The year to wait and take your QB (1 Viewer)

[shadyridr]

this is the best thread this forum has had in awhile

 

[silentcoach]

haha...all you are doing here is making an assumption and then drawing a conclusion off that assumption that reflects that base assumption -- this is terrible circular reasoning.you've basically predicted that the gap between top qb and lower qb will shrink this year, while lower round rb's will be unable to catch their higher round counterparts, therefore lower round qb's are the way to go.well, yeah, if that's how it works out, then that's how it works out, but it's possible the lower qb you draft doesn't catch the elite, and it's possible there are a bunch of lower round rb's who will narrow the gap that you just aren't seeing, in which case I'd rather have the elite qb coupled with the emerging sleeper rb that ends up going 1st/2nd next year.

Perfect. I like how people just assume the "lower" QBs will maintain their own scoring level, or even close the gap AND that "lower" rbs cannot close the gap versus the elite rbs. Tsk tsk.As I mentioned previously, people feel more COMFORTABLE drafting a qb later, and not as comfortable drafting a rb later. End debate.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

well, I think one reason that people are more willing to draft a qb late is that by the time the 8th round rolls around there might have been, let's say, 10 qb's off the board.

meanwhile, there might've been 30 rb taken, so the selection is thinning out pretty quick.

of course, you aren't really expected to get a top 5 rb in the 8th, while that's really the preference for your qb.

I think people just figure getting the 8th best qb is close enough.

personally, I'd prefer one stud qb that I can slot in there all year without making myself miserable with some roster eating qb stable, but I'm sure you can win all kinds of ways.

 

[duaneok66]

4 of the first 5 weeks last year tallied the highest weekly passing yards in the history of the NFL. I assume this was a result as a short camp for defenses rather than a change in offensive strategy (as no weekly totals for the rest of 2011 were higher). I wonder if the drop off from top tier QBs to middle tier QBs was exaggerated since they could exploit defensive mistakes easier (I don't consider Newton in that group since a lot of his value came from his rushes) or if there is really no statistical significance to be found.

outstanding post.

 

[RamMan]

It's simple. If u can get foster, rice , or McCoy. U take them and take a qb later. If they r off the table and brees, Rodgers, Brady are on the table u taken them. 1st round I want a sure fire pick. They are 6. I want one.

WINNER! In my opinion, this is the correct answer. In the first round, you want to mitigate risk and maximize points relative to the other players at that same position. I don't think anyone is suggesting that you take a QB ahead of Foster/McCoy/Rice. Those 3 RB's are as close to a lock as you can get in a very unstable RB market. After those 3 are gone, the risk of choosing an underperforming RB is just too great relative to the predictability of Megatron/Rodgers/Brady/Brees (and their predictable relative dominance over the next ranked players at their positions). In my opinion, those are your first 7 picks in the draft (I wouldn't begrudge anyone for taking the 3 QB's ahead of Megatron). CAVEAT: This is for 6 pt/TD pass leagues.

 

[Runningman]

The crux of the 1st or 2nd round QB argument is that the QB you are going to draft will maintain both his 2011 level of scoring and that the QBs drafted outside the top 5 will not close the gap appreciatively.

We talk about end of year QB ranking, but that by itself is not important, really... it is the scoring.

In 2011 the top 5 QBs VBD were Brees 203, Rodgers 201, Brady 174, Stafford 145, and Newton at 143. This was a sizable advantage over the #6 (78).

However, all the way back in 2010 we had Vick dominating the ppg... then everybody else. Rodgers had a VBD of 80, Brady 83, Brees 59.... these are not 1st round values.

It would not surprise me in the least to see 3 or 4 of the consensus top 5 QBs fall off last year's pace this year, and who knows which ones do? It also would not surprise me to see several lower ranked QBs raise their production and close the gap; there is a lot of talent and numerous very good situations out there outside of the top 5 qbs.

My main point is that last year's stats are unlikely to repeat this year and that the other QBs may well improve and close the gap, making the VBD of the top QBs lower. Couple this with the seeming dearth of quality RBs outside the first couple of rounds (making the higher ranked RBs relatively more valuable) and the depth at WR and even TE, and I'm not sure the early QB strategy is a wise one.

haha...all you are doing here is making an assumption and then drawing a conclusion off that assumption that reflects that base assumption -- this is terrible circular reasoning.you've basically predicted that the gap between top qb and lower qb will shrink this year, while lower round rb's will be unable to catch their higher round counterparts, therefore lower round qb's are the way to go.

well, yeah, if that's how it works out, then that's how it works out, but it's possible the lower qb you draft doesn't catch the elite, and it's possible there are a bunch of lower round rb's who will narrow the gap that you just aren't seeing, in which case I'd rather have the elite qb coupled with the emerging sleeper rb that ends up going 1st/2nd next year.

Amen brother, amen. Personally I think the chance that Rodgers, Brady, and Brees maintain their gap above most of the other QBs is more likely than the top three RBs at the end of the year are Foster, Rice, and McCoy.

 

[Zackattack]

Wow I started this and see it has sparked huge interest. I am on fantasy football calculator right now waiting for the mock to start. I have thought about drafting a QB early after reading all these posts. The problem I see is the RB's are too thin. I will how ever budge and possibly grab Stafford in round 2 based on his upside. I could still get a CJ2K, Mega or McFadden with pick 7. It's a tough call. I still think that grabbing RB's and WR's early is the best way to go.

 

[-jb-]

The crux of the 1st or 2nd round QB argument is that the QB you are going to draft will maintain both his 2011 level of scoring and that the QBs drafted outside the top 5 will not close the gap appreciatively.

We talk about end of year QB ranking, but that by itself is not important, really... it is the scoring.

In 2011 the top 5 QBs VBD were Brees 203, Rodgers 201, Brady 174, Stafford 145, and Newton at 143. This was a sizable advantage over the #6 (78).

However, all the way back in 2010 we had Vick dominating the ppg... then everybody else. Rodgers had a VBD of 80, Brady 83, Brees 59.... these are not 1st round values.

It would not surprise me in the least to see 3 or 4 of the consensus top 5 QBs fall off last year's pace this year, and who knows which ones do? It also would not surprise me to see several lower ranked QBs raise their production and close the gap; there is a lot of talent and numerous very good situations out there outside of the top 5 qbs.

My main point is that last year's stats are unlikely to repeat this year and that the other QBs may well improve and close the gap, making the VBD of the top QBs lower. Couple this with the seeming dearth of quality RBs outside the first couple of rounds (making the higher ranked RBs relatively more valuable) and the depth at WR and even TE, and I'm not sure the early QB strategy is a wise one.

haha...all you are doing here is making an assumption and then drawing a conclusion off that assumption that reflects that base assumption -- this is terrible circular reasoning.you've basically predicted that the gap between top qb and lower qb will shrink this year, while lower round rb's will be unable to catch their higher round counterparts, therefore lower round qb's are the way to go.

well, yeah, if that's how it works out, then that's how it works out, but it's possible the lower qb you draft doesn't catch the elite, and it's possible there are a bunch of lower round rb's who will narrow the gap that you just aren't seeing, in which case I'd rather have the elite qb coupled with the emerging sleeper rb that ends up going 1st/2nd next year.

Amen brother, amen. Personally I think the chance that Rodgers, Brady, and Brees maintain their gap above most of the other QBs is more likely than the top three RBs at the end of the year are Foster, Rice, and McCoy.

May I ask why?

 

[The Jerk]

I've made four championship games in the past seven seasons in the same league, going 2-2.

Twice I drafted a QB late in the first round, and I was 1-1 in those two finals.

Twice I waited until at least round 6 to draft my starting QB, and I was 1-1 in those two finals.

My success was not so much about whether to go QB early or QB late. Rather, it is what I did in the rest of the draft. Drafting a RB or WR who has slipped a few picks instead of the #4 QB in slot 10 or 11 is a good choice. My 2011 championship followed that script. However, if the RBs and WRs were drafted when they should, and the #3 QB is there, then maybe a top QB is the right choice. My 2007 championship matched that approach.

It's obvious and cliche, but making good picks is the only strategy that works. Stud RB approach will fail if you pick the wrong RB, or if you end up with the wrong late QB. Drafting a 2nd round RB in the first round doesn't make him a first-round RB. Same can be said for drafting a QB before their value. If you miss on the QB, you're in trouble.

A lot depends on the league and your draft slot. But if you're drafting 8th-12th, then you better be prepared to go with multiple strategies. If the RB you were hoping for falls to you, then go with it. If the RBs are gone, then go QB or Calvin. However, you have to do your predraft preparation so that you can actually go whichever route makes the most sense given the early flow of the draft. Know who your targets will be if you end up needing that late QB. Have a backup plan in case Ryan gets picked surprisingly early. Same for RBs. If you wait on RB, know what your fallback choices will be so that it's not a complete guessing game and also that you know roughly what rounds you expect to be able to get those RBs.

In my opinion, sticking to one specific approach, be it stud RB or early QB, NO MATTER WHAT when drafting late in the first round has the lowest probability of success. Being open to whatever opportunity and value presents itself seems like the obvious best approach, but as I just expressed, that requires a little bit of planning so that it can be done with sufficient calmness and confidence.

 

[Runningman]

The crux of the 1st or 2nd round QB argument is that the QB you are going to draft will maintain both his 2011 level of scoring and that the QBs drafted outside the top 5 will not close the gap appreciatively.

We talk about end of year QB ranking, but that by itself is not important, really... it is the scoring.

In 2011 the top 5 QBs VBD were Brees 203, Rodgers 201, Brady 174, Stafford 145, and Newton at 143. This was a sizable advantage over the #6 (78).

However, all the way back in 2010 we had Vick dominating the ppg... then everybody else. Rodgers had a VBD of 80, Brady 83, Brees 59.... these are not 1st round values.

It would not surprise me in the least to see 3 or 4 of the consensus top 5 QBs fall off last year's pace this year, and who knows which ones do? It also would not surprise me to see several lower ranked QBs raise their production and close the gap; there is a lot of talent and numerous very good situations out there outside of the top 5 qbs.

My main point is that last year's stats are unlikely to repeat this year and that the other QBs may well improve and close the gap, making the VBD of the top QBs lower. Couple this with the seeming dearth of quality RBs outside the first couple of rounds (making the higher ranked RBs relatively more valuable) and the depth at WR and even TE, and I'm not sure the early QB strategy is a wise one.

haha...all you are doing here is making an assumption and then drawing a conclusion off that assumption that reflects that base assumption -- this is terrible circular reasoning.you've basically predicted that the gap between top qb and lower qb will shrink this year, while lower round rb's will be unable to catch their higher round counterparts, therefore lower round qb's are the way to go.

well, yeah, if that's how it works out, then that's how it works out, but it's possible the lower qb you draft doesn't catch the elite, and it's possible there are a bunch of lower round rb's who will narrow the gap that you just aren't seeing, in which case I'd rather have the elite qb coupled with the emerging sleeper rb that ends up going 1st/2nd next year.

Amen brother, amen. Personally I think the chance that Rodgers, Brady, and Brees maintain their gap above most of the other QBs is more likely than the top three RBs at the end of the year are Foster, Rice, and McCoy.

May I ask why?

Sure, two primary reasons. First is injury. In the last three years Rodgers Brady and Brees have combined to miss 2 games, both by Rodgers and I believe maybe one of those was due to injury. Rice and McCoy have been remarkably healthy for RBs but Foster has not But still the fact is the RB position is more prone to injury.

Second is viable contenders for the a top three spot. I could see Jones Drew, Chris Johnson, Forte, McFadden and maybe even Lynch all pushing for a top three spot. Mathews possibly if he can come back from his injury. For Brady, Rodgers, and Brees a 4500 yard season with 35 TDs is a average if not low prediction for their production this year. Those numbers would be a career year for anybody not named Stafford or Manning at the QB position. Can't see Manning doing it this year. Can see Stafford and maybe Newton doing it with his rushing thrown in. Conceivably Vick with his rushing if he can stay healthy. But in the end Stafford seems the only legitmate, and bythat I mean likely, threat, barring injury, to unseat a top three QB this year.

 

[rubrink]

Exactly. Be fluid and just let the draft come to you. Being too rigid will just make you make lower-benefit moves.

I posted earlier about loving the QB depth this year. Well, my big league has managed to shrink down to 8 people, so I'm sort of reevaluating that stance, since our league does 6 pt TDs for QBs. I am starting to think that with 8 teams only, since everyone ends up a very good, very deep lineup, it makes it harder to make up for the obvious advantage that one of the big 3 QBs provides. I need to run some scenarios, but I think in these leagues, you need to focus on getting those guys that are on an obvious tier above everyone else at their position (Rodgers/Brees/Brady, Calvin, Graham/Gronk). I never could have guessed that I would be honestly evaluating a scenario where I go QB/TE with my first two picks. In an 8-teamer, I'd take Graham over any WR/TE not named Calvin.

 

[-jb-]

Exactly. Be fluid and just let the draft come to you. Being too rigid will just make you make lower-benefit moves.

I posted earlier about loving the QB depth this year. Well, my big league has managed to shrink down to 8 people, so I'm sort of reevaluating that stance, since our league does 6 pt TDs for QBs. I am starting to think that with 8 teams only, since everyone ends up a very good, very deep lineup, it makes it harder to make up for the obvious advantage that one of the big 3 QBs provides. I need to run some scenarios, but I think in these leagues, you need to focus on getting those guys that are on an obvious tier above everyone else at their position (Rodgers/Brees/Brady, Calvin, Graham/Gronk). I never could have guessed that I would be honestly evaluating a scenario where I go QB/TE with my first two picks. In an 8-teamer, I'd take Graham over any WR/TE not named Calvin.

Yeah, I don't think anyone disagrees with you here, but we're essentially talking about one selection. Either you take Rodgers/Brady/Brees or you don't.

 

[gump]

4 of the first 5 weeks last year tallied the highest weekly passing yards in the history of the NFL. I assume this was a result as a short camp for defenses rather than a change in offensive strategy (as no weekly totals for the rest of 2011 were higher). I wonder if the drop off from top tier QBs to middle tier QBs was exaggerated since they could exploit defensive mistakes easier (I don't consider Newton in that group since a lot of his value came from his rushes) or if there is really no statistical significance to be found.

outstanding post.

In my league ....the gap is essentially the same between the tier 1 guys and the tier 2 guys in weeks 1-6 and 10-16.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

The crux of the 1st or 2nd round QB argument is that the QB you are going to draft will maintain both his 2011 level of scoring and that the QBs drafted outside the top 5 will not close the gap appreciatively.

We talk about end of year QB ranking, but that by itself is not important, really... it is the scoring.

In 2011 the top 5 QBs VBD were Brees 203, Rodgers 201, Brady 174, Stafford 145, and Newton at 143. This was a sizable advantage over the #6 (78).

However, all the way back in 2010 we had Vick dominating the ppg... then everybody else. Rodgers had a VBD of 80, Brady 83, Brees 59.... these are not 1st round values.

It would not surprise me in the least to see 3 or 4 of the consensus top 5 QBs fall off last year's pace this year, and who knows which ones do? It also would not surprise me to see several lower ranked QBs raise their production and close the gap; there is a lot of talent and numerous very good situations out there outside of the top 5 qbs.

My main point is that last year's stats are unlikely to repeat this year and that the other QBs may well improve and close the gap, making the VBD of the top QBs lower. Couple this with the seeming dearth of quality RBs outside the first couple of rounds (making the higher ranked RBs relatively more valuable) and the depth at WR and even TE, and I'm not sure the early QB strategy is a wise one.

haha...all you are doing here is making an assumption and then drawing a conclusion off that assumption that reflects that base assumption -- this is terrible circular reasoning.you've basically predicted that the gap between top qb and lower qb will shrink this year, while lower round rb's will be unable to catch their higher round counterparts, therefore lower round qb's are the way to go.

well, yeah, if that's how it works out, then that's how it works out, but it's possible the lower qb you draft doesn't catch the elite, and it's possible there are a bunch of lower round rb's who will narrow the gap that you just aren't seeing, in which case I'd rather have the elite qb coupled with the emerging sleeper rb that ends up going 1st/2nd next year.

I think it is pretty clear that RB depth in start 2 or more RB leagues is more questionable that QB depth. My main point is that the QBs taken in round one almost have to produce at their career highs that they set last year instead of their more normal production from way back in 2010 in order to be worth the pick.

Rodgers increased his PPG by almost 31% from 2010 to 2011.

Brady increased by almost 23%.

Brees increased by 39%.

A lot of things have to align just right to have these kinds of years. If I am betting on particular QBs to have these kind of years, I will be betting on these three, but I question whether a 1st round pick is a good bet. Basically you have to project 40+ TDs to justify spending a 1st on a QB; 40 TDs is not easy to get for ANYBODY.

 

[JB Breakfast Club]

Dodds continues to support waiting on QB, but it seems like the "rate my team" feature goes against that notion (and it appears to be based almost entirely on Dodds' projections). I did some ESPN mock drafts (12 team) to get feedback. I went RB first on one and Rodgers in the other...these are the starters. I gave the teams the exact same benches:

Vick/Rice/Hillis/Fitz/AJ Green/Hernandez/Lloyd (flex)

With good inseason management, we think you have about a 70 percent chance of making the playoffs.

Rodgers/Mathews/R Bush/SSmith/ABrown/Graham/D Brown (flex)

With good inseason management, we think you have about a 80 percent chance of making the playoffs.

Now I know this isn't a perfect sample set, but it aligns with what I have seen with other simulations...the elite QB teams end up with a higher % chance to make the playoffs on the FBG team rater. I'm not really providing analysis here, but I thought it was interesting to note what feedback the FBG tools provide on this subject.

 

[silentcoach]

Dodds continues to support waiting on QB, but it seems like the "rate my team" feature goes against that notion (and it appears to be based almost entirely on Dodds' projections). I did some ESPN mock drafts (12 team) to get feedback. I went RB first on one and Rodgers in the other...these are the starters. I gave the teams the exact same benches:

Vick/Rice/Hillis/Fitz/AJ Green/Hernandez/Lloyd (flex)

With good inseason management, we think you have about a 70 percent chance of making the playoffs.

Rodgers/Mathews/R Bush/SSmith/ABrown/Graham/D Brown (flex)

With good inseason management, we think you have about a 80 percent chance of making the playoffs.

Now I know this isn't a perfect sample set, but it aligns with what I have seen with other simulations...the elite QB teams end up with a higher % chance to make the playoffs on the FBG team rater. I'm not really providing analysis here, but I thought it was interesting to note what feedback the FBG tools provide on this subject.

The two teams are completely different...

I think most people were arguing going QB early (after the elite rbs were gone) and THEN a rb later. The above are just two different teams (different wrs, te and flex).

AND as someone had mentioned earlier: "SOLID QBS" is now the new mediocre QB.

 

[shadyridr]

Dodds continues to support waiting on QB, but it seems like the "rate my team" feature goes against that notion (and it appears to be based almost entirely on Dodds' projections). I did some ESPN mock drafts (12 team) to get feedback. I went RB first on one and Rodgers in the other...these are the starters. I gave the teams the exact same benches:

Vick/Rice/Hillis/Fitz/AJ Green/Hernandez/Lloyd (flex)

With good inseason management, we think you have about a 70 percent chance of making the playoffs.

Rodgers/Mathews/R Bush/SSmith/ABrown/Graham/D Brown (flex)

With good inseason management, we think you have about a 80 percent chance of making the playoffs.

Now I know this isn't a perfect sample set, but it aligns with what I have seen with other simulations...the elite QB teams end up with a higher % chance to make the playoffs on the FBG team rater. I'm not really providing analysis here, but I thought it was interesting to note what feedback the FBG tools provide on this subject.

Well team A has Ray Rice and a bunch of good players. Team B has Rodgers, Graham, & Mathews (all projected 1st rd picks).

 

[tjnc09]

4 of the first 5 weeks last year tallied the highest weekly passing yards in the history of the NFL. I assume this was a result as a short camp for defenses rather than a change in offensive strategy (as no weekly totals for the rest of 2011 were higher). I wonder if the drop off from top tier QBs to middle tier QBs was exaggerated since they could exploit defensive mistakes easier (I don't consider Newton in that group since a lot of his value came from his rushes) or if there is really no statistical significance to be found.

outstanding post.

In my league ....the gap is essentially the same between the tier 1 guys and the tier 2 guys in weeks 1-6 and 10-16.

Here is an interesting article from last year the contradicts what I posted. If the completion percentage is unchanged, deep pass percentage is down, but YPA/YPR are up after week 5, that suggests missed tackles contributed to the abnormal amount of passing yds in those first few weeks. This would help both top and middle/low tier QBs, but would be corrected as the weeks went on. The lockout did not help those top tier QBs moreso than middle/low tier QBs - they were really that much better last year.http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/features/2011/nfl_2011/week-5/nfl_passing_the_real_reason_for_pro_football_s_offensive_explosi.html

Week 5 saw no relief from this season’s torrent of passing yards. Eli Manning and Matt Schaub each threw for more than 400 yards in losing efforts. In fact, seven of the 10 games with a 400-yard passing line this season have come in losses. A losing quarterback, forced to throw as part of a futile comeback effort, often throws for more yardage than the winner, which tells us something about using total passing yards as a measure of effective offense.

Nevertheless, passing yardage is sky high in 2011, and the rapid increase begs for an explanation. Through Monday night, teams have averaged 246 passing yards per game compared to 222 in 2010. On my website, Advanced NFL Stats, I looked at all the common measures of passing: total yards, completion percentage, yards per reception, and attempts, as well as some more sophisticated metrics. Some of the numbers are surprising.

One of the most reliable gauges of passing ability is net yards per attempt, which takes into account sack yardage. For most of the past decade, YPA hovered between 6.2 and 6.5, but so far this season it’s close to 7.0. In 2007, Peyton Manning was third in the league with 7.0 YPA. Now that’s the average.

Completion percentage is unchanged from last season at 61 percent. In order to account for that yardage increase, quarterbacks must be getting more bang for the buck. Indeed, yards per reception have swelled from 10.8 last season to 11.4 this season. That’s a big jump when put into a broader context. Just like YPA, YPR has been relatively steady over the past decade, never exceeding 10.9 until this year.

You might guess that offenses are passing deeper this year. That would explain how completion percentage has stayed the same while YPA and YPR are way up. But that’s not the case. The percentage of deep pass attempts, defined by the NFL as anything over 15 yards, is curiously declining. Deep pass percentage is now below 19 percent for the first time since the league started tracking pass depth in 2006. Last season it was 19.5 percent.

One theory I heard recently to explain this year’s passing numbers is that defenses have embraced the bend-but-don’t-break approach. But that’s just not the case. Sacks and interceptions are slightly down, following a decade-long trend, while offensive scoring is slightly higher. There’s been both more bending and more breaking this season, and defenses are making fewer big plays.

I also keep seeing articles and hearing TV guys claim that the lockout is the cause—that missing practices this summer has hampered defenses more than offenses. This is an easy, lazy conjecture, impossible to prove and impossible to reject. If passing were dramatically down this season, the very same analysts would be telling us that the lack of off-season practice disproportionately affected the delicate timing of complex passing offenses. If field goal percentage were down, they'd say the same thing about kickers and holders, too.

The real answer isn’t that hard to find if you’re willing to do some research. Total yards are up, yards per attempt and yards per reception are up, but completion percentage is level and deep passes are less frequent. So, where are those extra yards coming from? Yards after catch. Last season, offenses averaged 110 yards after catch per game; this year, they’re averaging 123. That accounts for a little more than one-half of the increase in total passing yards. (The rest of the increase comes from the fact that teams have recognized the increased potency of the pass and are chucking the ball more often. Pass attempts have increased from an average of 33.7 to 35.0 per game.)

What’s with the rise in YAC? My theory is that it has to do with the rise of the screen pass. (See Chris Brown’s piece in Grantland on “the rise of the space player.”) High YAC numbers usually come from screens and check downs. I believe we’re seeing more and more screens, particularly wide-receiver screens where one wideout runs a “pick” pattern. This is ostensibly illegal, but allowed when the pick is a natural result of a receiver’s planned pattern. Screens of all types are primarily intended to counter the pass rush. Offenses are adapting to more aggressive and confusing pass rushing with quick, short passes, designed to get quick receivers in the open field. It’s not much different than the tactics Bill Walsh first employed in the late 1960s and early 1970s under Paul Brown in Cincinnati, with short passes replacing a woeful running game.

One of my readers also suggested that the new kickoff rules have something to do with the passing boom. The rise in touchbacks means that offenses are starting closer to their own goal line, providing a longer field and more room to accrue passing yards (at least on initial possessions after each kickoff). This seems plausible if you consider that many long break-away plays would go for 200 yards if the field were long enough.

If you’re waiting to see these passing numbers regress to the mean as the season goes on, don’t hold your breath. This season is part of a long-term trend in passing in the NFL. The ridiculous yardage totals may regress to some degree, but the true mean of today's NFL is not necessarily last season's numbers or an average of the last several seasons. The game continues to change.

 

[-jb-]

If you’re waiting to see these passing numbers regress to the mean as the season goes on, don’t hold your breath. This season is part of a long-term trend in passing in the NFL. The ridiculous yardage totals may regress to some degree, but the true mean of today's NFL is not necessarily last season's numbers or an average of the last several seasons. The game continues to change.

Good read, thanks. I still don't understand this line of thinking, however. I agree that we are seeing an upward trend in QB performance, for a multitude of reasons. What I can't buy off on yet, is why the jump was so significant last year, and why it only affected four QBs.

 

[tjnc09]

If you’re waiting to see these passing numbers regress to the mean as the season goes on, don’t hold your breath. This season is part of a long-term trend in passing in the NFL. The ridiculous yardage totals may regress to some degree, but the true mean of today's NFL is not necessarily last season's numbers or an average of the last several seasons. The game continues to change.

Good read, thanks. I still don't understand this line of thinking, however. I agree that we are seeing an upward trend in QB performance, for a multitude of reasons. What I can't buy off on yet, is why the jump was so significant last year, and why it only affected four QBs.

He linked to this article which supports your first sentence:http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/01/run-pass-balance-historical-analysis.html

On your second part, I'm not sure either. I thought the lockout was an explanation. Overs went 12-4 in week 1 - even Vegas was caught off guard. The parity in the NFL schedule is so great it could have been in part that they all faced easier schedules last year than normal. Both GB and NO faced NYG (Rodgers 369-4-1 and Brees 363-4-0) when they were a defensive mess and not close to the playoff team they ended up being. The upward trend may be real, but the extra difference may not be one reason - could be a lot of small ones like schedule, defensive or RB injuries, etc.

 

[Runningman]

Exactly. Be fluid and just let the draft come to you. Being too rigid will just make you make lower-benefit moves.

I posted earlier about loving the QB depth this year. Well, my big league has managed to shrink down to 8 people, so I'm sort of reevaluating that stance, since our league does 6 pt TDs for QBs. I am starting to think that with 8 teams only, since everyone ends up a very good, very deep lineup, it makes it harder to make up for the obvious advantage that one of the big 3 QBs provides. I need to run some scenarios, but I think in these leagues, you need to focus on getting those guys that are on an obvious tier above everyone else at their position (Rodgers/Brees/Brady, Calvin, Graham/Gronk). I never could have guessed that I would be honestly evaluating a scenario where I go QB/TE with my first two picks. In an 8-teamer, I'd take Graham over any WR/TE not named Calvin.

Yeah, I don't think anyone disagrees with you here, but we're essentially talking about one selection. Either you take Rodgers/Brady/Brees or you don't.

Yes, and we are talking about early first round selections. Basically there is no draft coming to you, rather the course of the draft is being defined. Fluidity is for rounds 3 plus.

 

[One]

Dodds continues to support waiting on QB, but it seems like the "rate my team" feature goes against that notion (and it appears to be based almost entirely on Dodds' projections). I did some ESPN mock drafts (12 team) to get feedback. I went RB first on one and Rodgers in the other...these are the starters. I gave the teams the exact same benches:

Vick/Rice/Hillis/Fitz/AJ Green/Hernandez/Lloyd (flex)

With good inseason management, we think you have about a 70 percent chance of making the playoffs.

Rodgers/Mathews/R Bush/SSmith/ABrown/Graham/D Brown (flex)

With good inseason management, we think you have about a 80 percent chance of making the playoffs.

Now I know this isn't a perfect sample set, but it aligns with what I have seen with other simulations...the elite QB teams end up with a higher % chance to make the playoffs on the FBG team rater. I'm not really providing analysis here, but I thought it was interesting to note what feedback the FBG tools provide on this subject.

I wonder if the Rate My Team still considers Mathews a top 5 pick.

 

[Zackattack]

Doing mocks I still think going QB later works better. Not enough RB depth.

 

[We Tigers]

Dodds continues to support waiting on QB, but it seems like the "rate my team" feature goes against that notion (and it appears to be based almost entirely on Dodds' projections). I did some ESPN mock drafts (12 team) to get i. I went RB first on one and Rodgers in the other...these are the starters. I gave the teams the exact same benches:

Vick/Rice/Hillis/Fitz/AJ Green/Hernandez/Lloyd (flex)

With good inseason management, we think you have about a 70 percent chance of making the playoffs.

Rodgers/Mathews/R Bush/SSmith/ABrown/Graham/D Brown (flex)

With good inseason management, we think you have about a 80 percent chance of making the playoffs.

Now I know this isn't a perfect sample set, but it aligns with what I have seen with other simulations...the elite QB teams end up with a higher % chance to make the playoffs on the FBG team rater. I'm not really providing analysis here, but I thought it was interesting to note what feedback the FBG tools provide on this subject.

The two teams are completely different...

I think most people were arguing going QB early (after the elite rbs were gone) and THEN a rb later. The above are just two different teams (different wrs, te and flex).

AND as someone had mentioned earlier: "SOLID QBS" is now the new mediocre QB.

Even if the teams were the same except swapping one QB and one RB, they wouldn't be comparable. You draft differently depending on what you have. When you take a QB in the first round, you may commit to mid round RBs a bit more to make up your deficiency. Maybe you also look at some more high risk, high potential backs in the mid-rounds--David Wilson instead of Benson. If you take an RB first, you probably don't reach for an extra back and might consider a tight end instead of a third RB when you get to the 6th round...And so on. What you pick in the first 3 rounds affects how you assign value to positions throughout the rest of the draft. The real question is not just "can I do better with Aaron Rodgers in the 1st and Hillis in the 5th, or McFadden in the 1st and Tony Romo in the 5th?" It's "how does taking a QB early affect my draft strategy later--and how should it, if at all?"

 

[ppierce]

I think everyone (myself included) puts too much time and effort into their 1st round pick and too little time and effort into what they want to do in all the other rounds.

 

[JB Breakfast Club]

I think everyone (myself included) puts too much time and effort into their 1st round pick and too little time and effort into what they want to do in all the other rounds.

I also think the discussion is always much too focused on drafts. Aren't most people doing auctions by now? How does the discussion change with a $200 auction?

 

[hotboyz]

I think everyone (myself included) puts too much time and effort into their 1st round pick and too little time and effort into what they want to do in all the other rounds.

I can't stand auction I don't think everybody should have a shot to get any player they want I also think the discussion is always much too focused on drafts. Aren't most people doing auctions by now? How does the discussion change with a $200 auction?

 

[We Tigers]

I think everyone (myself included) puts too much time and effort into their 1st round pick and too little time and effort into what they want to do in all the other rounds.

I also think the discussion is always much too focused on drafts. Aren't most people doing auctions by now? How does the discussion change with a $200 auction?

I'd be very surprised if more than 1 in 10 drafts involving even the very engaged FBG community were auction.Now, to your point in a different way: I do think in-season management is even more important than the draft--and can make up for a weak draft--but it's draft season! We get to talk about in-season management for four months.

 

[The Jerk]

Yes, and we are talking about early first round selections. Basically there is no draft coming to you, rather the course of the draft is being defined. Fluidity is for rounds 3 plus.

This year, as I see it, there are three no-brainer elite running backs. But after that, I don't see guarantees and I clearly see injury risk, at least to some extent, among the next tier of running backs.So as early as the 4th pick -- in my opinion, and others will disagree -- choosing a running back could be, as I see it, forcing the issue. So, sure, if early first round means the first three picks, I'm with you.Regardless of how early first round is defined, I would strongly disagree about fluidity being for rounds 3+. I've been in many drafts where significant deviations from my expectations were already apparent by the end of round 1. My preference is to let that early deviation factor in, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, when considering my second round pick. I try not to overreact, as that can be a problem too, but ignoring what is going on around you on draft night tends not to be a path to success. I mean, it's not that difficult to take a few seconds and think about what has taken place to that point in the draft.

 

[The Jerk]

I think everyone (myself included) puts too much time and effort into their 1st round pick and too little time and effort into what they want to do in all the other rounds.

I also think the discussion is always much too focused on drafts. Aren't most people doing auctions by now? How does the discussion change with a $200 auction?

Congratulations if you are doing an auction!But really, this has been a very insightful and well-mannered thread so far. If you want to start an auction vs. draft thread, by all means do so, but it would be considerate to leave this thread alone. Clearly, if all of your leagues are auctions, you should have no interest in this topic, right? Also clearly, as this thread has quite a few willing participants, at least this section of the FBG SP is still occupied with a lot of old geezers who still use drafts. So if it's not too much trouble, perhaps you can humor us, and let us carry on our discussion before we get out our 8-track tapes or record players to take a music break.

 

[-jb-]

I think everyone (myself included) puts too much time and effort into their 1st round pick and too little time and effort into what they want to do in all the other rounds.

One begets the next. I spend a ton of time looking at the mid rounds, but you have far more control over the first few rounds than you do the mid rounds. There are less players to consider and less chance for other managers to deviate from your expected outcomes. I like Gates this year, but with Gronk and Graham in the mix earlier I may not even consider him later. I think Kevin Smith is insane value but do I draft him if I already have Calvin and Stafford? Etc.

 

[The Jerk]

I think everyone (myself included) puts too much time and effort into their 1st round pick and too little time and effort into what they want to do in all the other rounds.

Excellent observation. I felt the same way and about five years ago I started making a concerted effort to examine where I feel the cliff gives way at QB, RB, WR and TE. Finding this point of extremely diminishing returns informs all of my earlier picks, clearly including my first round selection. It's still fun to look at the heavy hitters and speculate on which one or two you will be able to snag, but analyzing the "last acceptable starters" at each position, including some platoon RB pairs, has multiple benefits. Not only do you get better insight concerning your first pick(s), but you also gain better flexibility as you are prepared to go any direction during the draft and still be comfortable knowing who your fallback options are at every position. It's certainly worked for me.

 

[Zackattack]

I am glad so far I only got burned in one league gambling early on a QB that Being Stafford. I was excited that he slipped to me in the middle of the second. Pairing him with Calvin I thought I was $$. Not so good right now.

League 2 I grabbed Brees in the first. He's doing Ok so I am 2-0 possibly 3-0.

Both other leagues I waited. This is my usual strategy. Romo 5th, RG3 in the 9th then I grabbed Flacco as trade bait in the 14rth. I have since traded off Romo for Hernandez. I am starting RG3. looks good now.

The other league I grabbed Rivers in the 5th I am 2-1.

No more high picks on QB's.

 

[Run It Up]

Im doing fine with my committees but I have no idea what the deal is, it seems like instead of having bad games they have TERRIBLE games. So it makes choosing the wrong even worse. I've started the right one every week so far but this week in 5 leagues combined my bench quarterbacks (8 QBs) combined for less than 40 pts...

 

[SameSongNDance]

As an owner of Ryan in every single one of my leagues, I tend to agree.

 

[sporthenry]

I would say its far too early to agree with this. While I don't think many realistic people expected the QBs to put up the numbers they did last year, I'm sure you'll still see them at or near the top 5. Heck, next year you can probably have one of them at a discount. But doing QBBC could end up killing you if you paired someone like Rivers with Bradford. Sure, RGIII and Ryan look to be studs but players like Big Ben will probably finish around 8-10 again. You know what you are getting and then you also will have weeks when you play the wrong QB which is an annoyance.

 

[SameSongNDance]

I would say its far too early to agree with this. While I don't think many realistic people expected the QBs to put up the numbers they did last year, I'm sure you'll still see them at or near the top 5. Heck, next year you can probably have one of them at a discount. But doing QBBC could end up killing you if you paired someone like Rivers with Bradford. Sure, RGIII and Ryan look to be studs but players like Big Ben will probably finish around 8-10 again. You know what you are getting and then you also will have weeks when you play the wrong QB which is an annoyance.

I almost don't want to get into this, but the top QB's ADPs were predicated on them repeating last year's performances (5000/40). Their ADPs were also based on how they would perform in comparison to every other position. Brees, Brady, Rodgers very well may finish in the top 5, but the disparity between the top 6 and bottom 6 of fantasy starters (12 team) this year will be nowhere near as large(top 6 QBs averaged 100 points more than bottom 6 out of the top 12) as it was last year. QBs could have and should have been waited on.

 

[Sweetness_34]

Agree 100%.... The difference between the top 5 Qbs and the next 10 Qbs is not much this year.... Stafford; Rodgers; Brady; Cam have all screwed their owners

 

[Sweetness_34]

Agree 100%.... The difference between the top 5 Qbs and the next 10 Qbs is not much this year.... Stafford; Rodgers; Brady; Cam have all screwed their owners

 

[butcher boy]

The answer is "it depends".

If the guy you were going to take instead of Aaron Rodgers was Chris Johnson, you did well going QB early.

If you took DMC, waited on a QB and got RG3, you're probably ok. If you waited and took Cutler/Freeman, not so much.

If you took Aaron Rodgers early and got CJ Spiller or Reggie Bush late, you did well.

There is no consensus answer to this question.

 

[ImTheScientist]

The answer is "it depends".If the guy you were going to take instead of Aaron Rodgers was Chris Johnson, you did well going QB early.If you took DMC, waited on a QB and got RG3, you're probably ok. If you waited and took Cutler/Freeman, not so much.If you took Aaron Rodgers early and got CJ Spiller or Reggie Bush late, you did well.There is no consensus answer to this question.

So you are saying "wait and take the right QB" should be the title.