QB Matchup Grid (Streamers, QBBC) (1 Viewer)

[WilsonTheVolleyball]

Some weeks ago, I became heavily interested in the idea of streaming quarterbacks. I wanted to see for myself if this was a solid strategy, so I conducted the usual experiment of playing quarterbacks by their 2012 matchups to see for myself how I would've done. While this is certainly nothing new to fantasy, I was shocked to see the numbers were as good as they were. Last year, I drafted Drew Brees in the early second round, and while Drew was last year's best fantasy quarterback, I was shocked to see how I would've had nearly similar production with quite a few different pairings of unsexy quarterbacks. I also realized that I would've gained a much better player at another skill position that I obviously then missed out on.

As I said, this is nothing new to fantasy. But it's new to me in the sense that I'm convinced this is the way to go, especially with this year being so quarterback deep as it seems.

So with that said, here's my chart for all 32 starting quarterbacks along with their weekly matchups. The worst 5 passing defenses are highlighted green, hence a must start. The best 5 passing defenses are highlighted red, hence a must avoid (unless you have an absolute stud.) This is been done time and again so I'm not trying to push this as being new, but rather it seems to me anyways that it's hard to find, so I just made one myself:

http://imageshack.us/a/img404/986/2013qbgrid.jpg

Sorry if the image is a bit out of wack. My computer is junk. Anyways, let me first state that while the NFL draft hasn't happened yet, we can assume at this point in the juncture that NFL defensive personal won't change dramatically overnight. Sure, teams will pick up a new cornerback or pass rusher, but the impact of these new players, for the most part, will be minimal with regards to fantasy quarterback production.

Secondly, some teams like the Seahawks, just narrowly missed being one of the top 5. Arizona's passing defense was a mere yard-per-game better than Seattle at defending the pass last year. We can assume Seattle will take that spot and Arizona will fall back with Horton's departure, but that's all it will be: an assumption. I personally feel that until I see it on the field with our own eyes, then I have to assume the Cardinals will still have a great passing defense.

Likewise, a team like the Titans were horrid on defense last year and may actually be worse this year. I feel that turnover at the bottom is more frequent than turnover at the top. The Saints are going to a new defensive scheme, and while they still may be bad, you would have to assume they can't get much worse, the Buccaneers may end up with Revis, etc. But as with Arizona, until I see it on the field, I have to assume at this time that they are still just as bad as last year.

I'm posting this for a number of reasons, but the main reason to gain input to help improve my chances of landing a winning team. If anyone catches any mistakes I've made here, please don't hesitate to inform me of them. Just as well, I would imagine that maybe someone else out there is interested in this method or is a long-time streamer / QBBC player. So if other people would like to discuss this or use this, great!

My main thoughts from what I've seen here...

Best matchups:
Cam Newton – 6 green; 3 red
Matt Ryan – 6 green; 3 red
Tony Romo – 5 green; 1 red
Michael Vick – 5 green; 2 red
Peyton Manning – 3 green; 0 red

Worst matchups:
Jake Locker - 0 green; 5 red
Blaine Gabbert - 0 green; 3 red
Joe Flacco – 1 green; 4 red
Tom Brady – 2 green; 4 red
Matt Flynn – 2 green; 4 red
Sam Bradford – 2 green; 4 red

From counting the sheer number of green games to red games, Peyton Manning looks to be in for another great fantasy season, especially with Welker in his group. While Manning only has 3 green games, he doesn't have a single red game.

Michael Vick's schedule makes it appear that he's in for a huge bounce back year. There's mega sleeper potential here if he fits Kelly's offense.

One pairing that immediately jumps out to me is Tony Romo and Michael Vick. If you stream these two, you're looking at 8 green games and 0 red. Unfortunately, Romo also offers you a green game against the Redskins in week 16. A Matt Ryan / Michael Vick pairing is also interesting with a whopping 9 green games and 0 red. Ryan has a green game in week 15 against the Redskins, but plays San Fran week 16. The good news to this is that game is at least in Philadelphia.

No one needs to say this, but stay away from Gabbert and Sanchez. Jake Locker has the most red games with 5. I'd stay away.

Brady suddenly jumps out to me as a potential question mark. No more Welker, Gronk and Aaron issues, and still no true deep threat with 4 red games. By no means would I stay away from Brady, but I'm not sure he's a top 3 QB given the circumstances. I'd rather have Manning.

A trio that can likely be had dirt cheap is Cutler, Freeman, and Tannehill. If streamed, this trio offers 9 green games and zero red. In fact, Cutler has a 3 green game stretch from weeks 5-7. It's something of note that could really help a lot of QBBC establish themselves by the middle of the season.

Anyone have any thoughts? Input? I plan on doing two more for myself with respect to tight end and team defenses. If people are genuinely interested, I can post those when they're done.

 

[donkshow]

Great post, thanks for this.

And I'd definitely be interested in a DST grid.

 

[matttyl]

Thanks for posting this! Of course now you have me thinking about starting Vick over Rodgers in the season opener!

Also, any chance you'll redo this now that Revis is a Buc, and likely not a bottom 5 pass defense?

 

[greggorymac]

Some weeks ago, I became heavily interested in the idea of streaming quarterbacks. I wanted to see for myself if this was a solid strategy, so I conducted the usual experiment of playing quarterbacks by their 2012 matchups to see for myself how I would've done. While this is certainly nothing new to fantasy, I was shocked to see the numbers were as good as they were. Last year, I drafted Drew Brees in the early second round, and while Drew was last year's best fantasy quarterback, I was shocked to see how I would've had nearly similar production with quite a few different pairings of unsexy quarterbacks. I also realized that I would've gained a much better player at another skill position that I obviously then missed out on.

As I said, this is nothing new to fantasy. But it's new to me in the sense that I'm convinced this is the way to go, especially with this year being so quarterback deep as it seems.

So with that said, here's my chart for all 32 starting quarterbacks along with their weekly matchups. The worst 5 passing defenses are highlighted green, hence a must start. The best 5 passing defenses are highlighted red, hence a must avoid (unless you have an absolute stud.) This is been done time and again so I'm not trying to push this as being new, but rather it seems to me anyways that it's hard to find, so I just made one myself:

http://imageshack.us/a/img404/986/2013qbgrid.jpg

Sorry if the image is a bit out of wack. My computer is junk. Anyways, let me first state that while the NFL draft hasn't happened yet, we can assume at this point in the juncture that NFL defensive personal won't change dramatically overnight. Sure, teams will pick up a new cornerback or pass rusher, but the impact of these new players, for the most part, will be minimal with regards to fantasy quarterback production.

Secondly, some teams like the Seahawks, just narrowly missed being one of the top 5. Arizona's passing defense was a mere yard-per-game better than Seattle at defending the pass last year. We can assume Seattle will take that spot and Arizona will fall back with Horton's departure, but that's all it will be: an assumption. I personally feel that until I see it on the field with our own eyes, then I have to assume the Cardinals will still have a great passing defense.

Likewise, a team like the Titans were horrid on defense last year and may actually be worse this year. I feel that turnover at the bottom is more frequent than turnover at the top. The Saints are going to a new defensive scheme, and while they still may be bad, you would have to assume they can't get much worse, the Buccaneers may end up with Revis, etc. But as with Arizona, until I see it on the field, I have to assume at this time that they are still just as bad as last year.

I'm posting this for a number of reasons, but the main reason to gain input to help improve my chances of landing a winning team. If anyone catches any mistakes I've made here, please don't hesitate to inform me of them. Just as well, I would imagine that maybe someone else out there is interested in this method or is a long-time streamer / QBBC player. So if other people would like to discuss this or use this, great!

My main thoughts from what I've seen here...

Best matchups:

Cam Newton – 6 green; 3 red

Matt Ryan – 6 green; 3 red

Tony Romo – 5 green; 1 red

Michael Vick – 5 green; 2 red

Peyton Manning – 3 green; 0 red

Worst matchups:

Jake Locker - 0 green; 5 red

Blaine Gabbert - 0 green; 3 red

Joe Flacco – 1 green; 4 red

Tom Brady – 2 green; 4 red

Matt Flynn – 2 green; 4 red

Sam Bradford – 2 green; 4 red

From counting the sheer number of green games to red games, Peyton Manning looks to be in for another great fantasy season, especially with Welker in his group. While Manning only has 3 green games, he doesn't have a single red game.

Michael Vick's schedule makes it appear that he's in for a huge bounce back year. There's mega sleeper potential here if he fits Kelly's offense.

One pairing that immediately jumps out to me is Tony Romo and Michael Vick. If you stream these two, you're looking at 8 green games and 0 red. Unfortunately, Romo also offers you a green game against the Redskins in week 16. A Matt Ryan / Michael Vick pairing is also interesting with a whopping 9 green games and 0 red. Ryan has a green game in week 15 against the Redskins, but plays San Fran week 16. The good news to this is that game is at least in Philadelphia.

No one needs to say this, but stay away from Gabbert and Sanchez. Jake Locker has the most red games with 5. I'd stay away.

Brady suddenly jumps out to me as a potential question mark. No more Welker, Gronk and Aaron issues, and still no true deep threat with 4 red games. By no means would I stay away from Brady, but I'm not sure he's a top 3 QB given the circumstances. I'd rather have Manning.

A trio that can likely be had dirt cheap is Cutler, Freeman, and Tannehill. If streamed, this trio offers 9 green games and zero red. In fact, Cutler has a 3 green game stretch from weeks 5-7. It's something of note that could really help a lot of QBBC establish themselves by the middle of the season.

Anyone have any thoughts? Input? I plan on doing two more for myself with respect to tight end and team defenses. If people are genuinely interested, I can post those when they're done.

Could you summarize in a quick list which defenses you consider green match ups and which defenses you consider red? Also, does it matter whether the games are played home vs. away against these defenses?Thanks

 

[matttyl]

Also, any example of a "cheap QB pair or trio" that combined would have given you a top 5ish QB from last year?

 

[WilsonTheVolleyball]

Thanks for posting this! Of course now you have me thinking about starting Vick over Rodgers in the season opener!

Also, any chance you'll redo this now that Revis is a Buc, and likely not a bottom 5 pass defense?

Haha. I don't think I'd ever bench Rodgers. But hey, if this has you thinking about it, then I'm glad someone is finding this thread interesting.

Could you summarize in a quick list which defenses you consider green match ups and which defenses you consider red? Also, does it matter whether the games are played home vs. away against these defenses?

Thanks

Sure: Best 5 passing defenses from last season in terms of yards allowed per game:

Steelers

Jets

49ers

Broncos

Cardinals

Worst 5 passing defenses from last season in terms of yards allowed per game:

Buccaneers

Saints

Redskins

Patriots

Giants

The home / away game issue only comes into play (for me) if both or all QB's have a green or red matchup. If Manning or Brady both play Pittsburgh and San Fran repsectively, but Brady is at home, then I'd play Brady. If it's a neutral game, I'd typically start the guy with the higher ADP as he's bound to just be better overall, unless you have a real good gut feeling otherwise.

Also, any example of a "cheap QB pair or trio" that combined would have given you a top 5ish QB from last year?

Absolutely. I made a post some weeks ago in a simliar thread about QBBC from last season here: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=648528#entry15376014

To quickly answer your question, a Stafford / Luck duo would've netted you an amazing 330 on ESPN standard leagues, which is top 3 QB production. Understandbly Stafford was not a "cheap" pick last season, but this isn't about always getting a cheap pairing. It's about getting the right pairing.

If you want a cheap pairing form last season, a trio of Eli, Flacco, and Roethlisberger last year would've netted you a top 5 QB, as they would've scored 313 on ESPN standard leagues.

One thing of note is that this isn't suppose to gaurantee top 5 production. What it is designed to do is help maximize your weekly roster to ensure that you come away with more points at the position overall, and I'm becoming more and more convinced this might be a good method to approach positions that typically involve one roster spot (QB, TE, DST).

Since the interest seems to be there, I'll work on a D/ST grid sometime within the next day or so. Thanks for the replies.

EDIT: I'm a bit hesitant to take the Bucs green game status away. Remember, the Eagles have had the best secondary on paper for years now and there passing defense is pretty bad. If you persoanlly want to take away their green game status, by all means. I'm just in the feeling of until I see it on the field, I can't assume that they're that much better. Scheme goes hand in hand with talent.

 

[simsarge]

EDIT: I'm a bit hesitant to take the Bucs green game status away. Remember, the Eagles have had the best secondary on paper for years now and there passing defense is pretty bad. If you persoanlly want to take away their green game status, by all means. I'm just in the feeling of until I see it on the field, I can't assume that they're that much better. Scheme goes hand in hand with talent.

That said, since we're talking about how we're going to be drafting the position, (and I think you said something similar in your OP) don't we have to make a leap of faith as to wether a team's going to be good or bad based on "paper"? Unless we factor in the Preseason eye test.

 

[greggorymac]

How do you think the Revis trade will affect your Jet and Buccaneer defensive assumptions?

Could you summarize in a quick list which defenses you consider green match ups and which defenses you consider red? Also, does it matter whether the games are played home vs. away against these defenses? Thanks

Sure: Best 5 passing defenses from last season in terms of yards allowed per game:

Steelers

Jets

49ers

Broncos

Cardinals

Worst 5 passing defenses from last season in terms of yards allowed per game:

Buccaneers

Saints

Redskins

Patriots

Giants

The home / away game issue only comes into play (for me) if both or all QB's have a green or red matchup. If Manning or Brady both play Pittsburgh and San Fran repsectively, but Brady is at home, then I'd play Brady. If it's a neutral game, I'd typically start the guy with the higher ADP as he's bound to just be better overall, unless you have a real good gut feeling otherwise.

 

[kutta]

In theory, the idea makes sense. But here are some problems:

1. When you start talking about playing Stafford and Ryan and even Luck in a committee, that scares me. If you draft one of those guys this year, you are not drafting them with the intent of drafting another QB any time soon. Even if you draft them as the 7th or 8th QB off the board, you don't expect to take up another roster spot in the next couple rounds after drafting them with another QB.

2. If we knew ahead of time which teams were the good ones and which were the bad, we wouldn't even need to play out the season. You are underestimating (I believe) the change that takes place in defenses from year to year. Just because a team was bad one year doesn't mean they will be bad again. And we can't wait until the year starts to evaluate because we are talking about the draft, which takes place before the season.

3. There is an emotional element that for some reason we don't talk about much. It happens in two ways. First, if you draft two guys for a committee and one has an amazing first two games against green teams, it is going to be really hard to bench him for that third game against a red team. It's easy to say that you should, but you try pulling that trigger. Second, and conversely, if you play a guy against a green team and he lays an egg, you are going to be much more hesitant to start him in his next green game. So it boils down to, after a few weeks, you have a gut wrenching decision to make every game, and if you are wrong about it, you will kill yourself all week and do it all over again next week.

4. Similar to 3 above, there is something very soothing about drafting a Rogers, Brady, Brees, or Manning and knowing that for the rest of the draft you don't have to worry about QB. And all year, you know you only have one week to worry about filling that spot. Of course an injury may happen and you have to be prepared, but you are not wrestling with mediocre decisions every week at that position, and during the draft, you can scoop up lots of good guys in the mid-rounds while everyone else is drafting their second and third QB's.

Of course, it all comes down to preference, but I find that with the "sure things" that we have had lately at the top of the QB rankings, I'd usually rather hang my hat on one of those guys than worry about that position all year.

 

[WilsonTheVolleyball]

simsarge, on 23 Apr 2013 - 08:42, said:That said, since we're talking about how we're going to be drafting the position, (and I think you said something similar in your OP) don't we have to make a leap of faith as to wether a team's going to be good or bad based on "paper"? Unless we factor in the Preseason eye test.

greggorymac, on 23 Apr 2013 - 16:57, said:How do you think the Revis trade will affect your Jet and Buccaneer defensive assumptions?

It's a good question. And a tough one. I do believe the Bucs will improve. They almost have to. But by how much? Who knows. The Saints had an historically bad defense last year, but Tampa Bay's passing defense was even worse! Sure, they have no way to go but up, but how much of a bump would you suggest they should get? A co-worker and I were discussing the Bucs and I do agree that perhaps a leap of faith should be taken here and assume that they are no longer a bottom 5 passing defense. For what it's worth, the next worst passing defense that would be bumped down would be the Miami Dolphins.I am more confident in the Revis trade being a non-factor for the Jets than a factor for the Bucs. Remember, the Jets played 15 games without Revis last year and were still a top 5 passing defense. This trade doesn't change what they are.

QuoteIn theory, the idea makes sense. But here are some problems:1. When you start talking about playing Stafford and Ryan and even Luck in a committee, that scares me. If you draft one of those guys this year, you are not drafting them with the intent of drafting another QB any time soon. Even if you draft them as the 7th or 8th QB off the board, you don't expect to take up another roster spot in the next couple rounds after drafting them with another QB.

First off, thank you for proposing some great questions! This is the kind of skeptisim I am also looking for! In response to the bolded, I absolutely do plan to do that. If you're drafting the 7th or 8th best quarterback on the board, you're seriously just going to shrug your shoulders and accept the strong possibility of finishing with 7th or 8th production? You've let on that the quarterback class is so deep this year that you can probably draft a guy like Stafford or Ryan late, set it, and forget it. But if the class is clearly so close, then why wouldn't you want to get more of an advantage by stacking up on two or three of these guys and playing the matchups?Imagine you make it to your championship game in week 16 and you're QB's are Ryan and, oh, I dunno, Matt Schaub because you grabbed him on waivers the week Ryan was off because the Texans played the Rams at home. But if you did have Ryan and the Stafford, you'd be giddy to start Stafford since he is playing a home game against the Giants.

Quote2. If we knew ahead of time which teams were the good ones and which were the bad, we wouldn't even need to play out the season. You are underestimating (I believe) the change that takes place in defenses from year to year. Just because a team was bad one year doesn't mean they will be bad again. And we can't wait until the year starts to evaluate because we are talking about the draft, which takes place before the season.

This is honestly the trickiest part of this approach and I won't deny that. All I can say is that over the combined two seasons, the bottom 5 teams had 3 teams appear twice. Of the top 5 teams in the past two seasons, 2 have appeared twice. Sure, all because a team was bad one year doesn't mean they'll be bad the next, but how many of those bad teams will see drastic improvement? And let's assume that even -if- all 5 top and bottom defenses change this year, why wouldn't you want another great QB, or a trio of QB's, to cover the possibility of those guys playing the new green games? This isn't a crystal ball, but I think it greatly minimizes luck.If you're saying you want a "sure thing," week in and week out, then it sounds like you'll want to draft Brees or Rodgers then. (Or Peyton Manning since he doesn't have a single red game. )

 

[kutta]

And let's assume that even -if- all 5 top and bottom defenses change this year, why wouldn't you want another great QB, or a trio of QB's, to cover the possibility of those guys playing the new green games? This isn't a crystal ball, but I think it greatly minimizes luck.

Of course we would all want a trio of QB's to cover some bad games for our QB. But by doing that we are giving up strength at other positions. I think the QB position has so many solid contributors that it's not worth getting two or three guys in the mid-rounds when one will probably do. Heck, last year alone RG3, Luck, and Kap came on the scene, and all of those guys are starter quality in a 12 team league. Add them to Peyton, Brees, Rogers, Brady, Ryan, Romo, Newton, and Stafford and you have 11 very startable QB's going into next year.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

In theory, the idea makes sense. But here are some problems:

1. When you start talking about playing Stafford and Ryan and even Luck in a committee, that scares me. If you draft one of those guys this year, you are not drafting them with the intent of drafting another QB any time soon. Even if you draft them as the 7th or 8th QB off the board, you don't expect to take up another roster spot in the next couple rounds after drafting them with another QB.

2. If we knew ahead of time which teams were the good ones and which were the bad, we wouldn't even need to play out the season. You are underestimating (I believe) the change that takes place in defenses from year to year. Just because a team was bad one year doesn't mean they will be bad again. And we can't wait until the year starts to evaluate because we are talking about the draft, which takes place before the season.

3. There is an emotional element that for some reason we don't talk about much. It happens in two ways. First, if you draft two guys for a committee and one has an amazing first two games against green teams, it is going to be really hard to bench him for that third game against a red team. It's easy to say that you should, but you try pulling that trigger. Second, and conversely, if you play a guy against a green team and he lays an egg, you are going to be much more hesitant to start him in his next green game. So it boils down to, after a few weeks, you have a gut wrenching decision to make every game, and if you are wrong about it, you will kill yourself all week and do it all over again next week.

4. Similar to 3 above, there is something very soothing about drafting a Rogers, Brady, Brees, or Manning and knowing that for the rest of the draft you don't have to worry about QB. And all year, you know you only have one week to worry about filling that spot. Of course an injury may happen and you have to be prepared, but you are not wrestling with mediocre decisions every week at that position, and during the draft, you can scoop up lots of good guys in the mid-rounds while everyone else is drafting their second and third QB's.

Of course, it all comes down to preference, but I find that with the "sure things" that we have had lately at the top of the QB rankings, I'd usually rather hang my hat on one of those guys than worry about that position all year.

Agree with all of this. Points 2 and 3 above are especially important.

As part of the PDSL draft, I did a quick run-through of past scoring numbers and found something that surprised me - for the past two years, several popular QBBC's (Eli/Flacco, Freeman/Dalton, etc.) typically failed to outscore Drew Brees, all by himself, even in a best-ball format! Which is, of course, exactly where you'd expect a QBBC to shine brightest. And I have to imagine that with the 2/3rds hit rate you might expect from "picking winners" in standard formats, you'd find yourself in a 6- to 8-point per week hole to the Brees owner on average over the course of the season. Maybe you can make that up with the better RB or WR you get at the 1.14 or 2.02 or whatever pick you're spending on Rodgers or Brees, but I personally doubt it.

Note that the math changes if you're in a 4-pt passing TD league. There, the dropoff from elite TD totals to average ones hurts you only 2/3rds as much, and makes the gap a lot easier to cover with a combination of a better RB/WR and judicious evaluation of matchups with your QBBC.

My opinion aside, thanks for your assessment and especially for the grid. Drafts all play out differently, and if I do find myself locked into a QBBC out of necessity, I'll definitely be using it as a reference.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Some weeks ago, I became heavily interested in the idea of streaming quarterbacks. I wanted to see for myself if this was a solid strategy, so I conducted the usual experiment of playing quarterbacks by their 2012 matchups to see for myself how I would've done. While this is certainly nothing new to fantasy, I was shocked to see the numbers were as good as they were. Last year, I drafted Drew Brees in the early second round, and while Drew was last year's best fantasy quarterback, I was shocked to see how I would've had nearly similar production with quite a few different pairings of unsexy quarterbacks. I also realized that I would've gained a much better player at another skill position that I obviously then missed out on.

As I said, this is nothing new to fantasy. But it's new to me in the sense that I'm convinced this is the way to go, especially with this year being so quarterback deep as it seems.

So with that said, here's my chart for all 32 starting quarterbacks along with their weekly matchups. The worst 5 passing defenses are highlighted green, hence a must start. The best 5 passing defenses are highlighted red, hence a must avoid (unless you have an absolute stud.) This is been done time and again so I'm not trying to push this as being new, but rather it seems to me anyways that it's hard to find, so I just made one myself:

http://imageshack.us/a/img404/986/2013qbgrid.jpg

Sorry if the image is a bit out of wack. My computer is junk. Anyways, let me first state that while the NFL draft hasn't happened yet, we can assume at this point in the juncture that NFL defensive personal won't change dramatically overnight. Sure, teams will pick up a new cornerback or pass rusher, but the impact of these new players, for the most part, will be minimal with regards to fantasy quarterback production.

Secondly, some teams like the Seahawks, just narrowly missed being one of the top 5. Arizona's passing defense was a mere yard-per-game better than Seattle at defending the pass last year. We can assume Seattle will take that spot and Arizona will fall back with Horton's departure, but that's all it will be: an assumption. I personally feel that until I see it on the field with our own eyes, then I have to assume the Cardinals will still have a great passing defense.

Likewise, a team like the Titans were horrid on defense last year and may actually be worse this year. I feel that turnover at the bottom is more frequent than turnover at the top. The Saints are going to a new defensive scheme, and while they still may be bad, you would have to assume they can't get much worse, the Buccaneers may end up with Revis, etc. But as with Arizona, until I see it on the field, I have to assume at this time that they are still just as bad as last year.

I'm posting this for a number of reasons, but the main reason to gain input to help improve my chances of landing a winning team. If anyone catches any mistakes I've made here, please don't hesitate to inform me of them. Just as well, I would imagine that maybe someone else out there is interested in this method or is a long-time streamer / QBBC player. So if other people would like to discuss this or use this, great!

My main thoughts from what I've seen here...

Best matchups:

Cam Newton – 6 green; 3 red

Matt Ryan – 6 green; 3 red

Tony Romo – 5 green; 1 red

Michael Vick – 5 green; 2 red

Peyton Manning – 3 green; 0 red

Worst matchups:

Jake Locker - 0 green; 5 red

Blaine Gabbert - 0 green; 3 red

Joe Flacco – 1 green; 4 red

Tom Brady – 2 green; 4 red

Matt Flynn – 2 green; 4 red

Sam Bradford – 2 green; 4 red

From counting the sheer number of green games to red games, Peyton Manning looks to be in for another great fantasy season, especially with Welker in his group. While Manning only has 3 green games, he doesn't have a single red game.

Michael Vick's schedule makes it appear that he's in for a huge bounce back year. There's mega sleeper potential here if he fits Kelly's offense.

One pairing that immediately jumps out to me is Tony Romo and Michael Vick. If you stream these two, you're looking at 8 green games and 0 red. Unfortunately, Romo also offers you a green game against the Redskins in week 16. A Matt Ryan / Michael Vick pairing is also interesting with a whopping 9 green games and 0 red. Ryan has a green game in week 15 against the Redskins, but plays San Fran week 16. The good news to this is that game is at least in Philadelphia.

No one needs to say this, but stay away from Gabbert and Sanchez. Jake Locker has the most red games with 5. I'd stay away.

Brady suddenly jumps out to me as a potential question mark. No more Welker, Gronk and Aaron issues, and still no true deep threat with 4 red games. By no means would I stay away from Brady, but I'm not sure he's a top 3 QB given the circumstances. I'd rather have Manning.

A trio that can likely be had dirt cheap is Cutler, Freeman, and Tannehill. If streamed, this trio offers 9 green games and zero red. In fact, Cutler has a 3 green game stretch from weeks 5-7. It's something of note that could really help a lot of QBBC establish themselves by the middle of the season.

Anyone have any thoughts? Input? I plan on doing two more for myself with respect to tight end and team defenses. If people are genuinely interested, I can post those when they're done.

So did you use the predictions for 2012 defenses or did you use the season-end rankings from 2012 to run the study?

Using the end of season rankings could be injecting a huge hind-sight advantage into validating the strategy. In other words, if I knew now (with certainty) how the defenses will end the 2013 season, I can effectively implement your strategy. But if I must be accurate in my predictions for 2013 defenses, then the effectiveness of the strategy could be severely compromised.

Also, I wonder about trying to pair Romo or Ryan, both top 7 QB's, with another QB like Vick. I think Vick is going to be a reach player this year. His athleticism combined with the arrival of Chip Kelly is going to make someone(s) see him as a bounce back candidate in 2013.

 

[matttyl]

I think Vick is going to be a reach player this year. His athleticism combined with the arrival of Chip Kelly is going to make someone(s) see him as a bounce back candidate in 2013.

I wish someone felt that way in my league! I can't give him away and was considering dropping him till I saw how nice his schedule is.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Thanks for posting this! Of course now you have me thinking about starting Vick over Rodgers in the season opener!

Also, any chance you'll redo this now that Revis is a Buc, and likely not a bottom 5 pass defense?

Haha. I don't think I'd ever bench Rodgers. But hey, if this has you thinking about it, then I'm glad someone is finding this thread interesting.

>Could you summarize in a quick list which defenses you consider green match ups and which defenses you consider red? Also, does it matter whether the games are played home vs. away against these defenses?

Thanks

Sure: Best 5 passing defenses from last season in terms of yards allowed per game:

Steelers

Jets

49ers

Broncos

Cardinals

Worst 5 passing defenses from last season in terms of yards allowed per game:

Buccaneers

Saints

Redskins

Patriots

Giants

The home / away game issue only comes into play (for me) if both or all QB's have a green or red matchup. If Manning or Brady both play Pittsburgh and San Fran repsectively, but Brady is at home, then I'd play Brady. If it's a neutral game, I'd typically start the guy with the higher ADP as he's bound to just be better overall, unless you have a real good gut feeling otherwise.

Also, any example of a "cheap QB pair or trio" that combined would have given you a top 5ish QB from last year?

Absolutely. I made a post some weeks ago in a simliar thread about QBBC from last season here: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=648528#entry15376014

To quickly answer your question, a Stafford / Luck duo would've netted you an amazing 330 on ESPN standard leagues, which is top 3 QB production. Understandbly Stafford was not a "cheap" pick last season, but this isn't about always getting a cheap pairing. It's about getting the right pairing.

If you want a cheap pairing form last season, a trio of Eli, Flacco, and Roethlisberger last year would've netted you a top 5 QB, as they would've scored 313 on ESPN standard leagues.

One thing of note is that this isn't suppose to gaurantee top 5 production. What it is designed to do is help maximize your weekly roster to ensure that you come away with more points at the position overall, and I'm becoming more and more convinced this might be a good method to approach positions that typically involve one roster spot (QB, TE, DST).

Since the interest seems to be there, I'll work on a D/ST grid sometime within the next day or so. Thanks for the replies.

EDIT: I'm a bit hesitant to take the Bucs green game status away. Remember, the Eagles have had the best secondary on paper for years now and there passing defense is pretty bad. If you persoanlly want to take away their green game status, by all means. I'm just in the feeling of until I see it on the field, I can't assume that they're that much better. Scheme goes hand in hand with talent.

I think it kinda does need to be a cheap pairing or you aren't able to use the strategy to target other positions early.

To use a ridiculously extreme example, pairing the #4 and #8 QB could allow you pass on the #1 QB and outperform him. But the cost would be prohibitive in most likely scenarios.

If we can say that there is a pairing where your paired QB's are coming from the QB10-24 range and will outproduce the QB's in the 1-6 range over the course of the season, then I think you'd be on to something. But talking about pairing a Romo, Stafford or Ryan with another particular QB does little more than increase the price you have to pay for your QB2 because everyone will be looking for a QB2.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I think Vick is going to be a reach player this year. His athleticism combined with the arrival of Chip Kelly is going to make someone(s) see him as a bounce back candidate in 2013.

I wish someone felt that way in my league! I can't give him away and was considering dropping him till I saw how nice his schedule is.

I think he'll be everyone's darling for QBBC's. And guys waiting on their QB1 are going to start talking themselves into him when looking at someone like Big Ben as their starter. That's when guys with a glorious past start to look good. There's a new variable in their situation that makes a return more plausible compared to the less sexy guy who's situation is perceived as relatively static from last year.

I know that I tend to have a bit of a swing-for-the-fences bias in those situations. And I've noticed that with the group think that kinda pervades these types of message boards, everyone ends up gravitating to the same sleepers and bounce-back candidates, which then inevitably ensures that they won't come as cheap because they end up being viewed as "upside" guys who then jump over the solid "devil-you-know" types on draft day.