Starting 1 QB, but making them worth more (1 Viewer)

[Z-Dog]

In most leagues, you start 1 QB, and basically, QBs are entirely undervalued. Starting 2QBs changes that equation, but there are some logistical issues in larger leagues, and the purists hate it. So here's a thought:

Why not give QBs points for leading their NFL teams to victory? Make a win worth 10 points, say. After all, the NFL measures QBs on wins and losses much more than on yards and TDs, so shouldn't fantasy do the same? If you do this, QBs like Peyton Manning and Matt Hasselbeck score 100+ more points per season. But it's not jsut the total points that changes the value, it's the change in distribution of points within the QB position. The bottom of the QB market takes a HUGE hit. Favre, Carr and Warner will all be significantly less valuable, since they are on track for only 40-80 points this year. Plus, it gives a boost to guys like Ben Roethlisberger, who doesn't put up big fantasy numbers, but wins games.

Maybe someone can run the numbers from last year and see how it changes the VBD - is anyone out there playing a league that does this?

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

so what happens if you play a QB's backup, who doesn't take a snap, but whose team wins? they still get 10 points?

 

[Ned]

how about giving .1 points for every 10 percentage points in their completion percentage?

 

[Z-Dog]

so what happens if you play a QB's backup, who doesn't take a snap, but whose team wins? they still get 10 points?

It doesn't have to be that way, but for argument's sake let's say that it is - would it matter? You can always do better than 10 non-guaranteed points by just starting an NFL starter. I don't anticipate a run on NFL backups b/c of this.

how about giving .1 points for every 10 percentage points in their completion percentage?

Doesn't seperate QBs from one another. Nearly all QBs throw for more than 50% and lesss than 70%. The overall difference in VBD will be negligile.

 

[David Yudkin]

If you only use 12 QB from a crop of 32 NFL starters, no matter what you do to the scoring system will not have a huge impact on their value. If you do something that gives QB say around 50 more points a season, the odds are pretty good that the #1 QB will see 50 more points a year and the #12 guy might see 45 more points a year.

The only way to make the top QBs more value is to use more of the QB pool and start 2 QBs. That way it makes taking QBs early far more important so you don't get stuck having to start the dregs of QB society. Of course, bye weeks can pose a problem as depending upon the legue size it may not be possible to force teams to start 2 QBs when there are not enough QBs playing in any NFL week to cover the starting fantasy requirements.

 

[Mario Kart]

Increase the value of QB's by taking away the overrated value of RB's. Start 1 RB instead of 2 and you will have your increase.

 

[BroadwayG]

I'm in a league that has a point per completion and -1 for an incompletion.

 

[GregR_2]

If you only use 12 QB from a crop of 32 NFL starters, no matter what you do to the scoring system will not have a huge impact on their value. If you do something that gives QB say around 50 more points a season, the odds are pretty good that the #1 QB will see 50 more points a year and the #12 guy might see 45 more points a year.

The only way to make the top QBs more value is to use more of the QB pool and start 2 QBs. That way it makes taking QBs early far more important so you don't get stuck having to start the dregs of QB society. Of course, bye weeks can pose a problem as depending upon the legue size it may not be possible to force teams to start 2 QBs when there are not enough QBs playing in any NFL week to cover the starting fantasy requirements.

Which is why you use a flex position that includes QB. 90% of teams will start a 2nd QB in the spot since the 24th ranked QB in most scoring systems outscores the best backup RBs, WRs and TEs. But any offensive player can be started there on a bye, or in the event of a flookish string of injuries.I much prefer to have the two QBs than to up QB scoring by large amounts over what it already is. There is something said to keeping balance where a single player's swing between low and high values can swamp what the rest of your team does. Even though 2 QBs doesn't parallel the NFL as closely, I think it makes for the better game.

 

[Armando]

Which is why you use a flex position that includes QB. 90% of teams will start a 2nd QB in the spot since the 24th ranked QB in most scoring systems outscores the best backup RBs, WRs and TEs. But any offensive player can be started there on a bye, or in the event of a flookish string of injuries.

I've always wondered why QB's aren't allowed in flex spots in most leagues.QB's are worth next to nothing in my dynasty league (Start 1). You'd be lucky to get a RB3 or WR3 for anyone out of the Top 8.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Any league that undervalues QB's must be pure fantasy.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

If you only use 12 QB from a crop of 32 NFL starters, no matter what you do to the scoring system will not have a huge impact on their value. If you do something that gives QB say around 50 more points a season, the odds are pretty good that the #1 QB will see 50 more points a year and the #12 guy might see 45 more points a year.

The only way to make the top QBs more value is to use more of the QB pool and start 2 QBs. That way it makes taking QBs early far more important so you don't get stuck having to start the dregs of QB society. Of course, bye weeks can pose a problem as depending upon the legue size it may not be possible to force teams to start 2 QBs when there are not enough QBs playing in any NFL week to cover the starting fantasy requirements.

Which is why you use a flex position that includes QB. 90% of teams will start a 2nd QB in the spot since the 24th ranked QB in most scoring systems outscores the best backup RBs, WRs and TEs. But any offensive player can be started there on a bye, or in the event of a flookish string of injuries.I much prefer to have the two QBs than to up QB scoring by large amounts over what it already is. There is something said to keeping balance where a single player's swing between low and high values can swamp what the rest of your team does. Even though 2 QBs doesn't parallel the NFL as closely, I think it makes for the better game.

We allow QBs in the flex spot. In order to make the flex spot less a de facto 2nd QB, we give 4 pts per passing TD & 1 pt per 30 yards passing. Using FBGs projections, the 13th QB is slated to score 211 pts, the 13th RB is projected at 188 pts, & the 25th WR is at 190 pts (we mandate starting 1-1-2 in a 12 teamer). So the QB has a 21-23 pt edge, or about 1.5 ppg - not enough to make the 2nd QB an automatic start at the flex.

 

[GregR_2]

We allow QBs in the flex spot. In order to make the flex spot less a de facto 2nd QB, we give 4 pts per passing TD & 1 pt per 30 yards passing. Using FBGs projections, the 13th QB is slated to score 211 pts, the 13th RB is projected at 188 pts, & the 25th WR is at 190 pts (we mandate starting 1-1-2 in a 12 teamer). So the QB has a 21-23 pt edge, or about 1.5 ppg - not enough to make the 2nd QB an automatic start at the flex.

I actually prefer the flex spot as a defacto QB.In fact my favorite setup is a flex QB/RB which ends up almost always being a QB, and then a flex WR/TE to give those positions more value (along with starting 2 TE and 4 WR)