster spots in my league (15 total), I could only grab the QBBC pair. Pair #1 was not an option, so I went with pair #2, Favre and Rivers.My question here is who was Stuart recommending in Week 1? My guess is that it is Rivers (Oakland D), but all of the projections have Favre outproducing Rivers (slightly). So, if I were so inclined (and I have 99.9% made up my mind on who I am going with) to follow Stuart's strategy to a T, who was the recommended start this week to achieve those max points that got this pair to be #2?My league penalizes for INT's, so Rivers is pretty much my guy here, but I was curious as to what Stuart's model suggests.Thanks in advance!

Followed Stuart's model, too. 14 team league, auction, got Favre & Rivers, cheapest qb combo in the league. I am thinking he meant Rivers, who I am inclined to start. But I am getting the itch to go Favre at Lambeau, he's got to play better than last year, home openner and all. I think I need a magic eightball, if it's going to be like all year.

Go back to the QBBC article and start the QB who is facing the weakest defense. Little hint: In a QBBC you should never start one of your QB's against the Bears this year.

 

[bonesman]

I ended up going with the QBBC recommended by Chase Stuart. Because we have limited roster spots in my league (15 total), I could only grab the QBBC pair. Pair #1 was not an option, so I went with pair #2, Favre and Rivers.My question here is who was Stuart recommending in Week 1? My guess is that it is Rivers (Oakland D), but all of the projections have Favre outproducing Rivers (slightly). So, if I were so inclined (and I have 99.9% made up my mind on who I am going with) to follow Stuart's strategy to a T, who was the recommended start this week to achieve those max points that got this pair to be #2?My league penalizes for INT's, so Rivers is pretty much my guy here, but I was curious as to what Stuart's model suggests.Thanks in advance!

Followed Stuart's model, too. 14 team league, auction, got Favre & Rivers, cheapest qb combo in the league. I am thinking he meant Rivers, who I am inclined to start. But I am getting the itch to go Favre at Lambeau, he's got to play better than last year, home openner and all. I think I need a magic eightball, if it's going to be like all year.

i'm aboard the Favre/Rivers QBBC bandwagon too*choo choo* !i can't wait to see Rivers in action Monday night... i didn't know much about him when i drafted him... but after doing a bit of research since... i'm VERY pleased w/ this pick.... he's got everything in his favor, he just needs to step up and "Carpe Diem" (sp?)