Start 2 QBs or Start 1 QB (1 Viewer)

[T Man]

I thought I had seen a discussion on this topic a while ago, but I could not find it in a search.

I am in a 10 team auction keeper league which requires a starting roster of 2QB, 2RB, 3WR, TE, K, and D/ST. Roster limits are set at 18. You can keep 5 players at an increased cost each year.

We have always started 2QBs, but there has been a suggestion that we change the system and start only 1 QB.

I am open to change, but my thought is a 2 QB starting requirement helps balance out the QB position - if you pay for a stud, you may be starting a weak QB every week as well. It also splits the focus of the draft - some go for QBs with big money, others for the RBs.

I know that the NFL only starts 1 QB, but since this is not the NFL, I really don't think that argument holds water.

Any thoughts as to the pros and cons of each system?

 

[thayman]

In a 10 team I like 2 QB's. 12 teamers, it gets a little more difficult, but still enjoy it. I would advise if you go to 1 QB, then you should probably expand to a 12 team league.

 

[T Man]

In a 10 team I like 2 QB's. 12 teamers, it gets a little more difficult, but still enjoy it. I would advise if you go to 1 QB, then you should probably expand to a 12 team league.

Thanks. I like the 2 QB system for a ten team league because it puts focus on the quarterback and not just running backs. But why do you think its better for a ten team league.

What are the positives for a start 1 Qb league when there are just ten teams?

 

[GregR_2]

I have a new league that has a flex QB/RB position. Few teams have a 3rd RB that outscores their 2nd QB, so it amounts to being a QB position... but it allows you to use a backup RB on a QB bye week or if you have bad injury luck, which pretty much solves the major objection to it.

I think it works really well, probably better than a pure 2 QB lineup. And I do think the leagues are more interesting, and there is more room for skill to diffentiate itself, when you have the extra value to QBs that you get from starting more than 1.

 

[thayman]

In a 10 team I like 2 QB's.  12 teamers, it gets a little more difficult, but still enjoy it.  I would advise if you go to 1 QB, then you should probably expand to a 12 team league.

Thanks. I like the 2 QB system for a ten team league because it puts focus on the quarterback and not just running backs. But why do you think its better for a ten team league.

What are the positives for a start 1 Qb league when there are just ten teams?

Personal preference. I don't like 10 teamers with one QB, just because you have so many to choose from. Bye weeks, and injuries are less of a factor. So it's really just what your into.

 

[JohnnyTitan]

This is cut-and-pasted from last year. I had SEVERAL links to other discussions as well, but none of them seem to be working.

Anyhow, here's my lazy way to SUPPORT 2 QBs. I do like the QB/RB flex in larger leagues, as Greg just suggested. MUCH better than just offering 1 QB and having the position fall off the map of Fantasy Football!

*********

Many very good and thoughtful posts here. LOVE the support for the 2QB leagues, and want to add mine. I have converted all three of my money leagues to start 2 QBs and would never go back. (I'm commish of all three).

To re-iterate some points already made, and add a few of my own:

- One of my leagues is a 12-team. With 2QBs, you couldn't go any bigger, but it does work for 12. That means 36 QBs get drafted, but there are always controversies and injuries and such. Injuries / trades / new starters keep everyone on their toes and there are only a couple times a year that someone can't field 2 QBs. (And it's usually their own fault!). Last year someone quoted that 56 QBs started regular season NFL games....so the "Automatic Loss During Bye Weeks" is total BS.

- I'd rather go 2 QBs than shrink the roster to 1 RB. As someone else stated, the deeper your draft goes, the more of an edge that gives the guys who pay their dues researching before the draft / auction

- Bumping up the points for a QB TD will not affect the scarcity / draft order much at all. If you start 1 QB and 2 RBs, 15+ RBs will go in the top 22. (Or at least they should according to VBD).

- Last year in FBG's $20,000 challange, Peyton Manning had a cap value of $32. This was the same as Chris Brown. That right there is what is wrong with current FFL leagues. I don't buy into the "Realism" aspect that some of you are selling....but if you're stuck on that arguement ask yourself how "REAL" is it that Chris Brown last year was worth the same as Peyton Manning? Hindsight is 20/20, but the best QB in the league vs an unproven 2nd year RB? COME ON PEOPLE!!

- with 2 QB, 2 RB and 3 WR there is a great balance among positions. There are choices as to how you build your team...you are not just forced to draft RB-RB-RB. It's a much more strategic way to play the game and we all love it. I strongly encourage you guys to go 2 QBs if your league is 12 teams or less. You will be impressed by how people struggle over choices like Bulger or Dillon or Mason. It's great.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

2 QBs in league sizes over 10 teams makes for very difficult roster decisions.

At 10 teams, you can carry 3-4 QBs and cover your byes. With 12 teams and 2 starters, the byes will be a huge disadvantage. Teams will still try to carry 3 QBs, and that will wreck teams with marginal QB2/3s.

10 teams is about the max reasonable number of teams for a "start 2 QB" league.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

This is cut-and-pasted from last year. I had SEVERAL links to other discussions as well, but none of them seem to be working.

Anyhow, here's my lazy way to SUPPORT 2 QBs. I do like the QB/RB flex in larger leagues, as Greg just suggested. MUCH better than just offering 1 QB and having the position fall off the map of Fantasy Football!

*********

Many very good and thoughtful posts here. LOVE the support for the 2QB leagues, and want to add mine. I have converted all three of my money leagues to start 2 QBs and would never go back. (I'm commish of all three).

To re-iterate some points already made, and add a few of my own:

- One of my leagues is a 12-team. With 2QBs, you couldn't go any bigger, but it does work for 12. That means 36 QBs get drafted, but there are always controversies and injuries and such. Injuries / trades / new starters keep everyone on their toes and there are only a couple times a year that someone can't field 2 QBs. (And it's usually their own fault!). Last year someone quoted that 56 QBs started regular season NFL games....so the "Automatic Loss During Bye Weeks" is total BS.

- I'd rather go 2 QBs than shrink the roster to 1 RB. As someone else stated, the deeper your draft goes, the more of an edge that gives the guys who pay their dues researching before the draft / auction

- Bumping up the points for a QB TD will not affect the scarcity / draft order much at all. If you start 1 QB and 2 RBs, 15+ RBs will go in the top 22. (Or at least they should according to VBD).

- Last year in FBG's $20,000 challange, Peyton Manning had a cap value of $32. This was the same as Chris Brown. That right there is what is wrong with current FFL leagues. I don't buy into the "Realism" aspect that some of you are selling....but if you're stuck on that arguement ask yourself how "REAL" is it that Chris Brown last year was worth the same as Peyton Manning? Hindsight is 20/20, but the best QB in the league vs an unproven 2nd year RB? COME ON PEOPLE!!

- with 2 QB, 2 RB and 3 WR there is a great balance among positions. There are choices as to how you build your team...you are not just forced to draft RB-RB-RB. It's a much more strategic way to play the game and we all love it. I strongly encourage you guys to go 2 QBs if your league is 12 teams or less. You will be impressed by how people struggle over choices like Bulger or Dillon or Mason. It's great.

Strategy changes completely.

 

[JohnnyTitan]

I kinda sorta did a study on this last year.

First off, I want to say that there were AT LEAST 46 starting QBs by week #8. So don't give me this BS about there only being 32 starting QBs. Every year there is tons of turnover. Either draft a couple good qbs high and be safe, or draft several QBs with the chance of becoming starters later on.

Starter Data, updated Oct 19, 2005:

ARIZONA Warner (1,2,3), McCown(4,5,BYE,7,8)

ATLANTA Vick (1,2,3,4,6,7,BYE), Schaub (5)

BALTIMORE Boller (1), Wright (2, BYE,4,5,6,7,8)

BUFFALO Losman (1,2,3,4), Holcomb (5,6,7,8)

CAROLINA Delhomme (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE,8)

CHICAGO Orton (1,2,3,BYE,5,6,7,8)

CINCINNATI Palmer (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

CLEVELAND Dilfer (1,2,3,BYE,5,6,7,8)

DALLAS Bledsoe (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

DENVER Plummer (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

DETROIT Harrington (1,2,BYE,4,5,6), Garcia (7,8)

GREEN BAY Favre (1,2,BYE,4,5,BYE,7,8)

HOUSTON Carr (1,2,BYE,4,5,6,7,8)

INDIANAPOLIS Manning (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,BYE)

JACKSONVILLE Leftwhich (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE,8)

KANSAS CITY Green (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)

NEW ENGLAND Brady (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE,8)

NEW ORLEANS Brooks (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

NEW YORK (NYG) Manning (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)

NEW YORK (NYJ) Pennington (1,2,3), Bollinger(4), Testeverde(5,6,7,8)

MIAMI Frerotte (1,2,3,BYE,5,6,7,8)

MINNESOTA Culpepper (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)

OAKLAND Collins (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)

PHILADELPHIA McNabb (1,2,3,4,5,BYE,7,8)

PITTSBURGH Reothlisberger (1,2,3,BYE,5,7,8), Maddox(6)

ST. LOUIS Bulger (1,2,3,4,5,6), Martin(7,8)

SAN DIEGO Brees (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

SAN FRANCISCO Rattay (1,2,3,4), ASmith (5,BYE,7), Dorsey(8)

SEATTLE Hasselbeck (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

TAMPA BAY Griese (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE) Simms(8)

TENNESSEE McNair (1,2,3,4,5,6,8), Volek (7)

WASHINGTON Ramsey (1), Brunell (2,BYE,4,5,6,7,8)

Secondly: My hypothesis is below. I'd add more, but 1) I don't have time right now, and 2) Last year's threads have been nuked !!

I have been a strong proponent on this board of running 2QB leagues. I think it brings a necessary balance to drafts / auctions and a team's roster. It gives the QB some importance again. Seeing teams go RB-RB-RB in a draft, while Bulger and Green are left until the 6th or 7th is ridiculous. Yes, I love RBs and think they're the most exciting players in the game! But I see contemporary FFL leagues being SERIOUSLY flawed. Derrick Blaylock should NOT be getting drafted ahead of David Carr, regardless of your scoring system.

One of the weak arguments against starting 2QBs is that "It's not real". This is a proposterous arguement, as it's FANTASY football. Make the game as fun as possible. Not to mention the fact that having 2 or sometimes three featured backs on a team is also not "Real".

A better argument is that most leagues consist of 12-teams and there aren't enough QBs to go around. The position would be so scarce by playing 2QBs that the game would not be any fun. This is a good argument, and I won't lie that every season one or two teams usually plays one or two weeks without 2 QBs. I feel this situation is avoidable...and honestly love the challenge to make sure MY teams do not end up in this situation, but I digress.

My statement is that current FFL is flawed, QBs are grossly under-valued and the most important position in the game should be at least on par with RBs / WRs in our "Game.". A simple starting roster adjustment can add a balance to the sport that I greatly desire. Championship teams can be built in a variety of ways, and games can be won with arms and hands...not just legs.

With that said, I hope to supply ample data that will convince some 12-team leagues that there are enough QBs to go around. Obviously you'd need 36 QBs to ensure every team has 3 quality starters, but with proper waiver-wire action or trades those six teams that choose not to draft 3 starters can get it done.

I plan to update this section every week, highlighting the QB turnover / uncertainty. I hope to prove that we will have WELL over 45 starters by the end of season and only inept GMs would ever get caught with their pants down.

 

[T Man]

This is cut-and-pasted from last year. I had SEVERAL links to other discussions as well, but none of them seem to be working.

Anyhow, here's my lazy way to SUPPORT 2 QBs. I do like the QB/RB flex in larger leagues, as Greg just suggested. MUCH better than just offering 1 QB and having the position fall off the map of Fantasy Football!

*********

Many very good and thoughtful posts here. LOVE the support for the 2QB leagues, and want to add mine. I have converted all three of my money leagues to start 2 QBs and would never go back. (I'm commish of all three).

To re-iterate some points already made, and add a few of my own:

- One of my leagues is a 12-team. With 2QBs, you couldn't go any bigger, but it does work for 12. That means 36 QBs get drafted, but there are always controversies and injuries and such. Injuries / trades / new starters keep everyone on their toes and there are only a couple times a year that someone can't field 2 QBs. (And it's usually their own fault!). Last year someone quoted that 56 QBs started regular season NFL games....so the "Automatic Loss During Bye Weeks" is total BS.

- I'd rather go 2 QBs than shrink the roster to 1 RB. As someone else stated, the deeper your draft goes, the more of an edge that gives the guys who pay their dues researching before the draft / auction

- Bumping up the points for a QB TD will not affect the scarcity / draft order much at all. If you start 1 QB and 2 RBs, 15+ RBs will go in the top 22. (Or at least they should according to VBD).

- Last year in FBG's $20,000 challange, Peyton Manning had a cap value of $32. This was the same as Chris Brown. That right there is what is wrong with current FFL leagues. I don't buy into the "Realism" aspect that some of you are selling....but if you're stuck on that arguement ask yourself how "REAL" is it that Chris Brown last year was worth the same as Peyton Manning? Hindsight is 20/20, but the best QB in the league vs an unproven 2nd year RB? COME ON PEOPLE!!

- with 2 QB, 2 RB and 3 WR there is a great balance among positions. There are choices as to how you build your team...you are not just forced to draft RB-RB-RB. It's a much more strategic way to play the game and we all love it. I strongly encourage you guys to go 2 QBs if your league is 12 teams or less. You will be impressed by how people struggle over choices like Bulger or Dillon or Mason. It's great.

Thanks -- good stuff. I agree that you cannot simply increase points for the QB to gain balance. It will only elevate a few of the top tier QBs. I think 12 teams with 2 starting QBs is a bit much, but I can see how it can work.

In our 10 teamer, teams generally draft 3 QBs and some even more. If you do not have a bye week fill in its your own fault.

If you can find some of the other links it would be appreciated.

 

[T Man]

I kinda sorta did a study on this last year.

First off, I want to say that there were AT LEAST 46 starting QBs by week #8. So don't give me this BS about there only being 32 starting QBs. Every year there is tons of turnover. Either draft a couple good qbs high and be safe, or draft several QBs with the chance of becoming starters later on.

Starter Data, updated Oct 19, 2005:

ARIZONA Warner (1,2,3), McCown(4,5,BYE,7,8)

ATLANTA Vick (1,2,3,4,6,7,BYE), Schaub (5)

BALTIMORE Boller (1), Wright (2, BYE,4,5,6,7,8)

BUFFALO Losman (1,2,3,4), Holcomb (5,6,7,8)

CAROLINA Delhomme (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE,8)

CHICAGO Orton (1,2,3,BYE,5,6,7,8)

CINCINNATI Palmer (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

CLEVELAND Dilfer (1,2,3,BYE,5,6,7,8)

DALLAS Bledsoe (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

DENVER Plummer (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

DETROIT Harrington (1,2,BYE,4,5,6), Garcia (7,8)

GREEN BAY Favre (1,2,BYE,4,5,BYE,7,8)

HOUSTON Carr (1,2,BYE,4,5,6,7,8)

INDIANAPOLIS Manning (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,BYE)

JACKSONVILLE Leftwhich (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE,8)

KANSAS CITY Green (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)

NEW ENGLAND Brady (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE,8)

NEW ORLEANS Brooks (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

NEW YORK (NYG) Manning (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)

NEW YORK (NYJ) Pennington (1,2,3), Bollinger(4), Testeverde(5,6,7,8)

MIAMI Frerotte (1,2,3,BYE,5,6,7,8)

MINNESOTA Culpepper (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)

OAKLAND Collins (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)

PHILADELPHIA McNabb (1,2,3,4,5,BYE,7,8)

PITTSBURGH Reothlisberger (1,2,3,BYE,5,7,8), Maddox(6)

ST. LOUIS Bulger (1,2,3,4,5,6), Martin(7,8)

SAN DIEGO Brees (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

SAN FRANCISCO Rattay (1,2,3,4), ASmith (5,BYE,7), Dorsey(8)

SEATTLE Hasselbeck (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

TAMPA BAY Griese (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE) Simms(8)

TENNESSEE McNair (1,2,3,4,5,6,8), Volek (7)

WASHINGTON Ramsey (1), Brunell (2,BYE,4,5,6,7,8)

Secondly: My hypothesis is below. I'd add more, but 1) I don't have time right now, and 2) Last year's threads have been nuked !!

I have been a strong proponent on this board of running 2QB leagues. I think it brings a necessary balance to drafts / auctions and a team's roster. It gives the QB some importance again. Seeing teams go RB-RB-RB in a draft, while Bulger and Green are left until the 6th or 7th is ridiculous. Yes, I love RBs and think they're the most exciting players in the game! But I see contemporary FFL leagues being SERIOUSLY flawed. Derrick Blaylock should NOT be getting drafted ahead of David Carr, regardless of your scoring system.

One of the weak arguments against starting 2QBs is that "It's not real". This is a proposterous arguement, as it's FANTASY football. Make the game as fun as possible. Not to mention the fact that having 2 or sometimes three featured backs on a team is also not "Real".

A better argument is that most leagues consist of 12-teams and there aren't enough QBs to go around. The position would be so scarce by playing 2QBs that the game would not be any fun. This is a good argument, and I won't lie that every season one or two teams usually plays one or two weeks without 2 QBs. I feel this situation is avoidable...and honestly love the challenge to make sure MY teams do not end up in this situation, but I digress.

My statement is that current FFL is flawed, QBs are grossly under-valued and the most important position in the game should be at least on par with RBs / WRs in our "Game.". A simple starting roster adjustment can add a balance to the sport that I greatly desire. Championship teams can be built in a variety of ways, and games can be won with arms and hands...not just legs.

With that said, I hope to supply ample data that will convince some 12-team leagues that there are enough QBs to go around. Obviously you'd need 36 QBs to ensure every team has 3 quality starters, but with proper waiver-wire action or trades those six teams that choose not to draft 3 starters can get it done.

I plan to update this section every week, highlighting the QB turnover / uncertainty. I hope to prove that we will have WELL over 45 starters by the end of season and only inept GMs would ever get caught with their pants down.

Thanks Johnny. Good stuff here. I appreciate the info. I too agree that the NFL teams only start 1 QB, so we should too is a weak argument. Just as weak as if I argued that the only reason to keep a 2 QB system in place is because we have always done it that way.

I still think league size is the best argument against a 2 QB starter system - i.e., more then 10 teams.

Any other thoughts on 2 QB?

Are there any proponents of a 1 QB starter system?? If so, why do you think it is preferable.

 

[JohnnyTitan]

Some more observations made from 2005. These are examining the scarcity of QBs in a 12-team league. (sarcasm) Can you even believe our leagues have to pay as much attention to QBs as to RBs !! (/sarcasm)

Pre-Week #1

Starting QBs: 32

QBs required in a 12-team / 2QB league: 24

Starting QBs that did not start Week #1: N/A

Cumulative Starting QBs this season: 32

Total QBs to see significant action: A. Wright, Bal (214 yds), M. Brunell, Was (70 yds), J. McCown, Ari (52 yds)

Controversies / Questions: EManning slightly injured, Frerotte / Rattay on hot seat. Green recovery from minor surgery. Orton / Frerotte announced as starters quite late in the pre-season, possibly after some FFL drafts.

Most popular specualations: Alex Smith, Billy Volek, Kelly Holcomb, Jeff Garcia, Jason Campbell, Matt Schaub, Tim Hasselbeck

Prognosis: Every team should have 2 healthy and capable starters going into Week #1

**********************

Pre-Week #2

Starting QBs: 32

QBs required in a 12-team / 2QB league: 24

Starting QBs that did not start Week #1: A. Wright, M. Brunell

Cumulative Starting QBs this season: 34

Total QBs to see significant action this week: Koy Detmer (94yds)

Controversies / Questions: McNabb has not practiced and is listed as questionable. Either Mike McMahon or Koy Detmer could get a start or see significant time. SATURDAY UPDATE: Now seems certain that McNabb will start, but there is some doubt over Roethlisberger. He has a bad bruise and may be held out of tomorrow's game. (I'd say 85% chance he plays though)

Most popular specualations: McMahon, KDetmer, KStewart, ASmith, TMaddox

My money 12-team League: Not surprisingly, the teams with Boller (Pennington, Collins) and Ramsey (Dilfer, Favre) both had capable STARTERS. However, trouble could be on the horizon with Collins on a week #5 BYE and Dilfer on a week #4 BYE. Will keep you posted.

Prognosis: Every team should have two healthy starting QBs. If one of the four teams that started the season with only 2QBs was also relying on Boller or Ramsey to be one of their 2 starters that would be the definition of poor drafting. On the other hand, teams worried about week#3 or week#4 BYEs (BALT, CHI, CLE, DET, HOU, MIA, PIT, WAS) should have been able to jump on at least one of Wright (for week#4) or Brunell (for week#3).

**********************

Pre-Week #3

Starting QBs: 28

QBs required in a 12-team / 2QB league: 24

Starting QBs that did not start Week #1: A. Wright(2), M. Brunell(2)

Cumulative Starting QBs this season: 34

Total QBs to see significant action this week: Josh McCown (97 yds), Jay Feidler

Controversies / Questions: Both Vick and Leftwich are hurting. Were listed as questionable earlier in the week, but both practiced on Thursday and have been upgraded to probable.

Most popular specualations: ASmith, MSchaub, DGarrard

My money 12-team League: All teams are fine. The team with Leftwich has Losman to go if Byron can't make it. The team with Vick could be in trouble though, as his thrid QB is now Brunell. So we've got one team with no insurance.

Prognosis: Every team should have two healthy starting QBs. It would be surprising to see one of the four teams that elected to start the season with only 2QBs was also relying on Boller or Ramsey or Harrington or Carr (at draft time). Not only are these guys some of the weaker QBs, but they had BYES scheduled so early that they would be hard to work around.

**********************

Pre-Week #4

Starting QBs: 28

QBs required in a 12-team / 2QB league: 24

Starting QBs that did not start Week #1: A. Wright(2), M. Brunell(2), Bollinger(4), McCown(4)

Cumulative Starting QBs this season: 36

Total QBs to see significant action this week: Matt Schaub(39pass, 56 rush), Holcomb(28 pass)

Controversies / Questions: Testeverde has signed with the Jets, but all indications are that Bollinger will play all game.

Most popular specualations: ASmith, MMcMahon,

My money 12-team League: One team is shot a QB. He drafted Favre, Dilfer and Ramsey. With Dilfer on a bye and Ramsey not starting, he had a chance at each of Wright / Brunell / Bollinger and McCown but only made a play for McCown and lost-out. (We use a bidding-system to determine FAs)

Prognosis: Much like last week, the QBs missing this week due to byes are Frerotte, Dilfer, Roethlisberger and Orton. My honest thoughts are that nobody with these QBs (perhaps with the exception of Big Ben) should have only drafted 2 QBs. And injuries to Boller, Warner or Pennington should have been dealt with by hitting the WW for the backup.

**********************

Pre-Week #5

Starting QBs: 28

QBs required in a 12-team / 2QB league: 24

Starting QBs that did not start Week #1: A. Wright(2), M. Brunell(2), Bollinger(4), McCown(4), ASmith(5), VTesteverde(5), KHolcomb(5), MSchaub(5)

Cumulative Starting QBs this season: 40

Total QBs to see significant action this week: None (Bouman got some mop-up)

Controversies / Questions: Sounds like Buffalo is giving serious thought to Holcomb. [uPDATE: Holcomb to start.]Harrington still struggling. Vick had MRI on his knee. [uPDATE: Schaub was announced as the Atl starter Sunday AM]

Most popular specualations: KDetmer, KHolcomb, MSchaub,

My money 12-team League: No team was short a QB for the fifth straight week. I'll add that nobody has been raped in a one-sided trade in order to acquire a QB either.

Prognosis: With four new QBs this week, including VinnyT who NOBODY should have had drafted...there should have been enough flexibility for anyone to fill out their roster this week.

****************

 

[GregR_2]

2 QBs in league sizes over 10 teams makes for very difficult roster decisions.

At 10 teams, you can carry 3-4 QBs and cover your byes. With 12 teams and 2 starters, the byes will be a huge disadvantage. Teams will still try to carry 3 QBs, and that will wreck teams with marginal QB2/3s.

10 teams is about the max reasonable number of teams for a "start 2 QB" league.

Unless as I said, you make it a flex position between QB and something that you won't score as much as a QB, but that you could fill in for on a bye week. RB works well in that respect. Then you can easily go into 12 team leagues with it, and 14 would probably be feasible as well... though you might want to make it a WR flex as the extra RB scarcity would make it rougher to fill byes at QB.

 

[inca911]

I've been tempted to add a QB/RB/WR slot to our existing system. We currently get some interesting auction situations by allowing teams the option to play only one RB. Certainly makes BYE weeks easier.

1 QB

1 RB

1 RB/WR/TE flex

3 WR/TE flex

1 DST

1 K

I currently don't see a downside to adding a QB/RB/WR spot.

 

[anguskahn]

Our league has just implemented the following to compensate for "not enough QBs if you start 2"

If you draft Manning and he has a bye week on week 7 then during week 7 you only start 1 QB. If the team that you are playing in week 7 did not draft a QB that has a bye wek during week 7 then for that week he takes the average of his 2 QBs so that its as if you both started 1 QB for the week.

For total points leagues it will also work out because everybody will have the 2 bye weeks for their QBs.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

My local redraft has had a "super-flex" position for the last several years (and actually expanded to two "SF' last year). We mandate a starting lineup of 1QB, 1RB, 2WR, 1TE, 1K, 1D then allow two more at any position, but have a cap that only allows using one at any particular position (except WR, where you could start 4). So, you couldn't start 3QB or 3D. We also held back scoring for QBs a bit so as not to make one of the flex spots an automatic: 4 pt pass TDs & 1pt/30yds.

It balances out pretty nicely & allows for different ways to build a team.

 

[JohnnyTitan]

It balances out pretty nicely & allows for different ways to build a team.

Those are the two main reasons to introduce some-sort of variant on the 1QB / 2 or 3 RB leagues.I'm glad to see some people are getting creative in order to avoid RB-RB-RB!

 

[T Man]

I know there must be some people out there who love 1 QB leagues and don't particularly care for a start 2 QB system.

Other then "we have always done it that way" or "the NFL starts only one QB" what are the pros of a start 1 QB system (assuming a 10 team league or less)?

 

[inca911]

I know there must be some people out there who love 1 QB leagues and don't particularly care for a start 2 QB system.

Other then "we have always done it that way" or "the NFL starts only one QB" what are the pros of a start 1 QB system (assuming a 10 team league or less)?

Generally the argument against this is that there aren't enough QBs to go around to account for starters, injuries, BYE weeks, and bad matchup benchings. Rather than needing 3 QBs per team to start two, you really need more than that. Changing to a n=3 QB cap per team is seem as overly restrictive.

 

[thayman]

I kinda sorta did a study on this last year.

First off, I want to say that there were AT LEAST 46 starting QBs by week #8. So don't give me this BS about there only being 32 starting QBs. Every year there is tons of turnover. Either draft a couple good qbs high and be safe, or draft several QBs with the chance of becoming starters later on.

Starter Data, updated Oct 19, 2005:

ARIZONA Warner (1,2,3), McCown(4,5,BYE,7,8)

ATLANTA Vick (1,2,3,4,6,7,BYE), Schaub (5)

BALTIMORE Boller (1), Wright (2, BYE,4,5,6,7,8)

BUFFALO Losman (1,2,3,4), Holcomb (5,6,7,8)

CAROLINA Delhomme (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE,8)

CHICAGO Orton (1,2,3,BYE,5,6,7,8)

CINCINNATI Palmer (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

CLEVELAND Dilfer (1,2,3,BYE,5,6,7,8)

DALLAS Bledsoe (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

DENVER Plummer (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

DETROIT Harrington (1,2,BYE,4,5,6), Garcia (7,8)

GREEN BAY Favre (1,2,BYE,4,5,BYE,7,8)

HOUSTON Carr (1,2,BYE,4,5,6,7,8)

INDIANAPOLIS Manning (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,BYE)

JACKSONVILLE Leftwhich (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE,8)

KANSAS CITY Green (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)

NEW ENGLAND Brady (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE,8)

NEW ORLEANS Brooks (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

NEW YORK (NYG) Manning (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)

NEW YORK (NYJ) Pennington (1,2,3), Bollinger(4), Testeverde(5,6,7,8)

MIAMI Frerotte (1,2,3,BYE,5,6,7,8)

MINNESOTA Culpepper (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)

OAKLAND Collins (1,2,3,4,BYE,6,7,8)

PHILADELPHIA McNabb (1,2,3,4,5,BYE,7,8)

PITTSBURGH Reothlisberger (1,2,3,BYE,5,7,8), Maddox(6)

ST. LOUIS Bulger (1,2,3,4,5,6), Martin(7,8)

SAN DIEGO Brees (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

SAN FRANCISCO Rattay (1,2,3,4), ASmith (5,BYE,7), Dorsey(8)

SEATTLE Hasselbeck (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)

TAMPA BAY Griese (1,2,3,4,5,6,BYE) Simms(8)

TENNESSEE McNair (1,2,3,4,5,6,8), Volek (7)

WASHINGTON Ramsey (1), Brunell (2,BYE,4,5,6,7,8)

Secondly: My hypothesis is below. I'd add more, but 1) I don't have time right now, and 2) Last year's threads have been nuked !!

I have been a strong proponent on this board of running 2QB leagues. I think it brings a necessary balance to drafts / auctions and a team's roster. It gives the QB some importance again. Seeing teams go RB-RB-RB in a draft, while Bulger and Green are left until the 6th or 7th is ridiculous. Yes, I love RBs and think they're the most exciting players in the game! But I see contemporary FFL leagues being SERIOUSLY flawed. Derrick Blaylock should NOT be getting drafted ahead of David Carr, regardless of your scoring system.

One of the weak arguments against starting 2QBs is that "It's not real". This is a proposterous arguement, as it's FANTASY football. Make the game as fun as possible. Not to mention the fact that having 2 or sometimes three featured backs on a team is also not "Real".

A better argument is that most leagues consist of 12-teams and there aren't enough QBs to go around. The position would be so scarce by playing 2QBs that the game would not be any fun. This is a good argument, and I won't lie that every season one or two teams usually plays one or two weeks without 2 QBs. I feel this situation is avoidable...and honestly love the challenge to make sure MY teams do not end up in this situation, but I digress.

My statement is that current FFL is flawed, QBs are grossly under-valued and the most important position in the game should be at least on par with RBs / WRs in our "Game.". A simple starting roster adjustment can add a balance to the sport that I greatly desire. Championship teams can be built in a variety of ways, and games can be won with arms and hands...not just legs.

With that said, I hope to supply ample data that will convince some 12-team leagues that there are enough QBs to go around. Obviously you'd need 36 QBs to ensure every team has 3 quality starters, but with proper waiver-wire action or trades those six teams that choose not to draft 3 starters can get it done.

I plan to update this section every week, highlighting the QB turnover / uncertainty. I hope to prove that we will have WELL over 45 starters by the end of season and only inept GMs would ever get caught with their pants down.

very I've always been a huge fan of start 2 QB leagues. Always a bunch of fun, and makes the draft so much more difficult.

 

[Incogneto]

2QB is the only way to fly.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

One point that hasn't been mentioned yet:

Ever try to trade a QB in a redraft league?

In start 1 QB leagues, the position is SO minimized that the backups / QB2s have little trade value.

Increasing the possibilities of the QB2 contributing as either a QB2 starter or a "superflex" increases trading.

 

[THE UNDERCOVER BROTHA]

IN my DFFL league 1 guys has Palmer Brady Frye and couldnt move either Palmer or Brady all offseason, no one wants to pay for a top calibure qb when they can settle for the likes of the serviceable guys basically making QB's worthless.

I would like for our leagues to implement 2 starting qb's for the future as well. But i doubt it as i dont think a 2 year running dynasty will warm up to that idea....(12 teamer)

 

[thayman]

IN my DFFL league 1 guys has Palmer Brady Frye and couldnt move either Palmer or Brady all offseason, no one wants to pay for a top calibure qb when they can settle for the likes of the serviceable guys basically making QB's worthless.

I would like for our leagues to implement 2 starting qb's for the future as well. But i doubt it as i dont think a 2 year running dynasty will warm up to that idea....(12 teamer)

You need the right kind of owners. I've done 2QB system in two different leagues. One still has it, the other reverted back to 1QB system.

 

[JSUF]

I enjoy 2 QB leagues and don't need to re-iterate many of the points already mentioned, but I wanted to bring up that 2 QB leagues especially help to enhance keeper/dynasty leagues.

I am in a 2QB/2RB/3WR/1TE/1RB,WR,TE Flex/1K/1D league.

The 2QB aspect makes the rookie draft so much more interesting. It essentially gives several additional players draft value. With this system the top rookie QBs are just below top RBs in value and guys like Clemens, Jackson and Croyle are worth drafting.

For our league, the big lineup forces teams to really work to fill all their QB, RB and WR spots through the rookie draft, free agency and trades.

 

[JohnnyTitan]

Maybe I'm a bit biased here, but it seems like we're sorta coming to a concensus.

League of 10 teams (or fewer): Play 2QB and don't look back!

League of 12 teams: 2QB can be done, but is challenging. Try 2QBs or at least add a "Super-Flex" position that will mostly be filled with a QB

League of more than 12 teams: Can't play true 2QB, but try the above mentioned super-flex to avoid dull drafts and RB dominated seasons.

 

[creeps1313]

1 QB regardless of size.

 

[Incogneto]

1 QB regardless of size.

For what reasoning? Why do you prefer the 1QB league?

 

[sweetness34]

One more plug for a super-flex. After talking with Uruk-Hai, we modeled our league similar to his - with a flex being either a QB, RB, or WR. We also adjusted the scoring so a QB is not the automatic choice to start at flex. My league loves it. Gives lots of options in building your team thru the auction. I went with a mega-WR lineup and if Owens wouldn't have been a turd, I might have gone undefeated. Anyway, that's another story, but we love the option of starting 2 QB's. 12-team league, BTW.

 

[JohnnyTitan]

I know of several leagues that have switched from 1 QB to 2 QBs...and basically none that have switched back. (Similar results seen switching from draft to acution, BTW).

My hope is that in a couple more seasons some cheat sheets / magazine rankings will take the 2QB leagues into consideration before publishing their thoughts.

 

[Iceman66]

Start 2 qb Leagues are the only way to go. We have been doing it for 8 years. Makes drafting A lot more interesting, and harder. First round last season 5 qb's, 5 rb's. We start 2 Qb's, 2 Rb's, 3 WR's 1 TE. RB, rb, rb is boring, luck plays a larger part of the equation, instead of strategy. Play in a real league boys

 

[Airbus79]

I am currently in two highly competitive leagues that start 2 qbs, 2 rbs, 3 wrs, 1 k, and 1 dt. I had the most fun playing in a FFL league that starts 2 qbs because of more value placed on qbs.

2 starting qbs changes the predictable draft strategy of boring "must draft RB's in 1st 2-3 rounds". Some teams have focused on getting superstar qbs and a couple of them did win FFL championship with 2 superstar qbs draft strategy.

I played in a 12 team auction league with 2 starting qbs and my starting qbs for 1st 5 weeks were- Delhomme and Orton. My team managed to win 4 of 5 weeks then I eventually traded for P. Manning. It is very difficult with 12 teams but the best of the best teams will end up at the top with good draft strategy. I ended up winning the regular season then get upset in 1st round of playoffs.

Bottom line- I'm surprised that many FFL's are still lukewarm to starting 2 qbs because it presents more challenges and diverse draft strategies.

I thought I had seen a discussion on this topic a while ago, but I could not find it in a search.

I am in a 10 team auction keeper league which requires a starting roster of 2QB, 2RB, 3WR, TE, K, and D/ST.  Roster limits are set at 18. You can keep 5 players at an increased cost each year.

We have always started 2QBs, but there has been a suggestion that we change the system and start only 1 QB. 

I am open to change, but my thought is a 2 QB starting requirement helps balance out the QB position - if you pay for a stud, you may be starting a weak QB every week as well.  It also splits the focus of the draft - some go for QBs with big money, others for the RBs.

I know that the NFL only starts 1 QB, but since this is not the NFL, I really don't think that argument holds water.

Any thoughts as to the pros and cons of each system?

 

[JohnnyTitan]

Summary of what we've determined so far. Really, everyone who has chimed in so far likes 2QBs for 10-team leagues. 12-team leagues seem to be split between "YES" / "NO" / "SUPERFLEX"

JohnnyTitan - Strong Proponent

T Man - Started thread, mildly for 2QBs but maybe not in a 12-teamer -

thayman - 10 team league, tough call for 12-teamer

Jeff Pasquino - 10 team league only, better trades

GregR - Strong 2QB if 2nd QB is a super-flex position

Incogneto - Strong Proponent

inca911 - Open to 2QBs

creeps1313 - AGAINST 2QB with NO RATIONALE what-so-ever

anguskahn Likes 2QBs with a little work-around for scarcity

sweetness34 - Super-flex, leading to some teams starting 2QBs

Uruk-Hai - Plays with superflex, which means many teams field 2QBs

Iceman66 - Strong Proponent. (Better strategy, less luck)

Airbus79 - Strong Proponent. (Different ways to build a championship team)

THE UC BROTHA - Would like to try to implement 2QBs. (Notes a lack of trading in 1QB)

JSUF - In favour of 2QB. (Rookie drafts are better too)

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I am the Commish and posted this in my league as I am trying to convince the owners to make the switch to the 2 QB system. This is some info I made and used from other sources.

Let me first say that this problem of overvalued RBs and undervalued QBs can not be remedied by simply changing the scoring system again. Changing the scoring system would only have a minimal effect because its all relative. It doesn't matter if the QB scored a million points, if the difference from the first and worst QB is still only 50 points. The only way to remedy the problem is to add or takeaway roster spots. I, for one, do not want to only start 1 RB and 2 WR, so the other option is to add a roster spot for a QB.I am going to be continually editing and adding information to this post. If you have any questions or don't understand something, just ask.PROS:1. This system will bring value to the QB position in FF. Currently, the position does not have near the same value as a RB or WR because we only start 1 QB, (12 starters out of 32 NFL teams = 38%) compared to 2 RBs (24 starters out of 32 = 75%) or 3WRs (36 starters out of 64 = 57%). It is these percentages which give you indication of why RBs are so valuable and why the QB is not. The reason RBs are valuable and are hoarded is because they are scarce. Due to the fact that more RBs are started, make the ones at the top more valuable than a Top QB.For example: Take the current stats from the start of the year.1st overall QB: 225 points12 overall QB: 175 pointsDifference of 50 points.1st overall RB: 242 points24th overall RB: 91 pointsDifference of 151 points1st overall WR: 200 points36th overall WR: 72 pointsDifference of 128 pointsIt is this exact reason why RBs and WRs are so much more valuable. Look at the difference in points between the top player and the worst starter in the league.Now lets look at what it would be if it was a 2 QB system.1st overall QB: 225 points24th overall QB: 111 pointsDifference of 114 points.Notice how the top QBs became that much more valuable now because of adding an extra roster spot. Adding that roster spot has made the QB on par with the other positions in terms of value.2. The 2 QB system will also make keeping a QB a viable option because they will be more valuable. In the current system, there were only 2 QBs kept this past year compared to the dozen RBs. If QBs were made more valuable, it would mean that a nice QB pick or pick-up could be kept.In our system, you can't keep a nice up-and-coming QB because it is just not even worth it. Unless the QB is gonna be a top 5 QB for sure, there is no value in having them as an 8th round keeper. Simply adding the QB spot will not make the RB/WR keepers such an advantage3. The Draft would be alot more fun because it would not be scripted like it is right now. Currently, the draft basically goes RBs early rounds, WRs middle rounds, QBs later rounds.In this system, it would be a mixture of positions throughout the draft, which IMO makes it alot more interesting because the draft would not be so cut and dry.The first few rounds normally only contain 2-4 QBs, but this system would make it so that drafting 8-10 would not be out of the ordinary, and by default, this would push the oter positions down, spreading them out.4. Draft strategy. Due to the fact that the QBs would become more valuable and lessen how valuable the RBs are, it would mean that someone can put alot more strategy into their draft. As it currently sits, there isn't much strategy in the draft because of how it is scripted because of how certain positions are more valuable than others. Because the RB is so much more valuabel than the QB, people aren't even thinking of taking a QB in the first round, that not even one of their options, its basically deciding between RBs.You can also strategize of how you want to lay out your team. With the extra QB spot, you can decide to go Stud QBs and draft two QBs in the first 2 rounds and build your team around that.Making the positions level and adding the roster spot makes the strategy of the draft that much more open and fun.CONS:1. Putting the system in place and getting used to it, will no doubt be a hassle. There are a few items that would need to be discussed such as what to do with current QB keepers.My idea for this would be to just decide to make the change in 2-3 years so that everyone knows in advance and that the value or current QBs will fall during those years to make them not as valuable when the change is made.The other item might be dealt with a little further down the road, which is having to change the scoring system for some positions (i.e. WRs get a point for every reception). I don't know what changes will need to be made, so we will see what needs editting after it has been in place and we can see the results.2. Scarcity. There are only 32 starting QBs in the league. We would have 24 starting and bye weeks or injuries. Although this is similar to RBs, teams can go by RBBC, making there more than on RB option one a team (i.e. Tatum Bell and Mike Anderson). Thats not the case with QBs.This is where the idea of making it a Flex position and you can start a QB/RB/WR in that spot. Under normal circumstances, a QB would/should be in that spot becuase the average QB score more points than a RB or WR, but the Flex position would not be cornered into starting a backup QB or a terrible QB if he team had injuries or bye weeks.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Does someone have the link to that scoring equilibriation article? Its a good read on what the perfect scoring system and roster lineup is to make the positions have equal value.

 

[T Man]

I am the Commish and posted this in my league as I am trying to convince the owners to make the switch to the 2 QB system. This is some info I made and used from other sources.

Let me first say that this problem of overvalued RBs and undervalued QBs can not be remedied by simply changing the scoring system again. Changing the scoring system would only have a minimal effect because its all relative. It doesn't matter if the QB scored a million points, if the difference from the first and worst QB is still only 50 points. The only way to remedy the problem is to add or takeaway roster spots. I, for one, do not want to only start 1 RB and 2 WR, so the other option is to add a roster spot for a QB.

I am going to be continually editing and adding information to this post. If you have any questions or don't understand something, just ask.

PROS:

1. This system will bring value to the QB position in FF. Currently, the position does not have near the same value as a RB or WR because we only start 1 QB, (12 starters out of 32 NFL teams = 38%) compared to 2 RBs (24 starters out of 32 = 75%) or 3WRs (36 starters out of 64 = 57%). It is these percentages which give you indication of why RBs are so valuable and why the QB is not. The reason RBs are valuable and are hoarded is because they are scarce. Due to the fact that more RBs are started, make the ones at the top more valuable than a Top QB.

For example: Take the current stats from the start of the year.

1st overall QB: 225 points

12 overall QB: 175 points

Difference of 50 points.

1st overall RB: 242 points

24th overall RB: 91 points

Difference of 151 points

1st overall WR: 200 points

36th overall WR: 72 points

Difference of 128 points

It is this exact reason why RBs and WRs are so much more valuable. Look at the difference in points between the top player and the worst starter in the league.

Now lets look at what it would be if it was a 2 QB system.

1st overall QB: 225 points

24th overall QB: 111 points

Difference of 114 points.

Notice how the top QBs became that much more valuable now because of adding an extra roster spot. Adding that roster spot has made the QB on par with the other positions in terms of value.

2. The 2 QB system will also make keeping a QB a viable option because they will be more valuable. In the current system, there were only 2 QBs kept this past year compared to the dozen RBs. If QBs were made more valuable, it would mean that a nice QB pick or pick-up could be kept.

In our system, you can't keep a nice up-and-coming QB because it is just not even worth it. Unless the QB is gonna be a top 5 QB for sure, there is no value in having them as an 8th round keeper. Simply adding the QB spot will not make the RB/WR keepers such an advantage

3. The Draft would be alot more fun because it would not be scripted like it is right now. Currently, the draft basically goes RBs early rounds, WRs middle rounds, QBs later rounds.

In this system, it would be a mixture of positions throughout the draft, which IMO makes it alot more interesting because the draft would not be so cut and dry.

The first few rounds normally only contain 2-4 QBs, but this system would make it so that drafting 8-10 would not be out of the ordinary, and by default, this would push the oter positions down, spreading them out.

4. Draft strategy. Due to the fact that the QBs would become more valuable and lessen how valuable the RBs are, it would mean that someone can put alot more strategy into their draft. As it currently sits, there isn't much strategy in the draft because of how it is scripted because of how certain positions are more valuable than others. Because the RB is so much more valuabel than the QB, people aren't even thinking of taking a QB in the first round, that not even one of their options, its basically deciding between RBs.

You can also strategize of how you want to lay out your team. With the extra QB spot, you can decide to go Stud QBs and draft two QBs in the first 2 rounds and build your team around that.

Making the positions level and adding the roster spot makes the strategy of the draft that much more open and fun.

CONS:

1. Putting the system in place and getting used to it, will no doubt be a hassle. There are a few items that would need to be discussed such as what to do with current QB keepers.

My idea for this would be to just decide to make the change in 2-3 years so that everyone knows in advance and that the value or current QBs will fall during those years to make them not as valuable when the change is made.

The other item might be dealt with a little further down the road, which is having to change the scoring system for some positions (i.e. WRs get a point for every reception). I don't know what changes will need to be made, so we will see what needs editting after it has been in place and we can see the results.

2. Scarcity. There are only 32 starting QBs in the league. We would have 24 starting and bye weeks or injuries. Although this is similar to RBs, teams can go by RBBC, making there more than on RB option one a team (i.e. Tatum Bell and Mike Anderson). Thats not the case with QBs.

This is where the idea of making it a Flex position and you can start a QB/RB/WR in that spot. Under normal circumstances, a QB would/should be in that spot becuase the average QB score more points than a RB or WR, but the Flex position would not be cornered into starting a backup QB or a terrible QB if he team had injuries or bye weeks.

Very

 

[JohnnyTitan]

Good luck with that FridayFenzy.

Let us know what your league decides !!

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Good luck with that FridayFenzy.

Let us know what your league decides !!

Well, from speaking to numerous owners in the league, it seems that most are on board with the idea and understand that a change needs to be made. It will be interesting to see what happens at the Rule Meeting in August. I am pressing really hard for this because I feel it will make the league much more fun for everyone.

 

[JohnnyTitan]

Bump because this was a good thread and hasn't been heard from since May.

 

[Marc Levin]

my answer is they are = types of leagues.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

If anyone has some mocks for these for this year, I'd be interested.

 

[renesauz]

I've been thinking on the 2 QB system for the leagues I run for a while, and would be tempted to put it in (I run 12 team leagues), but this year is particularly challenging.

Nobody has mentioned the new problem to 2 QB leagues this year...

THE FLEXIBLE TV SCHEDULE PUT IN FOR THE NFL HAS FORCED TWO WEEKS WITH SIX TEAMS ON BYES!

Basicly, all the headaches and problems present trying to field 24 Qb's in your league every week are even worse because now in 2 weeks, there are only 26 QB's starting in the NFL.

While I'm fascinated by the idea, and would love to try 2 QB's in more "advanced" leagues...I can't see this as viable in my local league. It would add too much headache for the casual FF player. Is it right to virtually force every owner to make 2 or 3 moves on QB's during the year just to field a starting lineup?

IN 10 owner leagues, it makes a lot of sense. IN 12 owner leagues, it only makes sense if the league is full of sharks who ALL love the game, but the inherent problems will be worse now.

I'm still looking into ways to improve QB value without forcing 2 QB's. Does anyone have any OTHER ideas how to accomplish this?

 

[renesauz]

PROS:1. This system will bring value to the QB position in FF. Currently, the position does not have near the same value as a RB or WR because we only start 1 QB, (12 starters out of 32 NFL teams = 38%) compared to 2 RBs (24 starters out of 32 = 75%) or 3WRs (36 starters out of 64 = 57%). It is these percentages which give you indication of why RBs are so valuable and why the QB is not. The reason RBs are valuable and are hoarded is because they are scarce. Due to the fact that more RBs are started, make the ones at the top more valuable than a Top QB.

Umm...The problem is when you start 24 QB's (on non-bye weeks), that's 76%. While more then 32 QB's will start on the season, only 32 are gaurenteed to see significant action on any given week. A lot more then 32 RB's will have that gaurentee!IN other words...forcing 2 QB's in a 12 team league solves the problem by going to a completely opposite extreme...like killing a fly with a sledgehammer instead of a flyswatter. I'm not saying I'm completely against the idea...I'm just having trouble seeing why it's such a popular solution.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

PROS:

1. This system will bring value to the QB position in FF. Currently, the position does not have near the same value as a RB or WR because we only start 1 QB, (12 starters out of 32 NFL teams = 38%) compared to 2 RBs (24 starters out of 32 = 75%) or 3WRs (36 starters out of 64 = 57%). It is these percentages which give you indication of why RBs are so valuable and why the QB is not. The reason RBs are valuable and are hoarded is because they are scarce. Due to the fact that more RBs are started, make the ones at the top more valuable than a Top QB.

Umm...The problem is when you start 24 QB's (on non-bye weeks), that's 76%. While more then 32 QB's will start on the season, only 32 are gaurenteed to see significant action on any given week. A lot more then 32 RB's will have that gaurentee!IN other words...forcing 2 QB's in a 12 team league solves the problem by going to a completely opposite extreme...like killing a fly with a sledgehammer instead of a flyswatter.

I'm not saying I'm completely against the idea...I'm just having trouble seeing why it's such a popular solution.

Make the roster spot a FLEX spot and all will be fine. If you can't roster a QB for the week, then you can put in your RB is you wish. No one is ever tied into not starting a player. Under normal circumstances, the QB is the better option though, but making it a FLEX spot basically takes away the only CON of this set up.Its a popular solution because there isn't much you can do. Changing the points for Qbs only works to a point. After that, you need to change the roster requirements. You can change it to starting 1 QB, 1 Rb and 2 WR if you wish, or go with the more popular choice of 2 QBs.

Go read the article on scoring equilibration.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Here's a link to some of the stuff I have gathered up on 2Qbs into one thread.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...opic=245698&hl=

 

[renesauz]

I've read it.

It isn't the basic premise I have trouble with, it's the execution. It FORCES trade situations. No league setup should ever FORCE trades.

Forced trades can lead to unfair trades just to submit a lineup. Worse, all of the arguments AGAINST 2 Qb in 12 team leagues have become undeniably stronger with 6 team bye weeks, and this has NOT been accounted for in any discussion.

Further, using RB as the optional flex is of only a little help since they will also be heavily stressed during those few weeks. Although you could allow a WR sub, WR's are very inconsistant in general, and we'd be talking about a team's 4th WR against the other's 2nd QB? Not exactly a formula for fairness. Third RB is a similar stretch on any given week.

Again, it isn't the general concept of 2 QB's...I really like the concept, and in a 10 team league, I would do this in a heartbeat.

 

[GregR_2]

I've read it.

It isn't the basic premise I have trouble with, it's the execution. It FORCES trade situations. No league setup should ever FORCE trades.

Forced trades can lead to unfair trades just to submit a lineup. Worse, all of the arguments AGAINST 2 Qb in 12 team leagues have become undeniably stronger with 6 team bye weeks, and this has NOT been accounted for in any discussion.

Further, using RB as the optional flex is of only a little help since they will also be heavily stressed during those few weeks. Although you could allow a WR sub, WR's are very inconsistant in general, and we'd be talking about a team's 4th WR against the other's 2nd QB? Not exactly a formula for fairness. Third RB is a similar stretch on any given week.

Again, it isn't the general concept of 2 QB's...I really like the concept, and in a 10 team league, I would do this in a heartbeat.

I can see the argument that it isn't fair when there absolutely is no way that all teams would be able to field a full starting lineup in some weeks.But I don't get how this situation is unfair like that. Isn't it a matter of skill to correctly weigh the value of taking a backup QB vs filling a remaining starting slot and going with a WR4 as your flex? Aren't situations that reward skill the kind of situations we want to see in our FF leagues?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Has "SUPERFLEX" been mentioned yet?

Not sure who coined this term but I've seen it around.

"SUPERFLEX" = RB/WR/TE/ OR QB

So you aren't FORCED to put in 2 QBs, but if your scoring system has QBs racking up points, you'd be best served to have 2 QBs there.

However, on a bad bye week, you can still survive by not taking a zero.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I've read it.

It isn't the basic premise I have trouble with, it's the execution. It FORCES trade situations. No league setup should ever FORCE trades.

Forced trades can lead to unfair trades just to submit a lineup. Worse, all of the arguments AGAINST 2 Qb in 12 team leagues have become undeniably stronger with 6 team bye weeks, and this has NOT been accounted for in any discussion.

Further, using RB as the optional flex is of only a little help since they will also be heavily stressed during those few weeks. Although you could allow a WR sub, WR's are very inconsistant in general, and we'd be talking about a team's 4th WR against the other's 2nd QB? Not exactly a formula for fairness. Third RB is a similar stretch on any given week.

Again, it isn't the general concept of 2 QB's...I really like the concept, and in a 10 team league, I would do this in a heartbeat.

Whose fault is it if they are left with no starting QBs? You are acting as if all owners have the right to be able to start a QB regardles of how they drafted. If there are 6 team bye weekends, then draft accordingly. Whose fault is it if you have 2 Qbs on a bye that week? This setup doesn't "force" trades either. It makes it so that there are more options and thus more possibilities to trade. In a normal setup, you could never trade a starting RB for a QB, that is unheard of. In 2 QB leagues, because the QB has similar value to the RB and WR, then you can work out more trades. Someone may be "forced" into trading becuase of their situation, but you can say that about any position, not just QBs.

You keep talking as if owners don't need to be held accountable for the way they draft in this setup. Sorry, but if you don't draft QBs accordingly, then it is that owner's fault for being "forced" into a trade for a QB or having to start a non-Qb on bye weeks.

If you want Fantasy Football to just be served up to all your league members on a silver platter and it doesn't matter how they draft, then this setup isn't for you. This setup makes strategy enter the picture alot more than the normal system, and if you don't draft properly, then it is your own fault....not the system.

If I only draft 2 RBs on my team and then moan and groan about how I don't have a bye week RB, should I blame it on the system or the way I drafted?

 

[valhallan]

I've played in 2 QB leagues for years and love it. Now I'm down to just one long-standing local league that starts 2 QBs and a long-distance dynasty that only starts 1 QB. I hate the fact that Roethlisberger and Grossman are only on my dynasty team in case Brady gets hurt. 1 QB = boring.