Start 2 QBs or Start 1 QB (1 Viewer)

[JayMan]

- Last year in FBG's $20,000 challenge, 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?

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.

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.

Those 3 quotes essentially tell the story...Just the fact that Jake Plummer has no trading value because the other owner already has Matt Hasselbeck and Marc Bulger "as his backup!" tells you that something is wrong here...

As JSUF mentioned also - it's brings so much fun in the rookie [DYNASTY] draft... where in the past few years - the likes of Eli Manning - Rivers - Rothliesberger - Young - Cutler are going at spots where they should... instead of the "Do I pick Maurice Drew or Jerious Norwood with the 1.10 pick?" question... these guys should be available later on - Leinart, Young, Cutler should definitely be gone - and other QBs ala Jackson (raw with big upside) should come into play at that moment...

My 2 cents...

 

[T Man]

Well my league has decided to stick with the 2 QB format for a couple of more years; but, there will be a new push in the future to go to a 1 QB league.

I understand the concern about 6 teams on a bye, and only 32 starting QBs; but in an auction draft, I find it more intersting for strategy purposes to start 2 QBs.

Keep the debate up. Good stuff

 

[Wilbur Wood]

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.

I'm probably the one who coined that term on this board. I play in a couple of leagues that use the SuperFlex and I love it. It makes the leagues less RB-centric, removes all the logistical baggage regarding injuries and bye weeks associated with a MUST START 2 QB format, etc. However, it also rewards teams that have STUD RB Depth. The Super Flex, IMO, is even better when it is broadened to include RB, WR, TE, QB or Def (in a scoring system in which top Defenses can amass comparable point totals to top scorers at other positions). The Super Flex (with Def) can really open a whole array of different lineup strategies and ability to re-orient one's team during the course of the year if you've had bad luck with injuries or a bust at a key RB slot.Highly recommend Super Flex (with Def)

 

[Godsbrother]

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.

I'm probably the one who coined that term on this board. I play in a couple of leagues that use the SuperFlex and I love it. It makes the leagues less RB-centric, removes all the logistical baggage regarding injuries and bye weeks associated with a MUST START 2 QB format, etc. However, it also rewards teams that have STUD RB Depth. The Super Flex, IMO, is even better when it is broadened to include RB, WR, TE, QB or Def (in a scoring system in which top Defenses can amass comparable point totals to top scorers at other positions). The Super Flex (with Def) can really open a whole array of different lineup strategies and ability to re-orient one's team during the course of the year if you've had bad luck with injuries or a bust at a key RB slot.Highly recommend Super Flex (with Def)

Our flex must be a SuperDuper Flex because we allow ANY position to be flex, including kicker.

 

[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.

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?

The problem is that it does NOT mathematicly work. Simply to cover byes, every team needs three starting QB's, and there are only 32 starters (28 in bye weeks, TWENTY SIX during two specific weeks) No matter how savvy or smart the league owners are, there simply are NOT enough QB's to go around! AT A BARE MINIMUM, AT LEAST five QB trades MUST be executed during the season JUST TO MEET LINEUP REQUIREMENTS. Trades to meet lineups happen from injuries , and are part of the game, but...they should NEVER be forced this way.I can see the super-flex as a possible, if imperfect solution.

AGAIN>>>this only applies to 12 team leagues...2 QB's makes sense in 10 teamers.

Edited to add: MORE THEN 32 RB's see significant time...or did you miss that part of my post? IE: If you only draft 2 rb's who see time...it is indeed your own fault. If you only can draft 2 QB's, it isn't. Do you need a calculator?

 

[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?

The problem is that it does NOT mathematicly work. Simply to cover byes, every team needs three starting QB's, and there are only 32 starters (28 in bye weeks, TWENTY SIX during two specific weeks) No matter how savvy or smart the league owners are, there simply are NOT enough QB's to go around! AT A BARE MINIMUM, AT LEAST five QB trades MUST be executed during the season JUST TO MEET LINEUP REQUIREMENTS. Trades to meet lineups happen from injuries , and are part of the game, but...they should NEVER be forced this way.I can see the super-flex as a possible, if imperfect solution.

AGAIN>>>this only applies to 12 team leagues...2 QB's makes sense in 10 teamers.

Edited to add: MORE THEN 32 RB's see significant time...or did you miss that part of my post? IE: If you only draft 2 rb's who see time...it is indeed your own fault. If you only can draft 2 QB's, it isn't. Do you need a calculator?

If you don't like the setup, then don't bother.Maybe you need to go back and read how many QBs started by half way through the season. It was along the lines of almost 50 different QBs. If you are one of the 4 owners who doesn't have a bye week QB because of their lack of strategy when drafting, then play the waiver wire.

The 2 QB setup for a 12 team league is based on having it a flex spot. Making it a flex position takes away the only negative to this setup. If the roster spot if a flex position, what is your argument?

 

[renesauz]

I'm arguing against the 2 QB, not the 1 Qb/1 Flex

50 QB's played doesn't mean 50 QB's saw significant time. Many NFL teams will employ 2 RB's in a consistant and somewhat predictable manner. In a given (non-bye) week, about 42-45 RB's can be predicted to see significant touches, vs. only 32 QB's. Many NFL teams employ 2 RB's in a consistant and somewhat predictable manner. A second QB only sees the field after an injury to the starter or a poor performance. Even if you could predict a starting QB getting pulled...would you want to start his backup in your weekly lineup?

I can see a "Flex", I can't see REQUIRED two QB's being remotely fair in a 12 team league. (And yes, I have studied the articles on this referenced.) Maybe you misunderstood my argument?

Edited to add: Is it lack of strategy when there simply aren't enough QB's? NO! It's lack of Qb's. Two required QB's creates a shortage worse then 2 RB's EVER did.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I'm arguing against the 2 QB, not the 1 Qb/1 Flex

50 QB's played doesn't mean 50 QB's saw significant time. Many NFL teams will employ 2 RB's in a consistant and somewhat predictable manner. In a given (non-bye) week, about 42-45 RB's can be predicted to see significant touches, vs. only 32 QB's. Many NFL teams employ 2 RB's in a consistant and somewhat predictable manner. A second QB only sees the field after an injury to the starter or a poor performance. Even if you could predict a starting QB getting pulled...would you want to start his backup in your weekly lineup?

I can see a "Flex", I can't see REQUIRED two QB's being remotely fair in a 12 team league. (And yes, I have studied the articles on this referenced.) Maybe you misunderstood my argument?

Edited to add: Is it lack of strategy when there simply aren't enough QB's? NO! It's lack of Qb's. Two required QB's creates a shortage worse then 2 RB's EVER did.

I am advocating 2QBs by making it a Flex position. Not sure why you are harping on strictly 2 QBs. The Flex position takes away the only negative you have on the setup.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

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.

I'm probably the one who coined that term on this board. I play in a couple of leagues that use the SuperFlex and I love it. It makes the leagues less RB-centric, removes all the logistical baggage regarding injuries and bye weeks associated with a MUST START 2 QB format, etc. However, it also rewards teams that have STUD RB Depth. The Super Flex, IMO, is even better when it is broadened to include RB, WR, TE, QB or Def (in a scoring system in which top Defenses can amass comparable point totals to top scorers at other positions). The Super Flex (with Def) can really open a whole array of different lineup strategies and ability to re-orient one's team during the course of the year if you've had bad luck with injuries or a bust at a key RB slot.Highly recommend Super Flex (with Def)

Our flex must be a SuperDuper Flex because we allow ANY position to be flex, including kicker.

We SuperDuperMegaKillerB*tchin Flex, too. In fact, we Double SDMKB Flex by having two flex spots. I don't have the year-ends in front of me, but I believe the top D finished around #13 overall last season, so there is an opportunity to go "stud D". I believe I used a 2nd D as one of my flexes 2 or 3 weeks last season & also used a 2nd K at least once. Part of this is because we have pretty strict roster requirements: 2QB, 2RB, 4WR, 2TE, 2K, 2D, plus two at any spot. So a team can't load up on QBs or RBs or WRs on their bench.

 

[Chaka]

I'm arguing against the 2 QB, not the 1 Qb/1 Flex

50 QB's played STARTED GAMES doesn't mean 50 QB's saw significant time. Many NFL teams will employ 2 RB's in a consistant and somewhat predictable manner. In a given (non-bye) week, about 42-45 RB's can be predicted to see significant touches, vs. only 32 QB's. Many NFL teams employ 2 RB's in a consistant and somewhat predictable manner. A second QB only sees the field after an injury to the starter or a poor performance. Even if you could predict a starting QB getting pulled...would you want to start his backup in your weekly lineup?

I can see a "Flex", I can't see REQUIRED two QB's being remotely fair in a 12 team league. (And yes, I have studied the articles on this referenced.) Maybe you misunderstood my argument?

Edited to add: Is it lack of strategy when there simply aren't enough QB's? NO! It's lack of Qb's. Two required QB's creates a shortage worse then 2 RB's EVER did.

There is a significant difference between seeing playing time and starting. The six team bye weeks will present some challenges for leagues that are mandatory 2QB. The savvy owners will try to address this in the draft, others will be forced to hit the waiver wire aggressively and, yes, some will feel "forced" into trades.For the latter group of people is this any different than drafting any 2-3 starters who share the same bye week? Do you feel "forced" to trade in that situation? It's true that you can almost always find someone to fill in a starting spot (even if it is Michael Jenkins starting for Steve Smith). What if you end up with Steven Jackson, Jamal Lewis and Cedric Benson as your #1 2 & 3 RBs? They all have the same bye week. Are you forced into a trade then? Maybe you will have to drop one of your top 3 to grab a WW fill in. I am guessing the consensus here will show a complete lack of sympathy for this owner and that this particular owner made his bed on draft day and now has to sleep in it.

We have numerous threads covering the strategy of drafting around bye weeks "Should I draft as many players as possible with the same bye week and sacrifice that week for the benefit of being at full strength in most other weeks?" is a common question. And there is no consensus response for that question. In fact for the proponents of drafting as many players with the same bye week this year should be viewed as a boon with the two six-team bye weeks.

There are lineup challenges every year, this year will be add a new dynamic but it is not insurmountable. And it will impact each position, not just QBs.

I have been in a 12 team mandatory start 2QB league for 10 years and this year may have the most number of backup QBs who appear likely see PT than any year I can remember. I am not saying all of the following guys will miss PT but it sure appears that there will be a lot of potential fill-in options out there.

How many of these QBs do you have confidence will start 16 games? (bye weeks 6 & 7 noted)

NY Jets: Pennington (Ramsey, Clemmens)

St. Louis: Bulger (Frerotte) - Week 7

Atlanta: Vick (Schaub)

Baltimore: McNair (Boller) - Week 7

Arizona: Warner (Leinart)

Chicago: Grossman (Griese) - Week 7

Washington: Brunell (Campbell)

Jacksonville: Leftwich (Garrard) - Week 6

San Francisco: Smith (Dilfer) - Week 7

Cleveland: Frye (Dorsey) - Week 6

Minnesota: Brad Johnson (McMahon) - Week 6

And those are just the fragile guys, what about potential benchings in Oakland, Detroit, Tennessee - Week 7, Buffalo

And the guys coming back from serious injury; Culpepper, Palmer.

This year will present a significant challenge (for two weeks) for mandatory start 2QB leagues but I simply do not see this as a deal breaker. I look at it as a challenge and as a situation that I, like my fellow owners, will do our darndest to exploit.

 

[Chaka]

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.

Paging Sand, paging Sand; please repost your equilibration in scoring articles.I could not find Sand's equilibration article but I have a PDF of a very good article on the subject. It is 28 pages or I would post it.

PM me and I will get it to you.

 

[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.

Paging Sand, paging Sand; please repost your equilibration in scoring articles.I could not find Sand's equilibration article but I have a PDF of a very good article on the subject. It is 28 pages or I would post it.

PM me and I will get it to you.

I have found it since.

 

[GregR_2]

I'm a strong advocate of the 2nd QB-via-flex. But let me add one more thing about even a strict 2 QB league.

One valid strategy is to combine your byes into one week, giving you an almost sure loss that week but giving you an advantage over most other teams in weeks 3-9. Having 6 teams on bye those two weeks actually enhances a team's ability to do this strategy by giving you more teams you can try to get solid starters from on the same bye week.

If I were a team who decided a 3rd QB wasn't important enough to be sure I got, I'd probably be considering this as a strategy.

All that said, it doesn't make much sense to me not to use the flex instead of the straight 2nd QB slot. The only way the flex doesn't make sense is if your QB scoring is paltry compared to other positions, and that seldom seems to be the case.

 

[Chaka]

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.

Paging Sand, paging Sand; please repost your equilibration in scoring articles.I could not find Sand's equilibration article but I have a PDF of a very good article on the subject. It is 28 pages or I would post it.

PM me and I will get it to you.

I have found it since.

I just saw this in your other 2QB thread. Is this the same article that Sand posted here?

 

[renesauz]

FridayFrenzy: Not sure what we're arguing about any more. I can see the "super-flex" option as being a viable solution, maybe even the best solution.

Not every league is full of sharks and FF gurus who live in forums such as these. My real argument is against any rules which essentially gaurentee that a large portion of a league MUST make moves in the season simply by virtue of available starters.

I acknowledge that 50 QB's might have started (I didn't verify this, but it's probably true), but only 32 started in any given week. The fact that 50 different ones started only serves to strengthen the argument, as that means EVEN MORE roster moves would have to be made just to put in a weekly starting lineup. I simply can't see FORCING the more casual FF players to make roster moves involving one week starting QB's who are really 2nd or third string players on their NFL teams unlikely to play in more then a couple of games.

FF is about picking the best of the NFL...not using players in the one or two games they are likely to play in AT ALL during the season.

I wouldn't mind playing 2 QB's in a 12 team league full of super-active, super-knowledgeable and dedicated owners (like many of those in this forum, including yourself), but that's simply too much for the casual home-town league.

If for any reason my home town league drops to 10...we will go to 2 QB's. We are about to have a league vote for adding the super-flex position, mostly because of the discussions in this thread.

For those who have consistently brought up the study about optimal lineup requirements, keep in mind that that study never assumed 6 team bye weeks. To stay with "2 QB's must start" in a 12 team league virtually gaurentees that a couple owners will be FORCED to either leave a lineup spot blank, or take an unfair trade. Those things happen all the time to owners who aren't paying attention, but should never happen by the design of the league rules.



EDITED TO ADD: Keep in mind that the more complicated and difficult the league becomes, the harder it is to get new people (who haven't tryed this game) to play. The more effort it becomes to play, the less likely it is that the casual owner will stick around for the next season.

I don't know about you, but I love having a handfull of casual guys in the league...because they supply much of the $$$$ I usually end up winning. I want these guys to have fun with it, and be successful when they work at it.

Maybe it would be beter in the future to qualify any discussion about lineup or roster requirements with what TYPE of league is being discussed. IE: A super-competitive league of sharks, a casual home-town league, or something in between?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

FridayFrenzy: Not sure what we're arguing about any more. I can see the "super-flex" option as being a viable solution, maybe even the best solution.

Not every league is full of sharks and FF gurus who live in forums such as these. My real argument is against any rules which essentially gaurentee that a large portion of a league MUST make moves in the season simply by virtue of available starters.

I acknowledge that 50 QB's might have started (I didn't verify this, but it's probably true), but only 32 started in any given week. The fact that 50 different ones started only serves to strengthen the argument, as that means EVEN MORE roster moves would have to be made just to put in a weekly starting lineup. I simply can't see FORCING the more casual FF players to make roster moves involving one week starting QB's who are really 2nd or third string players on their NFL teams unlikely to play in more then a couple of games.

FF is about picking the best of the NFL...not using players in the one or two games they are likely to play in AT ALL during the season.

I wouldn't mind playing 2 QB's in a 12 team league full of super-active, super-knowledgeable and dedicated owners (like many of those in this forum, including yourself), but that's simply too much for the casual home-town league.

If for any reason my home town league drops to 10...we will go to 2 QB's. We are about to have a league vote for adding the super-flex position, mostly because of the discussions in this thread.

For those who have consistently brought up the study about optimal lineup requirements, keep in mind that that study never assumed 6 team bye weeks. To stay with "2 QB's must start" in a 12 team league virtually gaurentees that a couple owners will be FORCED to either leave a lineup spot blank, or take an unfair trade. Those things happen all the time to owners who aren't paying attention, but should never happen by the design of the league rules.



EDITED TO ADD: Keep in mind that the more complicated and difficult the league becomes, the harder it is to get new people (who haven't tryed this game) to play. The more effort it becomes to play, the less likely it is that the casual owner will stick around for the next season.

I don't know about you, but I love having a handfull of casual guys in the league...because they supply much of the $$$$ I usually end up winning. I want these guys to have fun with it, and be successful when they work at it.

Maybe it would be beter in the future to qualify any discussion about lineup or roster requirements with what TYPE of league is being discussed. IE: A super-competitive league of sharks, a casual home-town league, or something in between?

You seem to simply nit picking on the negative that a strict 12 team 2 QB league has, and not embracing the amount of fun and strategy it brings as well.

 

[Chaka]

Note: I am not trying convert anyone, just addressing your issues.

FF is about picking the best of the NFL...not using players in the one or two games they are likely to play in AT ALL during the season.

But isn't this the same as putting a 2nd or 3rd string NFL RB in your lineup to cover a bye? You are not guaranteed any production from the William Green's and Justin Fargas' of the world, so shouldn't owners who have to start these guys feel forced to make a trade too? Probably not because from the beginning you know that your league starts 2-3 RBs and you plan your draft and work the waiver wire to avoid having linuep conflicts. Yes I do see that at least you can expect WG or JF to get a few token carries, I also expect Matt Leinart to throw a few passes the question is when?

I wouldn't mind playing 2 QB's in a 12 team league full of super-active, super-knowledgeable and dedicated owners (like many of those in this forum, including yourself), but that's simply too much for the casual home-town league.

You are waaaaay overestimating the difficulty of participating in this format.

To stay with "2 QB's must start" in a 12 team league virtually gaurentees that a couple owners will be FORCED to either leave a lineup spot blank, or take an unfair trade. Those things happen all the time to owners who aren't paying attention, but should never happen by the design of the league rules.

If the owner is a slacker it wont matter what the lineup requirements are. So the owners have to pay attention to a bye week, this is not a difficult thing to do.

I don't know about you, but I love having a handfull of casual guys in the league...because they supply much of the $$$$ I usually end up winning.

I am sure you meant this to sound better but it seems like you are saying that you like guppies swimming in your pond so you will have someone to, hopefully, take advantage of due to their own ignorance. So forgive me if I do not see why it bothers you so much that they will be "forced" into poor trades (a notion I disagree with). Perhaps you are more concerned that you might be the one "forced" into the bad trade due to circumstances? Maybe the dumb luck (good & bad) that comes with starting 2QBs will even end up leveling the playing field in your league?

I want these guys to have fun with it, and be successful when they work at it.

Very alturistic of you, even if it does somewhat disagree with your statement above.My league has savvy owners and some casual guys too. We have plenty of guys that do not draft a 3rd starting QB because they feel they can work the wire to pick up another starter, usually they are correct. Then we have guys, like me, who go out of our way to pick up a quality 3rd starting QB 1) to cover byes & 2) trade bait.

These type of issues all come out in the wash.

 

[Festivus]

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.

How exactly is this any different than what happens to RB's in a 1QB league? Isn't it the exact dynamic that led to the stud Rb theory?

 

[renesauz]

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.

How exactly is this any different than what happens to RB's in a 1QB league? Isn't it the exact dynamic that led to the stud Rb theory?

Yes, it is...but at least there are another 6-10 RB's in any given year who can be counted on to see significant playing time.EXAMPLES: Dunn/Duckett, Westbrook/Moats, Parker/Staley (Bettis last year). IN other words, there are more RB's who can be counted on to see the rock then there are QB's you can count on to throw the rock. 2 QB's creates a premium on QB's greater then any ever created on RB's.

And yes Friday, I am nitpicking. I'm nitpicking on the idea that any league should intentionally create a situation where trades are forced by the simple fact of numbers. I will never feel sorry for the guy who can't plan for a bye, but this is different because even with proper planning you can be stuck without a player. The argument that it's there "own fault" doesn't fly because even if EVERY owner plans properly..somebody comes up short.

I feel very strongly about this notion: Any Trade forced by the league rules is by definition unfair.

While you can argue the 2 QB rule doesn't force the trade on a properly prepared owner, you can't deny the fact that it's mathematicly IMPOSSIBLE for every owner to be so prepared WITHOUT performing one or more trades during the season.

I'm arguing about the fairness of the concept in a 12 team league.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I will never feel sorry for the guy who can't plan for a bye, but this is different because even with proper planning you can be stuck without a player. The argument that it's there "own fault" doesn't fly because even if EVERY owner plans properly..somebody comes up short.

The guy that comes up short is the one who didn't plan properly. You can't say everyone planned properly because those who get caught are the ones who didn't plan well enough.If my plan going into the draft is to draft 3 starting QBs, but I get jobbed and don't get 3 starting QBs, that means that I didn't plan properly. Its as simple as that.

And this notion of "forcing" a trade is false because an owner can just opt to test their luck with the bye week. Is trading a player for a one week replacement really worth it? You have to remember that on those big bye weeks owners are going to be starting the worst QBs in the league, so they aren't going to have that big of an advantage. I don't know many owners that will make a trade just for a bye week, so I don't see anyone being "forced" into anything.

 

[smackattack]

This is a great thread and something ive been wanting to do in my league.

I think im going to make the hard push in my league this year, but there are some things that im wondering about to make this really work.

Our league is a pretty standard redraft league. 12 teams. 1qb,2rb,3wr, te,k,d

we give 6 points for td to all players and defense. 1 pt for 50 yrd passing 1 pt for 20 yrds rush/pass. We dropped scoring a bit on d, 1 pt for any turnover, 1 per sack, 6 for td and then a scale based on points against (offensive points only)

Roster is 15, you start 9 every week

If I wanted to do a 2 qb league, or even a superflex, i know im going to need to tweak the scoring a bit.

would 3 or 4 point for passing td be enough to balance out the qb position to still make them desirable, but not overwhelming in the flex spot?

Also, by adding another postion, how much should i increase roster size by? rosters of 17, starting 10 players?

thanks for any input

 

[Uruk-Hai]

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.

How exactly is this any different than what happens to RB's in a 1QB league? Isn't it the exact dynamic that led to the stud Rb theory?

Yes, it is...but at least there are another 6-10 RB's in any given year who can be counted on to see significant playing time.EXAMPLES: Dunn/Duckett, Westbrook/Moats, Parker/Staley (Bettis last year). IN other words, there are more RB's who can be counted on to see the rock then there are QB's you can count on to throw the rock. 2 QB's creates a premium on QB's greater then any ever created on RB's.

The flip side of that is that many leagues "force" owners to have to play part-time players (in this case, RBs) while legitimate starting QBs are on everyone's bench. Yet having to play the 35th best RB (who doesn't even start for his own team) and sitting the 13th best QB doesn't seem to raise the hackles nearly as much as this subject does (though I notice the fight against weakening over the last couple of years).Think about it: every week we know who all 32 starting QBs are going to be. They may not be the same 32 who started last week, but we know going in who they're going to be. Barring injury during the game (which we can't foresee) or benching due to poor performance/blowout (which is also hard to predict & rarer than injury), we have a much better handle on who will be throwing the ball than we do with who's going to be running it for several teams.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

This is a great thread and something ive been wanting to do in my league.

I think im going to make the hard push in my league this year, but there are some things that im wondering about to make this really work.

Our league is a pretty standard redraft league. 12 teams. 1qb,2rb,3wr, te,k,d

we give 6 points for td to all players and defense. 1 pt for 50 yrd passing 1 pt for 20 yrds rush/pass. We dropped scoring a bit on d, 1 pt for any turnover, 1 per sack, 6 for td and then a scale based on points against (offensive points only)

Roster is 15, you start 9 every week

If I wanted to do a 2 qb league, or even a superflex, i know im going to need to tweak the scoring a bit.

would 3 or 4 point for passing td be enough to balance out the qb position to still make them desirable, but not overwhelming in the flex spot?

Also, by adding another postion, how much should i increase roster size by? rosters of 17, starting 10 players?

thanks for any input

In our league with a superflex, we award 1/10 for rushing receiving, 1/30 passing, 6 pt TDs rushing/receiving, & 4 pt passing TDs. Last season, our top ranked QB (Palmer) finished 13th overall in scoring with QBs catching & passing RBs at around spot #35 overall. Our 13th QB (the first theoretical flex QB) finished about 25 pts higher than the 13th RB (first flex RB). In 2004 (a historic year for QBs), Culpepper & Manning were #s 1 & 2 overall. So, our system holds down QB scoring at the very top in a normal year but they seem to catch up pretty quickly. Your ratios are a little different for yardage (in the QB's favor) & your TDs for passing are scored higher. You also start 2 RBs, so you'd need to compare the 13th QB against the 25th RB. I'd play around with the Draft Dominator, a tool that makes it very easy to test different scoring systems (don't worry about individual projections - you're looking at the big picture).

 

[renesauz]

I will never feel sorry for the guy who can't plan for a bye, but this is different because even with proper planning you can be stuck without a player.  The argument that it's there "own fault" doesn't fly because even if EVERY owner plans properly..somebody comes up short.

The guy that comes up short is the one who didn't plan properly. You can't say everyone planned properly because those who get caught are the ones who didn't plan well enough.If my plan going into the draft is to draft 3 starting QBs, but I get jobbed and don't get 3 starting QBs, that means that I didn't plan properly. Its as simple as that.

And this notion of "forcing" a trade is false because an owner can just opt to test their luck with the bye week. Is trading a player for a one week replacement really worth it? You have to remember that on those big bye weeks owners are going to be starting the worst QBs in the league, so they aren't going to have that big of an advantage. I don't know many owners that will make a trade just for a bye week, so I don't see anyone being "forced" into anything.

The point was since it's MATHEMATICLY IMPOSSIBLE for every owner to be prepared (have a third QB to cover the bye week without a trade), then how can you then put the onus on the 4 owners who DON'T have a bye week fill-in? It simply is not the same as the owner without a bye fill-in for RB or WR.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I will never feel sorry for the guy who can't plan for a bye, but this is different because even with proper planning you can be stuck without a player.  The argument that it's there "own fault" doesn't fly because even if EVERY owner plans properly..somebody comes up short.

The guy that comes up short is the one who didn't plan properly. You can't say everyone planned properly because those who get caught are the ones who didn't plan well enough.If my plan going into the draft is to draft 3 starting QBs, but I get jobbed and don't get 3 starting QBs, that means that I didn't plan properly. Its as simple as that.

And this notion of "forcing" a trade is false because an owner can just opt to test their luck with the bye week. Is trading a player for a one week replacement really worth it? You have to remember that on those big bye weeks owners are going to be starting the worst QBs in the league, so they aren't going to have that big of an advantage. I don't know many owners that will make a trade just for a bye week, so I don't see anyone being "forced" into anything.

The point was since it's MATHEMATICLY IMPOSSIBLE for every owner to be prepared (have a third QB to cover the bye week without a trade), then how can you then put the onus on the 4 owners who DON'T have a bye week fill-in? It simply is not the same as the owner without a bye fill-in for RB or WR.

Then Job #1 for those 4 owners who walk out of the draft without a 3rd starter is to start thinking about situations where a b/u is going to be used - if they didn't do so at the draft. Many people do this with RBs in "normal" leagues after realizing they didn't draft enough start-worthy guys.I think you're getting hung up on the math at draft time, & not thinking about how many QB transactions are made anyway in most leagues because of injury, benching, etc....Sure, the "Unlucky Four" know they'll have to make a move at some point, but most of those other 8 are too.

 

[ookook]

I have played in a 12 team 2 QB league. OF course, there were only 4 teams on bye each week.

But it went....just fine.

Yes, there were some times where a team ended up HAVING to trade. This is because they chose to wait to try for 3rd QB. It was part of the strategy. It ADDED STRATEGY and at times worked out for them better and others worse.

I took 2 QBs with early bye weeks so that my 3rd would become tradeable. It was part of MY strategy.

I think nobody was FORCED to trade, some people choose to.

 

[ookook]

One league I commish goes like this.

Ideally, we would like the amount of depth and challenge of about a 20 to 24 team league...but do not know that many potential owners and might like better odds at money.

So we start based on supply and demand:

2 QB, 2 RB, 4 WR, 2 TE, 2 K, DEF/ST

We also really weight DEF/ST a lot and have NO PPR.

We had 11 teams last year (single division). It gives same depth roughly as 22-team league. Was totally excellent.

The draft was truly the most challenging I have ever participated in. Good trading, good wiaver wire (for sharks who know what is going on that deep).

Stick it into DD once with worst starter baseline and check it out. And throw ADP out the window...which was refreshing.

Would work well with 10 this year given the week 6 and 7 bye thing.

Some owners were skeptical...especially "conservative" folks who dislike chage. But EVERY ONE ABSOLUTELY LOVED IT by the end.

 

[GregR_2]

This is a great thread and something ive been wanting to do in my league.

I think im going to make the hard push in my league this year, but there are some things that im wondering about to make this really work.

Our league is a pretty standard redraft league. 12 teams. 1qb,2rb,3wr, te,k,d

we give 6 points for td to all players and defense. 1 pt for 50 yrd passing 1 pt for 20 yrds rush/pass. We dropped scoring a bit on d, 1 pt for any turnover, 1 per sack, 6 for td and then a scale based on points against (offensive points only)

Roster is 15, you start 9 every week

If I wanted to do a 2 qb league, or even a superflex, i know im going to need to tweak the scoring a bit.

would 3 or 4 point for passing td be enough to balance out the qb position to still make them desirable, but not overwhelming in the flex spot?

Also, by adding another postion, how much should i increase roster size by? rosters of 17, starting 10 players?

thanks for any input

I wouldn't tweak your scoring. One of the major benefits of having the super flex is that if it is primarily QBs who start in it, you are raising the value of all QBs and bringing them closer to that of RBs.If you lower QB scoring so you start RBs in there instead, you're just further increasing the importance of RBs which is the opposite direction most leagues are looking to go. You could tweak everything to favor WR or TE in that slot as well, which would help those positions... though really I think if you want to help those positions you should just add an additional WR and/or TE. They have no issues with shortages of starters like QB so don't require a flex to make that kind of change to their relative value.