Superflex Vs Standard - Let’s Talk About It (1 Viewer)

[Hot Sauce Guy]

In the dynasty trades topic we got a little off-topic when discussing SF value.

There seems to be a range of opinions over SF regarding QB value, and whether or not you have to start a QB in the SF slot.

I play in 2 dynasty SF formats.
1. 12-team, start 10, PPR SF
2. 16-team, start 22 PPR SF IDP performance scoring.

In the 12-team league, it’s definitely an advantage IF you have 2 good QBs.

In the 16-team league, there are enough starters on offense & defense (22, including K) that it tends to minimize the need to have a QB in that 2nd QB slot.

Now, I’m not saying it’s irrelevant - if you have two great QBs, by all means, start em.

But if you’re talking about scraping the bottom of the barrel for a starting QB, it might be better to roll out a WR4 or a RB3 who might score 15-20 vs the scrub QB who may only score 12-16.

This convo started in the context of a deal of Howell for Deebo, which I felt was a horrible deal, “even in SF”. Howell being a 5th round pick.

Point being, just because it’s SF doesn’t make Howell worth Deebo. Howell would have to go through a Brock Purdy-esque career path to even come close to that value.

Anyway, it occurred to me that there’s a lot of mystery & even some confusion about SF value out there, and thought it might be nice to have a discussion about SF values, and how folks approach SF in different formats.

I’m one person, but I know we have a ton of folks who play SF. Maybe some of you would be willing to opine on how you approach the SF position in various formats.

1. What league size / format(s) do you play in?
2. Do you always start a QB in the SF slot?
3. If not, why?
4. How much value boost do you assign QBs in SF vs start 1?
5. Anything else that you might feel is helpful for non-SF players to know about the format?

ETA: Interested in playing SF but have questions? Feel free to ask anything - I’m sure the board denizens will be more than happy to answer, myself included.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

From the trades topic - a good question, and a great answer:

I am not sure what your league being IDP has to do with whether a QB or a WR/RB will score more points in any given week

IDP matters in the sense that some IDP leagues can double the amount of starting players (I have an IDP league with 8 offensive starters and 8 defensive starters). So a QB goes from 1/9th or 1.10th of a starting lineup (in leagues that include kickers and/or team defenses) to, say, 1/17th of a starting lineup (in case of IDP with a kicker). It doesn't matter as much what a QB (or RB or WR) scores in IDP because there are more starters to compensate for weekly variance.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. In this case it’s 1/22 of my roster.

And performance IDP scoring allows DE or LB to outscore some (many) low-end QBs.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Anyone? Anyone? Something…economics? Voodoo…economics?

 

[phandango]

For me, there are two massive reasons why I prefer superflex to 1 QB leagues:

1) Superflex makes the rookie drafts much more fun because of how valuable QBs are. Example: In 2021, Najee Harris was pretty much the consensus 1.01 in 1 QB leagues (with Ja'Marr Chase a very close second). In superflex rookie drafts, because of the perception of the QB class, you could get Harris anywhere in the top six picks.

2) The value of QBs means more trading options. Dynasty is fun because trading is fun. Increasing the value of QBs gives more possible paths to making trades.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

In superflex rookie drafts, because of the perception of the QB class, you could get Harris anywhere in the top six picks.

he went 1.05 in my 12-team SF league. Spot on.

 

[Gally]

I think this discussion must start with the scoring system being used and if positions are scored similarly across tiers or not. I think the majority of SF discussion usually assumes that the scoring favors the QB greatly so that you must start 2QB's to be competitive. I would guess that is the case for many SF leagues as they may have just added a SF starting requirement without looking at or balancing the scoring in the process. In leagues like that, QB's are immensely important and have value where even Howell for Deebo makes sense.

Now, IMO, to do a SF league properly (well any league actually) you need to balance scoring across all positions so that you can build a team in a variety of ways. This helps keep competitive balance in a league and allows for a variation in draft strategies which really adds to the competitivenss (fun) of a league. When you aren't forced to go QB/QB/RB/RB in a SF league it opens up some creativity which is a good thing. So if you are able to accomplish this it makes the SF QB value not as important because you can start many players in the SF spot because no position is favored scoring wise over another. This is the best way to do it IMO.

Now on to the questions posed:

1. What league size / format(s) do you play in? ----> Dynasty, Salary cap/Contracts 12 team, IDP, SF. 16 starting spots (8 off/8 def)
2. Do you always start a QB in the SF slot? ----> No.
3. If not, why? -----> I have completed different builds over the years and have used RB/WR/TE in that SF spot depending on my roster. The majority of guys in the league do try to monopolize QB's because bad ones can really hurt you in our scoring. But you can win without starting 2 QB's.
4. How much value boost do you assign QBs in SF vs start 1? ------> Depends on the scoring format as I listed above.
5. Anything else that you might feel is helpful for non-SF players to know about the format? ----------> It adds another layer of strategy and if set up right can really give you a lot of flexibility on team build.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Now, IMO, to do a SF league properly (well any league actually) you need to balance scoring across all positions so that you can build a team in a variety of ways. This helps keep competitive balance in a league and allows for a variation in draft strategies which really adds to the competitivenss (fun) of a league. When you aren't forced to go QB/QB/RB/RB in a SF league it opens up some creativity which is a good thing. So if you are able to accomplish this it makes the SF QB value not as important because you can start many players in the SF spot because no position is favored scoring wise over another. This is the best way to do it IMO.

Completely agree, and it’s a great point. I touched on it a little with my 2 examples, but you said it much better. The scoring makes a massive difference.

Both of my leagues devalue QBs slightly. Both are 6 pt PaTD, but yardage is light at .04/1 and .05/1 respectively. Also -3 for Ints in both.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

2. Do you always start a QB in the SF slot? ----> No.
3. If not, why? -----> I have completed different builds over the years and have used RB/WR/TE in that SF spot depending on my roster. The majority of guys in the league do try to monopolize QB's because bad ones can really hurt you in our scoring. But you can win without starting 2 QB's.

This is excellent for dispelling the myth that one *must* start a QB in the SF spot.

 

[ZWK]

Generally you want to start 2 QBs in superflex, most weeks, in most formats, because even a low-end starting QB scores at least a few ppg more than whoever else you'd stick in your superflex slot. But that depends on league scoring and format.

In one of my superflex leagues I have been pretty aggressive about drafting rookie quarterbacks, mostly NFL first rounders in the mid to late first round of our rookie draft, even when I don't particularly need them. But lately QBs are being drafted earlier in that league than they used to be, which I think is part of a general trend towards superflex leagues valuing QBs more, which I think a correction of what used to be a mistake.

Another option is to go after backup NFL QBs. You can use several roster spots on backup QBs who are on the waiver wire or available as cheap throw-ins in trades. If you have several guys like Taylor Heinicke, Mike White, Bryce Perkins, and Gardner Minshew, then there's a pretty good chance that someone will get a starting job at some point. You can cycle through guys as NFL depth charts change, and also bid aggressively on the waiver wire when a starting QB goes down. I'm in one best ball superflex league where I'm aggressive about adding waiver wire QBs who are stepping into a starting role that week. With best ball, it's great to keep adding QBs because whichever 2 happen to have a big game that week automatically go into my lineup (great for those random big Mike White or Gardner Minshew weeks). But this approach of getting backup NFL QBs works less well in my other league which penalizes QBs a lot for sacks & turnovers, where bad starting QBs aren't necessarily better than your non-QB flex options. In that league you want to have two pretty-good-or-better QBs, and that has gotten harder to do as QBs have gotten pricier.

If you're investing meaningful resources in a QB in superflex, you do want to think about longevity. In 1 QB leagues a Cam Newton career arc (a few very valuable seasons) is worth a more than a Ben Roethlisberger career arc (long career, mostly as a low-end QB1 or high-end QB2). But in superflex or 2 QB leagues a Roethlisberger career arc is better.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Generally you want to start 2 QBs in superflex, most weeks, in most formats, because even a low-end starting QB scores at least a few ppg more than whoever else you'd stick in your superflex slot.

I’m not sure this is accurate.

Carr was considered a “mid-to-low tier” QB in 2021, and I had several games of 2-15 points out of him.

On 12/24, he had 174 PaYd, 1 TD, 3 Int. That’s a 2 point game. Looking over the game logs he had a couple others where he was near zero. 200 PaYd, 0 TD, 2 Int, etc

Yes, scoring format matters, but that was the 12-team, 6 pt PaTD, .04/1 league. Guys like Mahomes score 30-40.

-3 per Int, so Carr’s 23:14 TD:INT wasn’t awesome either.

Most of the bad weeks I could have started a WR or RB and had more points out of them.

 

[Chaka]

Super flex>>>>>>>Standard

Fact!

What's to discuss?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Super flex>>>>>>>Standard

Fact!

What's to discuss?

Well that settles it then.

 

[ZWK]

Generally you want to start 2 QBs in superflex, most weeks, in most formats, because even a low-end starting QB scores at least a few ppg more than whoever else you'd stick in your superflex slot.

I’m not sure this is accurate.

Carr was considered a “mid-to-low tier” QB in 2021, and I had several games of 2-15 points out of him.

On 12/24, he had 174 PaYd, 1 TD, 3 Int. That’s a 2 point game. Looking over the game logs he had a couple others where he was near zero. 200 PaYd, 0 TD, 2 Int, etc

Yes, scoring format matters, but that was the 12-team, 6 pt PaTD, .04/1 league. Guys like Mahomes score 30-40.

-3 per Int, so Carr’s 23:14 TD:INT wasn’t awesome either.

Most of the bad weeks I could have started a WR or RB and had more points out of them.

I'm talking about season-long averages, or weekly projections. Any player can have a down game. Those are mostly surprises that you have to live with; maybe occasionally it looks bad enough in advance that you can bench him for a week.

In 2021 Carr averaged 15.1 ppg in 2021, using .04 per pyd, 6 per pTD, -2 per TO (which is the least QB-friendly common scoring format; individual leagues may vary). That puts him in solid WR2 range, behind 16 WRs in ppr ppg (min 8 g). In 2022 it was 14.6 ppg, the same as WR18 (Amari Cooper). If you somehow knew when the duds were coming, then maybe you'd bench him twice a year and get 16 ppg when you started him. A WR flex maybe gets you 10 or 11 ppg on average, maybe a little more if you have a bunch of good ones.

It's even better if you can get two top QBs, especially if your scoring rules open up a wide gap between the top QBs and the lower tier starters. That can make it worth paying a fortune to trade for a Mahomes or Burrow, or investing a lot of first round rookie picks in QBs hoping to hit on one.

 

[ghostguy123]

Superflex scares me. Makes me feel like I'm about to skydive for the first time.
Anyone go with the zero QB strategy???

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It's even better if you can get two top QBs, especially if your scoring rules open up a wide gap between the top QBs and the lower tier starters.

This part is pretty obvious, but I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary unless scoring makes it so.

Both leagues I’m in have scoring that devalues QBs a little, and the larger the league, the harder it is to have 2 viable starting QBs.

I may be choosing between Mayfield & AJ Dilon some weeks, for example. If I had to make a $1000 bet right now with a gun to my head, I’d probably bet that AJD outscores Mayfield most weeks.

But that’s not totally the point either. The point is that I could use that SF to start Bateman, Gabe Davis, Mooney, AJD, etc based on matchup. it doesn’t have to be a QB.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Superflex scares me. Makes me feel like I'm about to skydive for the first time.

I was a little nervous about it but once I played in a SF league it was fine.

You’ll acclimate. You’ve played FF for a while - I’m sure PPR and a O-Flex position were a little worrisome at 1st. I actually remember the year when my league added an O-Flex and I (and others) worried about the new format. lol

Anyone go with the zero QB strategy???

Uh, no. lol

Ya need to have at least 1 competent starter, IMO.

I had 1 QB last year in the 16-teamer, and I was the 8th highest scoring team. Missed the playoffs by 1 game after having 2 wins turn to losses on Thurs IDP stat changes. Also Fields sucked out loud for the 1st 4 weeks.

But that’s a team that should have made the playoffs, even with 1 QB on the roster (I actually won the week Fields had his BYE, taking a 0 at the QB slot).

But this makes me think I should also open this topic up to people who don’t play SF, but are SF-curious to ask questions.

This is a safe space.

 

[zaner75]

1. What league size / format(s) do you play in?
2. Do you always start a QB in the SF slot?
3. If not, why?
4. How much value boost do you assign QBs in SF vs start 1?
5. Anything else that you might feel is helpful for non-SF players to know about the format?

1. I exclusively play Superflex, no IDP
- 16 team start 11 (5 pTD/-1 INT, also 0.1/FD so QB scoring is juiced)
- 14 team start 8 (4/-2)
- 14 team start 11 (5/-2)
- 12 team start 11 (6/-4)
- 12 team start 11 (5/-1)

2. I roster construct with the goal of always being able to play a QB in SF and to never have to chase the position

3. N/A for me. I’ve seen others in my leagues do it. I’ve heard people say how they won leagues without it but I feel like it is brought up to prove an exception, that you can win without starting a QB in the SF slot - This one time, at band camp …
Obviously, if you have the right players, you can certainly win but, in most of my leagues, that means the 10th best position player has to be able to score better than the QB2. Not a high probability. As stated in other responses, the more starting positions to overcome a disadvantage at SF, the less valuable having a QB in the SF is.

4. For me, there are several taxes I place on QB value, especially considering how I roster construct
Position premium, reducing QB headcount, scarcity of QBs available for trade, impact on starting lineup, best player (usually the QB)
“Have-not” teams always want to add a QB without giving one up. I subscribe to the tenet that the QB needy team benefits more by getting a QB than the team trading away the QB, so as a “have” manager, I’m not going to bail someone out unless there is a significant benefit to my team. If I’m betting on a lotto ticket, I’m picking the QB. Example: Jordan Love vs late 1st, I’ll take Love.
In 1QB, only the elite QBs matter, imo. Most of the posts I read that refer to 1 QB prices, very few think an elite QB is worth a 1st.

5. The mistakes people make in SF are not having a strategy in regards to QB, overdrafting mediocre QBs or undervaluing the position so much that they miss out on any decent options then complain that trade prices are too high once roster are set and most teams can’t trade a QB without getting one back.
In SF, the advantage of having a stable QB room allows resources to be dedicated to filling out the roster around them. Without it, you see people keep assigning premium resources chasing the position. It would almost be better if they went contrarian and punted the position and try to win without a QB in the SF.

 

[massraider]

Now, IMO, to do a SF league properly (well any league actually) you need to balance scoring across all positions so that you can build a team in a variety of ways. This helps keep competitive balance in a league and allows for a variation in draft strategies which really adds to the competitivenss (fun) of a league. When you aren't forced to go QB/QB/RB/RB in a SF league it opens up some creativity which is a good thing. So if you are able to accomplish this it makes the SF QB value not as important because you can start many players in the SF spot because no position is favored scoring wise over another. This is the best way to do it IMO.

This sounds pretty ideal, but I haven't really looked into formats that try an accomplish this.

I was out on SF in at first, because the arguments I heard were, the QB is the most important position, they are devalued in fantasy. Which, frankly, wasn't enough for me to consider. Like, if it's not going to improve my enjoyment of the game, I don't really care if this position or that position is 'devalued'. I'm not trying to reach some ideal state of fantasy scoring so that QB is more valuable than running back. It's interesting, I play in leagues with big bonuses for thresholds, 300 yards, 100 yards, longer TDs etc, and it really separates the top QBs. I really don't love the big bonuses, but increasing top QB value was a byproduct of it.

When I see SF mock drafts now, I am still out, because I am not seeing people doing different builds, I am seeing every QB snatched up because they are a QB, and everyone wants to start two QBs every week. WHen I look at these mocks now, they don't seem like something I want to be doing. I think the landing spot for a Anthony Richardson is a lot more fluid and fun in 1QB, with a lot more variance between drafts. And unpredictable drafts are fun.

I thought SF was going to be an over-correction to the value 'problem' QBs had in fantasy, and I haven't seen anything to change my mind.

It's clearly not a BAD format, because it is killing it, and might be the standard, like PPR, soon, going by the fantasy coverage. There was a change when PPR rankings overtook standard, and it feels like more default settings are SF now. I don't take on any new leagues, and the leagues I am in haven't shown any interest.

 

[renesauz]

I love SF because it makes QB the most valuable player on the roster...as he should be.

That said, there's a BIG difference between those values in 12 vs 14 team, and also can make a difference by scoring system. For example, in one league top WRs and RBs score similarly or even higher on average to top QBs, or do mediocre QBs score as much on average as the top studs at WR/RB?

In the end every league is unique based on size, start requirements and scoring system, but SF adds ANOTHER dimension to it and the impact is NOT consistant. I prefer those 14 teamers where even bad QBs score on a par with typical RB/WR3s

 

[renesauz]

1. What league size / format(s) do you play in?
2. Do you always start a QB in the SF slot?
3. If not, why?
4. How much value boost do you assign QBs in SF vs start 1?
5. Anything else that you might feel is helpful for non-SF players to know about the format?

1. I exclusively play Superflex, no IDP
- 16 team start 11 (5 pTD/-1 INT, also 0.1/FD so QB scoring is juiced)
- 14 team start 8 (4/-2)
- 14 team start 11 (5/-2)
- 12 team start 11 (6/-4)
- 12 team start 11 (5/-1)

2. I roster construct with the goal of always being able to play a QB in SF and to never have to chase the position

3. N/A for me. I’ve seen others in my leagues do it. I’ve heard people say how they won leagues without it but I feel like it is brought up to prove an exception, that you can win without starting a QB in the SF slot - This one time, at band camp …
Obviously, if you have the right players, you can certainly win but, in most of my leagues, that means the 10th best position player has to be able to score better than the QB2. Not a high probability. As stated in other responses, the more starting positions to overcome a disadvantage at SF, the less valuable having a QB in the SF is.

4. For me, there are several taxes I place on QB value, especially considering how I roster construct
Position premium, reducing QB headcount, scarcity of QBs available for trade, impact on starting lineup, best player (usually the QB)
“Have-not” teams always want to add a QB without giving one up. I subscribe to the tenet that the QB needy team benefits more by getting a QB than the team trading away the QB, so as a “have” manager, I’m not going to bail someone out unless there is a significant benefit to my team. If I’m betting on a lotto ticket, I’m picking the QB. Example: Jordan Love vs late 1st, I’ll take Love.
In 1QB, only the elite QBs matter, imo. Most of the posts I read that refer to 1 QB prices, very few think an elite QB is worth a 1st.

5. The mistakes people make in SF are not having a strategy in regards to QB, overdrafting mediocre QBs or undervaluing the position so much that they miss out on any decent options then complain that trade prices are too high once roster are set and most teams can’t trade a QB without getting one back.
In SF, the advantage of having a stable QB room allows resources to be dedicated to filling out the roster around them. Without it, you see people keep assigning premium resources chasing the position. It would almost be better if they went contrarian and punted the position and try to win without a QB in the SF.

Great post. I'll add that in 14 team SF with fairly strong QB scoring....a premium QB is worth MULTIPLE 1s. No way I'd part with Love for less then a late 1 (last year, now it would take a mid 1). The top five most valuable players are all QBs. And I prefer that personally

 

[renesauz]

Now, IMO, to do a SF league properly (well any league actually) you need to balance scoring across all positions so that you can build a team in a variety of ways. This helps keep competitive balance in a league and allows for a variation in draft strategies which really adds to the competitivenss (fun) of a league. When you aren't forced to go QB/QB/RB/RB in a SF league it opens up some creativity which is a good thing. So if you are able to accomplish this it makes the SF QB value not as important because you can start many players in the SF spot because no position is favored scoring wise over another. This is the best way to do it IMO.

This sounds pretty ideal, but I haven't really looked into formats that try an accomplish this.

I was out on SF in at first, because the arguments I heard were, the QB is the most important position, they are devalued in fantasy. Which, frankly, wasn't enough for me to consider. Like, if it's not going to improve my enjoyment of the game, I don't really care if this position or that position is 'devalued'. I'm not trying to reach some ideal state of fantasy scoring so that QB is more valuable than running back. It's interesting, I play in leagues with big bonuses for thresholds, 300 yards, 100 yards, longer TDs etc, and it really separates the top QBs. I really don't love the big bonuses, but increasing top QB value was a byproduct of it.

When I see SF mock drafts now, I am still out, because I am not seeing people doing different builds, I am seeing every QB snatched up because they are a QB, and everyone wants to start two QBs every week. WHen I look at these mocks now, they don't seem like something I want to be doing. I think the landing spot for a Anthony Richardson is a lot more fluid and fun in 1QB, with a lot more variance between drafts. And unpredictable drafts are fun.

I thought SF was going to be an over-correction to the value 'problem' QBs had in fantasy, and I haven't seen anything to change my mind.

It's clearly not a BAD format, because it is killing it, and might be the standard, like PPR, soon, going by the fantasy coverage. There was a change when PPR rankings overtook standard, and it feels like more default settings are SF now. I don't take on any new leagues, and the leagues I am in haven't shown any interest.

This is fair, and TBH I do think it's sometimes problematic that they are as tight as they are. I've proposed weird things using roboQB scoring before but not had much interest from others.

It's absolutely an overcorrection to another problem. IN typical 12 team 1 QB leagues, the most important NFL position is less valuable then QBs or RBs, and there is ZERO angst about rostering QBs. Especially if QB scoring is typical (4 pt TDs without yardage or distance bonuses). When the NFL QB 10 can't even draw a WR2 in trade, something feels broken to me.

 

[Gally]

1. I exclusively play Superflex, no IDP
- 16 team start 11 (5 pTD/-1 INT, also 0.1/FD so QB scoring is juiced)
- 14 team start 8 (4/-2)
- 14 team start 11 (5/-2)
- 12 team start 11 (6/-4)
- 12 team start 11 (5/-1)

I have found that the best ratio for QB's to balance scoring across positions is a 2 to 1 TD to Turnover ratio. Part of the benefit (regardless of scoring balance) of playing a QB in the SF position is that QB's typically have a higher floor and are more consistent. So even if they don't really outscore other positions they are more likely to have a safe floor which has a lot of value in lineup construction. So by having a 2:1 ratio it opens the QB up to negative outcomes. This makes starting a marginal QB in the SF spot a bit of a risk which now swings the value over to other positions for the SF start. I have found this is the best equalizer to balancing the SF value of QB's.

The best scoring for this seems to be a 6pt TD vs -3 pt Turnover. So for those QB12-20 types that have the "ability" to put out a 0 TD 3 turnover game is looking at a -9 pts if their yardage is marginal (we also use plateau scoring and don't start getting points until 150 yds (3pts). This keeps the value of the upper echelon QB's but it brings the marginal QB's back to the pack because the risk of a bad game is so much higher than any other position.

 

[Gally]

As a side note, I have been player SF since 1985. That league is still going on. It has a starting spot that can be a QB or a K. You scoff, but starting a kicker over a QB is a very valid option and is done my 1/3 to 1/2 the league each week. Our scoring in that league is the following:

TD Pass: 3 pts
Turnover: -1 pts
Rush TD: 6 pts
Yardage: 3 pts @ 150 yds; 1 pt for each additional 25 yds with the exception of 200-250 yds. That is worth 5 pts.

Kicker scoring: 1 pt per 10 yds of FG. Drops to every 5 yds at 45 yds (5 pts). I pt per XPT.

So a QB with 2 TD's (6pts), 245 yds (5pts), and 1 Turnove (-1 pt) = 10 pts

Kicker with 2 FG's (45 & 51) and 2 XPT = 13 pts


We didn't have negatives for turnovers until the mid 2010's so it doesn't quite fit my 2:1 ratio but it works ok. I think it would be a bit better if it was 4 pts TD/-2 pts Turnover but since we have been going for so long it's hard to get changes like that put in.

Bottom line is had worked well and allows for very different team builds. Some kickers will go as early as the 5th round (this is a redraft) and are worth it. It really does make for a more lively draft.

 

[foxco]

Superflex scares me. Makes me feel like I'm about to skydive for the first time.
Anyone go with the zero QB strategy???

I did unintentionally a couple years back. Ended up starting C.J. Beathard as my only QB in the finals and won(!) thanks to Kamara's 35 TD game and a solid rest of roster. Wasn't pretty and wouldn't recommend; that season probably took 2 years off my life.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

1. I exclusively play Superflex, no IDP
- 16 team start 11 (5 pTD/-1 INT, also 0.1/FD so QB scoring is juiced)
- 14 team start 8 (4/-2)
- 14 team start 11 (5/-2)
- 12 team start 11 (6/-4)
- 12 team start 11 (5/-1)

I have found that the best ratio for QB's to balance scoring across positions is a 2 to 1 TD to Turnover ratio. Part of the benefit (regardless of scoring balance) of playing a QB in the SF position is that QB's typically have a higher floor and are more consistent. So even if they don't really outscore other positions they are more likely to have a safe floor which has a lot of value in lineup construction. So by having a 2:1 ratio it opens the QB up to negative outcomes. This makes starting a marginal QB in the SF spot a bit of a risk which now swings the value over to other positions for the SF start. I have found this is the best equalizer to balancing the SF value of QB's.

The best scoring for this seems to be a 6pt TD vs -3 pt Turnover. So for those QB12-20 types that have the "ability" to put out a 0 TD 3 turnover game is looking at a -9 pts if their yardage is marginal (we also use plateau scoring and don't start getting points until 150 yds (3pts). This keeps the value of the upper echelon QB's but it brings the marginal QB's back to the pack because the risk of a bad game is so much higher than any other position.

Exactly - this is how both of my leagues score QBs (slightly different but still weak yardage) and there’s definitely balance to it. The -3 Ints are key - there has to be a risk when starting a Howell, or Carr, or Heineke.

And as you suggest, it becomes very risky to roll out those 12-20 ranked QB any given Sunday if such penalties are included in scoring.

That said, I feel like top-heavy QB scoring in SF is as flawed as top-heavy QB scoring in standard.

Balance is balance. Once again, it seems like the worst part of SF is more about bad scoring set-up league to league. Not only does it exaggerate the need to have a QB in the SF slot, it gives a ton of value to very marginal players in the process. While some might love that, I’m not a fan of devaluing every other position in the process, which is inherent.

 

[Chaka]

When I see SF mock drafts now

There's your problem.

Mock drafts in general have very little value, and especially so for SF mocks. At best it helps you rank players within position groups. They offer nothing for how real drafts will play out

Only real draft data should be used, and even then only sparingly.

As with any league format it always depends heavily on your scoring system.

My SF league is going on 30 years and a typical draft (12 teams) sees a first round with 4-5 QBs, 4-5 RBs and 2-4 WRs off the board. And those numbers hold throughout.

Our scoring isn't bizarre (PPR, 6 pts rush/rec TD, 4 pts pass TD, 1 point 15 yds rush/rec, 1 point 50 yards passing with some bonuses for TD distance).

People construct teams multiple ways and win the league with all types of rosters. They aren't one offs or flukes.

Whatever the case don't base any opinions on mock draft data.

 

[greenmountaingoat]

Superflex scares me. Makes me feel like I'm about to skydive for the first time.
Anyone go with the zero QB strategy???

I tried to get cute with this kind of strategy in one of the underdog tournaments and got smoked. 12/12. Not saying it's the same thing as what's being discussed but my intro to SF was a bit of a rude situation.

My only comment is that in our dynasty 1QB/ 14 team league, the roster sizes make it possible to hoard QBs and make it much more difficult to win with mediocre to bad QB play. Also having 6 pt throwing and a passing yardage boost from the ESPN scoring keeps the pocket passers more relevant. When you look at typical "dynasty trade chart" or KTC values, the QBs values seem low to me. They're valued in our league. I sort-of split the difference between the SF and the 1QB values.

SF interests me but not enough to add another league.- at least not at this point in my life.

 

[zaner75]

Some of the responses I've read refer to playing SF in a re-draft setting. That completely changes the equation, imo, compared to dynasty.
In dynasty SF, you might be able to get away with mediocre QBs for a season or 2 but once you start losing QBs due to age/incompetence, you're in a multi-year situation to fix the problem with few low-cost solutions. Imagine teams that have been running Brady, Wentz, Ryan, Tannehill, Z Wilson (raises hand as having Wentz and Z Wilson in multiple leagues). If these were starting options, your situation is likely grim and you'll find yourself at a competitive disadvantage in most cases.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

Will insist on SF when it's time to reboot our 12-team Dynasty Empire. I think there's interest in my redraft, but with 14 teams our conclusion was that it can't be done without a massive overhaul to the scoring system to make the non-QB SF lineup more viable. I was willing to make whatever changes were necessary, others not so much.

When you find yourself in a redraft league making statements like, "I can't afford the luxury of burning my 3rd round pick to take one of the biggest names in all of football to be my QB..." , that's when you know you're playing in a broken format of fantasy football.

Or "I can't take this QB that just went #1 overall in the NFL draft with my 1st round rookie selection. I have another 180 lb WR or scatback to add to my collection darnit......"

 

[dkp993]

1. What league size / format(s) do you play in?
2. Do you always start a QB in the SF slot?
3. If not, why?
4. How much value boost do you assign QBs in SF vs start 1?
5. Anything else that you might feel is helpful for non-SF players to know about the format?

My main 20+ year league I commish transitioned to SF 5ish years ago. Answering your questions…

1. 12 team PPR 1-QB, 2-RB, 3- WR, 1-TE (1.5 PPR) and 1-SF spot (QB td’s 4pts, others 6)
2. Yes, mostly. Its a keeper auction league so occasionally someone will have 3 stud RB’s or WR’s and that gets put in but that’s rare
3. see 2
4. For me it’s not so much about your first QB as it’s about needing a second. I’ve won championships without a top 3-5 guy in my main spot but always try to prioritize having a 8-14 type guy in my SF. I often end up with 2 guys in the 5 to 12 range as that maximizes my value to budget ratio.
5. just do it. Once you play that way you won’t go back. It’s far superior from draft to game days.

 

[-OZ-]

Will insist on SF when it's time to reboot our 12-team Dynasty Empire. I think there's interest in my redraft, but with 14 teams our conclusion was that it can't be done without a massive overhaul to the scoring system to make the non-QB SF lineup more viable. I was willing to make whatever changes were necessary, others not so much.

When you find yourself in a redraft league making statements like, "I can't afford the luxury of burning my 3rd round pick to take one of the biggest names in all of football to be my QB..." , that's when you know you're playing in a broken format of fantasy football.

Or "I can't take this QB that just went #1 overall in the NFL draft with my 1st round dynasty selection. I have another 180 lb WR or change of pace RB to add to my collection darnit......"

The good and bad of SF imo is ELITE QBs tend to stay that way for a long time. So their value is even more in SF. a team in my SF league has Herbert and Burrow, he’s probably going to be competitive for a decade. Meanwhile, teams built with RBs (like most non SF teams often try) can go big for a couple years but even the great backs fade much faster than the QB. I won last year largely on the strength of my backs (Henry, ekeler, Barkley, Walker) but it wouldn’t be a surprise at all if I folded this year as I’m probably starting 2 of Watson, tannehill and Carr. At least I have a couple starters. Last year I started Darnold, Dalton and a certain unnamed colts QB way too often (Along with Brady so that helped).

I won’t play another redraft that isn’t SF. But in dynasty, there’s some value in positions that don’t tend to last as long in the league having more value. If you like a greater chance of teams rising to the top for a year or two, then fading or having more challenge to stay on top.

Fwiw, I think the best dynasty leagues are SF auction.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Will insist on SF when it's time to reboot our 12-team Dynasty Empire. I think there's interest in my redraft, but with 14 teams our conclusion was that it can't be done without a massive overhaul to the scoring system to make the non-QB SF lineup more viable. I was willing to make whatever changes were necessary, others not so much.

When you find yourself in a redraft league making statements like, "I can't afford the luxury of burning my 3rd round pick to take one of the biggest names in all of football to be my QB..." , that's when you know you're playing in a broken format of fantasy football.

Or "I can't take this QB that just went #1 overall in the NFL draft with my 1st round dynasty selection. I have another 180 lb WR or change of pace RB to add to my collection darnit......"

The good and bad of SF imo is ELITE QBs tend to stay that way for a long time. So their value is even more in SF. a team in my SF league has Herbert and Burrow, he’s probably going to be competitive for a decade. Meanwhile, teams built with RBs (like most non SF teams often try) can go big for a couple years but even the great backs fade much faster than the QB. I won last year largely on the strength of my backs (Henry, ekeler, Barkley, Walker) but it wouldn’t be a surprise at all if I folded this year as I’m probably starting 2 of Watson, tannehill and Carr. At least I have a couple starters. Last year I started Darnold, Dalton and a certain unnamed colts QB way too often (Along with Brady so that helped).

I won’t play another redraft that isn’t SF. But in dynasty, there’s some value in positions that don’t tend to last as long in the league having more value. If you like a greater chance of teams rising to the top for a year or two, then fading or having more challenge to stay on top.

Fwiw, I think the best dynasty leagues are SF auction.

I think a lot of this has to do with scoring, as others have suggested.

Also there are scenarios where teams go all in on an elite QB & suffer for years for it.

When I sold Mahomes I got the equivalent to 5x 1sts. It’s hard to give up that value and maintain a roster. That team is aging rapidly - they had Mahomes/Brady. Now they have Mahomes/nobody. And not a ton of assets to acquire a QB, and no 1st round pick this year.

SF is a balance - and I find dynasty leagues always have a few teams going for it, a few also-rans, and a few rebuilds. And the larger the league, the more middling teams.

In my 16 team SF, maybe 8-10 teams are actually competing for the title. Not all of them have 2 viable QBs.

Maybe true for standard 1 QB dynasty leagues as well, now that I think about it.

 

[zamboni]

I love SF because it makes QB the most valuable player on the roster...as he should be.

I agree and am glad we moved to SF two years ago. In one QB leagues, you can typically just wait on your QB and be OK, but in SF/two QB leagues, there is a lot more roster complexity in which you can't leave yourself high and dry at the QB position. Even more so these days with the significant turnover at the QB position with so much new blood/unknowns across the league.

 

[wlwiles]

I only play in a 1QB format in dynasty currently - just haven't found a good SF league to join so far. I want something like HSG has been saying - scoring needs to be set up right, because I loathe the idea of having to play in a league where Aiyuk is equivalent to Tannehill. When the scoring is so QB-heavy that Jimmy G is more valuable than Dallas Goedert, then the whole league just devolves into who has the best two starting QBs.

But 1QB leagues annoy me when it comes time for the rookie draft, because guys like Lawrence and Burrow slide to the late first/early second and that's crazy to me. I got Herbert in our rookie draft in the 4th round. Unless you just inflate the heck out of their scoring (which causes it's own problems bc that one Mahomes 350 yd 4TD game wins the week automatically), QB's barely matter.

 

[zamboni]

I only play in a 1QB format in dynasty currently - just haven't found a good SF league to join so far. I want something like HSG has been saying - scoring needs to be set up right, because I loathe the idea of having to play in a league where Aiyuk is equivalent to Tannehill. When the scoring is so QB-heavy that Jimmy G is more valuable than Dallas Goedert, then the whole league just devolves into who has the best two starting QBs.

But 1QB leagues annoy me when it comes time for the rookie draft, because guys like Lawrence and Burrow slide to the late first/early second and that's crazy to me. I got Herbert in our rookie draft in the 4th round. Unless you just inflate the heck out of their scoring (which causes it's own problems bc that one Mahomes 350 yd 4TD game wins the week automatically), QB's barely matter.

Can't speak for everyone's league - and starting lineup size matters - but I don't think it's as cut and dried that the team with the best 2 QBs will win. It does give you an advantage if you have 2 top QBs, but you still need a well rounded roster. I will say though that the TE position does tend to get dwarfed in SF unless it's TE premium or if you own Kelce.

 

[fightingillini]

Superflex scares me. Makes me feel like I'm about to skydive for the first time.
Anyone go with the zero QB strategy???

Please do not do this. Good luck in SF with QBs like Jordan Love and Derek Carr. It's hard to compete with 2 subpar QBs. Not saying you have to go QB-QB out of the gate, but I think you need to get a top 10 QB as your QB1.

What newbies to SF forget to understand....is that marginal RBs/WRs are available much later than in a 1QB league. Early rounds will be stud RBs, stud WRs, Kelce and QBs. So if you're drafting 1.1 in a 12 teamer, you should seriously consider taking Mahomes or Allen or Hurts #1 overall. Because you never know how many QBs will be taken between 2 and 23. Assume 12 QBs are taken with the first 23 picks. Then the 1.1 can take Mahomes and still get a player that would normally be at the 1-2 turn in a 1QB league. A player drafting in the 12 hole almost HAS to take one QB, because that person is screwed if they wait to pick 36 to take their first QB.

But if I were in a 10 team league, you can be more flexible in when you take a QB. I would take a stud RB or stud WR before a QB, knowing I can get QB later. Last year, I drafted in the 10 hole in a 10 teamer, took Chase and D Cook in the 1st swing, and ended up with Brady/Cousins/D Jones as my QBs. I won the league.

 

[FairWarning]

In a 12-team league, i would prefer starting 2 qbs over a super flex. A better way to do it may be the team qb, and you can only roster 2, with both starting. I’ve never been in a 19-team league, so I don’t know enough about the dynamics of the super flex. All depends on the scoring system.

 

[msudaisy26]

When I played dynasty I always played super flex and tight end premium, with lots of flexes, best ball and play all format.

I think this is the best system because it gives so much flexibility with trading and roster construction. I also am a big believer in best ball with large starting lineups and play all. There is always going to be luck in fantasy football, but this system rewards the best teams.