Success with QBBC (1 Viewer)

[Chumpson]

So, I just read Chase's article on QBBC and it sounds good, however I haven't ever given this sort of thing a try before. Anybody ever use this article with success? Would you do it again? Would you rather just have a stud?

I wonder if it is better to take a chance on a Kitna/Romo type in the 7th like the "Perfect Draft" article, or get more RBs/WRs and go with this approach.

Thoughts? Experiences?

 

[5-ish Finkle]

I finished in the money once in a PPR league running out a QBBC that primarily consisted of Brad Johnson and Charlie Batch. It can be done. Having said that....it wasn't a ton of fun having to fret every week over if I played the right matchups.

It DID allow me to be loaded for bear at the other skill positions though. Was able to overcome a couple injuries because of the depth I had at WR, plus it let me carry Beej/Batch. It just wasn't a very comfortable season on my nerves.

 

[Chumpson]

This is my question. If I follow Chase's advice I wouldn't be "fretting" because he already has the matchups set based on strength of the defense. Anybody used the article this way?

 

[doughboydeluxe]

Most of the success I have had with QBBC has come when one of my QBs emerged as the clear QB1 on my team (Plummer in 2004, Rivers in 2006 to name two). It does give you a chance to stockpile some talent at other positions, which usually means you will do well as long as your QB position can get you decent fantasy starter points.

While knowing the tendencies of my leagues make me anticipate QBBC because some of them tend to overvalue QBs, I NEVER enter a draft planning to use QBBC. If the value of the draft dictates taking other positions, then do that. If the value of the draft dictates waiting on QBs, then do that.

 

[doughboydeluxe]

This is my question. If I follow Chase's advice I wouldn't be "fretting" because he already has the matchups set based on strength of the defense. Anybody used the article this way?

Things change, though. Sometimes defenses are better during the regular season than we anticipate in the preseason... sometimes they are worse. If you go with QBBC, know that there will be times where you make the wrong choice at QB, and that's just something you will have to live with.

 

[Chumpson]

This is why I am trying to compare it to "The Perfect Draft". I think I could get a Kitna/Romo where it is discussed in that article, but I could also get a RB4/WR4 instead and wait and use the QBBC method. Just wondering what people have had success with in the past.

 

[Resident A]

I've attempted QBBC several times over the years, and tried to play matchups. Usually, I'd pick the wrong guy. The theory behind QBBC is sound, but you have to pick the right guy each week which is not easy. It's really a crapshoot & I had terrible luck at it.

In most cases, I ended up trading for a better QB.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think psychologically people get way too worked up on "playing the wrong guy" in QBBC. Your third RB will probably outscore your second RB in several weeks this year, too. But people don't get bent out of shape when that happens because they chalk it up to the randomness of the NFL season, and it's simple to say you started your better player every week.

It's the same thing with QBBC. There will be some weeks where your backup QB will outscore your starting QB. That will happen if you do QBBC, or if you grab Tom Brady and Rex Grossman, too. If you have two backup QBs, there will be even more weeks where your backup QB outscores your starting QB. But once again, if you draft Carson Palmer, Ben Roethlisberger and Jake Delhomme, I bet Palmer won't be your high scorer in a whole lot of weeks. Does that make drafting Palmer a bad idea? Of course not.

Defenses do change, however, and that's a good point that was brought up earlier. Just like last year, though, we'll be releasing a mid-season QBBC article again. And the same for DTBC.

 

[Chumpson]

I know there is no simple answer Chase and I enjoy reading the article. I guess I just need to figure out, when I draft, if a QB falls do I snatch him or "stick with the plan" and load up.

"Hard to see, is the future. Always in motion it is."

 

[doughboydeluxe]

This is why I am trying to compare it to "The Perfect Draft". I think I could get a Kitna/Romo where it is discussed in that article, but I could also get a RB4/WR4 instead and wait and use the QBBC method. Just wondering what people have had success with in the past.

It all depends on value. If there are a bunch of spares left for RB4/WR4, or a bunch of players you view equally, then go with Romo or Kitna. For me, if Romo or Kitna were available in the 7th, my guess would be that there would not be value at RB or WR that would make me want to pass up one of them.

 

[Chumpson]

For me, if Romo or Kitna were available in the 7th, my guess would be that there would not be value at RB or WR that would make me want to pass up one of them.

I think you are probably right on this point.

 

[matuski]

I do this every year...

Don't think I have ever had a "stud" QB unless he was a late round sleeper.

Of course I have never gone into the depth of analyzing it like the article - good stuff.

 

[Dentist]

I've used it the last few years.

The above poster that said it works best when 1 QB rises to the top, is correct.

Plummer 2004 and Rivers last season were exactly how it worked for me.

in 2005 it didn't work so great.

I hate drafting QB's in general though, and so unless I get peyton, which did happen to me once because i was just in "that" spot.

But usually i'll take about 3 QB's between rounds 10-14 and one of them will pan out.

The main times i've been screwed by it were when morons started taking BACKUP QB's before I'd taken my starter. and before they'd even filled out their lineup... One time in a 10 man league I took the 12th QB overall.. I didn't want to let it slip that far for sure.

 

[gheemony]

I don't go to the extreme that Chase suggests (QBs in the 15+ range). I usually try to fill out a roster with 2 QBs in my 10-15 range. That is, once most every other team has their starting QB, I usually have my pick of the remainders. I then pick the best two on my board. And often times, I can wait for one of them because their ADP puts them around QB15+ for the other teams. I once tried to wait for both QBs per ADP, but got screwed as there was a run on QBs. There was no logical reason for teams to grab back up QBs, but it happened, and it made for tough situation (I had to work hard to trade RB/WR depth for a serviceable QB). Don't assume everyone is rationale. So I always try to grab at least one QB I feel comfortable with before really getting deep at RB and WR.

Once I do get one QB, I will use the "Complementary QB" feature in Draft Dominator to help me pick a second QB if it is close. For example, if I draft Roethlisberger and I have Eli and Lefty with similar projections, I'll let DD help me decide between the two by seeing who has the best schedule match.

As an example, in the one, intense league that I play, I am going with Roethlisberger, Hasslebeck, and Schaub. Not a QBBC as Chase defines it. But the combined amount that I am paying those two QBs (auction league) is less than what was paid for Manning and for Palmer. To me, in an auction league, the QBBC principle means picking up a number of QBs at low prices for the same price as one of the studs. It better protects you against injury - all your eggs aren't in one basket.

That being said, I HATE the agony of picking a starter each week. It's not as easy as following Chase's outline or looking at the SOS. And the FBG projections usually don't help because the projections are usually within 1 point of each other (these are closely rated players), so it's a crap shoot. I suffered last season as I continually picked "wrong" between Roethlisberger and Delhomme.

I am already fretting about whether to start Hasslebeck v. TB or Roesthliberger v. CLE in week 1 (both good matchups). And its only week 3 of the preseason!