What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

What's the point of 2QB leagues? (1 Viewer)

Because there's something weird about a Top-13 fantasy player being on someone's bench (or worse, being on the waiver wire) every week.

 
More excitement. Everyone pretty much has a good QB in 1 QB leagues. Less luck involved in 2QB leagues. I'm in both and far prefer the 2 QB league.

 
To make the QB position as important in fantasy scoring as it seems to be in real football scoring.

Plus, as mentioned ... QBs are fun to watch. It's a way of spicing up your league from "normal" scoring. I've enjoyed the 2 QB leagues I've played in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What's the point of NOT having two qb leagues? Sell me on it?
Maybe because fantasy lineups in most leagues mirror the NFL, in which teams do not start two QBs. Yes, in a fantasy league you can make any silly rule you want, but some of us like leagues that are closer to the real world and for us starting two QBs a week doesn't cut it. But, it is a personal preference and if people want leagues that start two (or more) QBs, the more power to them.
 
It increases the value of the most important player in real football.

Never understood why the most fungible offensive player on a real NFL team (the RB) is so much more valuable than the most important player on a team.

If you blew up all 32 NFL teams and put all the skill position offensive players into a draft pool QBs would overwhelmingly be picked before WRs & RBs (WRs would go ahead of RBs in general as well, which is why fantasy leagues should start 3 WRs too).

Fantasy football should at least try to reflect the relative importance of the most valuable players in real football.

Some will argue that they don't start two QBs in the NFL, well that's true but which NFL teams start two RBs (not FBs)? Any NFL teams have Adrian Peterson and Chris Johnson on the roster? Nope. Eddie Lacey & Alfred Morris? Nope. Matt Forte & CJ Spiller? Not happening. Arian Foster & Jamaal Charles? Nope. But it happens in fantasy football all the time. So why allow that argument to hold for QBs?

It just makes the game better all around. At the very least you should allow for a QB as a flex player in your league.

 
If you don't want to 2 QB league, try a QB flex one. I enjoy both much more than the traditional 1QB format.

Personally prefer QB flex due to bye weeks.

 
What's the point of NOT having two qb leagues? Sell me on it?
Maybe because fantasy lineups in most leagues mirror the NFL, in which teams do not start two QBs. Yes, in a fantasy league you can make any silly rule you want, but some of us like leagues that are closer to the real world and for us starting two QBs a week doesn't cut it. But, it is a personal preference and if people want leagues that start two (or more) QBs, the more power to them.
How many NFL teams start two RBs? Not a FB & a RB but two RBs?

How often are Ben Tate and Arian Foster on the field at the same time? Pierce & Rice? McCoy & Brown? Spiller & Jackson? It doesn't happen a whole lot in reality but you see better tandems than that in fantasy leagues all the time..

 
What's the point of NOT having two qb leagues? Sell me on it?
Maybe because fantasy lineups in most leagues mirror the NFL, in which teams do not start two QBs. Yes, in a fantasy league you can make any silly rule you want, but some of us like leagues that are closer to the real world and for us starting two QBs a week doesn't cut it. But, it is a personal preference and if people want leagues that start two (or more) QBs, the more power to them.
Do you dress up in a uniform with full pads on game day? Actually nevermind, there's a good chance you do.

 
As has been alluded to, the depth of talent at QB almost demands that you start more than one.

Think abut it... On draft day, you have rodgers, Bree's and manning, all expected to be top 3 at their position, far less risk/variance than the top 3 wrs and especially RBs, yet they are taking "early" by someone if it's the late second or early third round. Top ten guys at their position, and arguably top 20-25 overall players (and higher in straight points scored) go in the 7,8, 9th round?

By adding another starting QB or QB flex, you really add a lot if strategy and provide a more even playing field among the positions.

 
If you don't want to 2 QB league, try a QB flex one. I enjoy both much more than the traditional 1QB format.

Personally prefer QB flex due to bye weeks.
I agree, especially if you are in a 16 team league where you would have no options.
Completely agree. Anything above 10 person leagues should have the flex option. In almost any scoring system its usually an advantage to start a QB, even a lesser one, as compared to other positions, but for byes, injuries etc. you need the flexibility (no pun intended honest) of the flex.

 
What's the point of NOT having two qb leagues? Sell me on it?
Maybe because fantasy lineups in most leagues mirror the NFL, in which teams do not start two QBs. Yes, in a fantasy league you can make any silly rule you want, but some of us like leagues that are closer to the real world and for us starting two QBs a week doesn't cut it. But, it is a personal preference and if people want leagues that start two (or more) QBs, the more power to them.
How many NFL teams start two RBs? Not a FB & a RB but two RBs?

How often are Ben Tate and Arian Foster on the field at the same time? Pierce & Rice? McCoy & Brown? Spiller & Jackson? It doesn't happen a whole lot in reality but you see better tandems than that in fantasy leagues all the time..
I don't think lineups are meant to emulate a play, but a whole game.... and over the course of a typical game one quarterback throws the ball, two or three guys run the ball, four or five guys catch the ball.

I'm not for or against two QB lineups, I just don't think your rebuttal to that point is very effective.

 
What's the point of NOT having two qb leagues? Sell me on it?
Maybe because fantasy lineups in most leagues mirror the NFL, in which teams do not start two QBs. Yes, in a fantasy league you can make any silly rule you want, but some of us like leagues that are closer to the real world and for us starting two QBs a week doesn't cut it. But, it is a personal preference and if people want leagues that start two (or more) QBs, the more power to them.
Great post brah. Your 600 posts in 7 years isn't enough man. You need to post more.

 
Sell me on it.
Just like PPR was the natural evolution over standard leagues, 2 QB leagues are the next step in that evolution.

I think over 75% of my leagues next year will be 2 QB mandatory or at least QB flex.
True, and like PPR, 2 QB (Flex) leagues require more strategy, takes some luck out of the equation and in turn are more fun.

On a side note, I was doing some numbers on RB vs WR production in a non PPR league.. This year the top 32 (All RB/WR 1 & 2's in a 16 team) performers average for WRs was over 2 pts higher than RBs, in a non-PPR. Going back a few years I noticed that this trend is unique for this year.

Maybe down the road fantasy will evolve back away from PPR because current production trends are more and more favoring WRs even if you take receptions out.

 
What's the point of NOT having two qb leagues? Sell me on it?
Maybe because fantasy lineups in most leagues mirror the NFL, in which teams do not start two QBs. Yes, in a fantasy league you can make any silly rule you want, but some of us like leagues that are closer to the real world and for us starting two QBs a week doesn't cut it. But, it is a personal preference and if people want leagues that start two (or more) QBs, the more power to them.
How many NFL teams start two RBs? Not a FB & a RB but two RBs?

How often are Ben Tate and Arian Foster on the field at the same time? Pierce & Rice? McCoy & Brown? Spiller & Jackson? It doesn't happen a whole lot in reality but you see better tandems than that in fantasy leagues all the time..
I don't think lineups are meant to emulate a play, but a whole game.... and over the course of a typical game one quarterback throws the ball, two or three guys run the ball, four or five guys catch the ball.

I'm not for or against two QB lineups, I just don't think your rebuttal to that point is very effective.
Meh. They typical distribution of RB touches on most NFL teams (and pretty much all of them with a true lead back) throughout a game makes that counter argument questionable.

How many touches does Toby Gerhart get? Bryce Brown? Knile Davis?

In fantasy people field two 20 touch RBs so how does that reflect anything close to reality in a real football game. And if an NFL team somehow manages to get two RBs to the 20 touch threshold in a given game (rare but not unprecedented) how many passes did that team throw during that game?

Your counter argument is not working for me.

 
Sell me on it.
Just like PPR was the natural evolution over standard leagues, 2 QB leagues are the next step in that evolution.

I think over 75% of my leagues next year will be 2 QB mandatory or at least QB flex.
Disagree about PPR. Never understood why catching a 0-1 yard pass should be worth more than a 9 yard run.
PPR was a way to give more equity to WRs in fantasy.
I understand the theory and still think it is questionable at best. Tavon Austin doesn't deserve 31 more fantasy points for his sub 7 YPC.

Having 3 starting WRs would do the job better.

 
Sell me on it.
Just like PPR was the natural evolution over standard leagues, 2 QB leagues are the next step in that evolution.

I think over 75% of my leagues next year will be 2 QB mandatory or at least QB flex.
Disagree about PPR. Never understood why catching a 0-1 yard pass should be worth more than a 9 yard run.
PPR was a way to give more equity to WRs in fantasy.
I understand the theory and still think it is questionable at best. Tavon Austin doesn't deserve 31 more fantasy points for his sub 7 YPC.

Having 3 starting WRs would do the job better.
Whoops, I interpreted that wrong.

I agree with you. With regard to my post earlier that WR1/2s are now as a whole averaging more than 2 more points than RB1/2's and with more WRs than RBs in the top 25 and top 50 in non-ppr. Do you see this as a sign that PPR may be dated? I'm kind of thinking that if current trends continue we may have to move to RB-PPR only or something.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What's the point of NOT having two qb leagues? Sell me on it?
Maybe because fantasy lineups in most leagues mirror the NFL, in which teams do not start two QBs. Yes, in a fantasy league you can make any silly rule you want, but some of us like leagues that are closer to the real world and for us starting two QBs a week doesn't cut it. But, it is a personal preference and if people want leagues that start two (or more) QBs, the more power to them.
How many NFL teams start two RBs? Not a FB & a RB but two RBs?

How often are Ben Tate and Arian Foster on the field at the same time? Pierce & Rice? McCoy & Brown? Spiller & Jackson? It doesn't happen a whole lot in reality but you see better tandems than that in fantasy leagues all the time..
I don't think lineups are meant to emulate a play, but a whole game.... and over the course of a typical game one quarterback throws the ball, two or three guys run the ball, four or five guys catch the ball.

I'm not for or against two QB lineups, I just don't think your rebuttal to that point is very effective.
Meh. They typical distribution of RB touches on most NFL teams (and pretty much all of them with a true lead back) throughout a game makes that counter argument questionable.

How many touches does Toby Gerhart get? Bryce Brown? Knile Davis?

In fantasy people field two 20 touch RBs so how does that reflect anything close to reality in a real football game. And if an NFL team somehow manages to get two RBs to the 20 touch threshold in a given game (rare but not unprecedented) how many passes did that team throw during that game?

Your counter argument is not working for me.
way to cherry pick... what about the backfield scenarios in Buffalo, Cincy, Az, Dallas, Washington, NO?

Lineups are based on boxscores where there is one QB, a couple RBs a few more WRs.... it makes sense. It's not the only way to do it and no way is correct.

Boxscores mirror the game, fantasy mirrors boxscores. 2 or more RBs, 1 QB

 
Sell me on it.
Just like PPR was the natural evolution over standard leagues, 2 QB leagues are the next step in that evolution.

I think over 75% of my leagues next year will be 2 QB mandatory or at least QB flex.
Disagree about PPR. Never understood why catching a 0-1 yard pass should be worth more than a 9 yard run.
PPR was a way to give more equity to WRs in fantasy.
I understand the theory and still think it is questionable at best. Tavon Austin doesn't deserve 31 more fantasy points for his sub 7 YPC.

Having 3 starting WRs would do the job better.
Cherry picking =/= good argument

 
Never understood why 4 teams leave the draft without a starting QB for bye weeks.
My decision making process for getting a backup a QB is based on the QB I land and how the draft shakes out. Particularly, in a 10 man league I'm in, only 4 or 5 teams selected a backup QB, this left the FA pool very rich, so when the later rounds came around I didn't feel the need to. While I had every intention of getting a backup, it worked out nicely because I was able to grab Philip Rivers after week 1. I'm also less inclined to draft one if I get a pure pocket passer that doesn't get him much a la Peyton Manning.

Its a bit of a risk but the extra position player can be a tremendous advantage if it works out for you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sell me on it.
Just like PPR was the natural evolution over standard leagues, 2 QB leagues are the next step in that evolution.

I think over 75% of my leagues next year will be 2 QB mandatory or at least QB flex.
True, and like PPR, 2 QB (Flex) leagues require more strategy, takes some luck out of the equation and in turn are more fun.On a side note, I was doing some numbers on RB vs WR production in a non PPR league.. This year the top 32 (All RB/WR 1 & 2's in a 16 team) performers average for WRs was over 2 pts higher than RBs, in a non-PPR. Going back a few years I noticed that this trend is unique for this year.

Maybe down the road fantasy will evolve back away from PPR because current production trends are more and more favoring WRs even if you take receptions out.
In a somewhat ironic twist, I'm in a dynasty which decided last year that we should get with the times and go PPR, specifically to even out RBs and WRs. By rule had to wait a year to implement. But as a compromise we did PPR only for WR and TE ( similar to how we adjusted in a yearly league, before going to ppr for all).

Of course, this year RBs generally suck and WRs have depth. So with a full PPR to wrs and not RBs, receivers have become hugely valuable in proportion - and it will take at least another full season for the league to adjust.

Interesting turn, overall.

 
Sell me on it.
Just like PPR was the natural evolution over standard leagues, 2 QB leagues are the next step in that evolution.

I think over 75% of my leagues next year will be 2 QB mandatory or at least QB flex.
True, and like PPR, 2 QB (Flex) leagues require more strategy, takes some luck out of the equation and in turn are more fun.On a side note, I was doing some numbers on RB vs WR production in a non PPR league.. This year the top 32 (All RB/WR 1 & 2's in a 16 team) performers average for WRs was over 2 pts higher than RBs, in a non-PPR. Going back a few years I noticed that this trend is unique for this year.

Maybe down the road fantasy will evolve back away from PPR because current production trends are more and more favoring WRs even if you take receptions out.
In a somewhat ironic twist, I'm in a dynasty which decided last year that we should get with the times and go PPR, specifically to even out RBs and WRs. By rule had to wait a year to implement. But as a compromise we did PPR only for WR and TE ( similar to how we adjusted in a yearly league, before going to ppr for all).

Of course, this year RBs generally suck and WRs have depth. So with a full PPR to wrs and not RBs, receivers have become hugely valuable in proportion - and it will take at least another full season for the league to adjust.

Interesting turn, overall.
Wow, that is very interesting. I bet there is some crazy trades going down. You can probably abuse people later on in trades if they aren't up on the evolution of this.

 
Sell me on it.
Just like PPR was the natural evolution over standard leagues, 2 QB leagues are the next step in that evolution.

I think over 75% of my leagues next year will be 2 QB mandatory or at least QB flex.
True, and like PPR, 2 QB (Flex) leagues require more strategy, takes some luck out of the equation and in turn are more fun.On a side note, I was doing some numbers on RB vs WR production in a non PPR league.. This year the top 32 (All RB/WR 1 & 2's in a 16 team) performers average for WRs was over 2 pts higher than RBs, in a non-PPR. Going back a few years I noticed that this trend is unique for this year.

Maybe down the road fantasy will evolve back away from PPR because current production trends are more and more favoring WRs even if you take receptions out.
In a somewhat ironic twist, I'm in a dynasty which decided last year that we should get with the times and go PPR, specifically to even out RBs and WRs. By rule had to wait a year to implement. But as a compromise we did PPR only for WR and TE ( similar to how we adjusted in a yearly league, before going to ppr for all).Of course, this year RBs generally suck and WRs have depth. So with a full PPR to wrs and not RBs, receivers have become hugely valuable in proportion - and it will take at least another full season for the league to adjust.

Interesting turn, overall.
Wow, that is very interesting. I bet there is some crazy trades going down. You can probably abuse people later on in trades if they aren't up on the evolution of this.
It's a pretty savvy group overall - I think all FBGs to be honest. But it's not big money so not really anyone's huge priority.

My RBs just suck. I'm starting sproles and bolden most weeks. But with Manning, Megatron, Welker and T Smith at WR, lead the league in scoring so far - yet my teams not really that great to be honest. It's an interesting twist until we re-adjust.

 
Sell me on it.
1) Brings QBs fantasy relevance closer to some semblance of NFL relevance

2) Utilizes more NFL starters in fantasy.

3) When done via flex, doesn't have bye week issues.

4) Changing positional value from what every other league plays means people have to think for themselves more. Or at least find a better source to think for them.

 
What's the point of NOT having two qb leagues? Sell me on it?
Maybe because fantasy lineups in most leagues mirror the NFL, in which teams do not start two QBs. Yes, in a fantasy league you can make any silly rule you want, but some of us like leagues that are closer to the real world and for us starting two QBs a week doesn't cut it. But, it is a personal preference and if people want leagues that start two (or more) QBs, the more power to them.
How many NFL teams start two RBs? Not a FB & a RB but two RBs?

How often are Ben Tate and Arian Foster on the field at the same time? Pierce & Rice? McCoy & Brown? Spiller & Jackson? It doesn't happen a whole lot in reality but you see better tandems than that in fantasy leagues all the time..
I don't think lineups are meant to emulate a play, but a whole game.... and over the course of a typical game one quarterback throws the ball, two or three guys run the ball, four or five guys catch the ball.

I'm not for or against two QB lineups, I just don't think your rebuttal to that point is very effective.
Meh. They typical distribution of RB touches on most NFL teams (and pretty much all of them with a true lead back) throughout a game makes that counter argument questionable.

How many touches does Toby Gerhart get? Bryce Brown? Knile Davis?

In fantasy people field two 20 touch RBs so how does that reflect anything close to reality in a real football game. And if an NFL team somehow manages to get two RBs to the 20 touch threshold in a given game (rare but not unprecedented) how many passes did that team throw during that game?

Your counter argument is not working for me.
way to cherry pick... what about the backfield scenarios in Buffalo, Cincy, Az, Dallas, Washington, NO?

Lineups are based on boxscores where there is one QB, a couple RBs a few more WRs.... it makes sense. It's not the only way to do it and no way is correct.

Boxscores mirror the game, fantasy mirrors boxscores. 2 or more RBs, 1 QB
I understand your point (although you cherry picked as well and I am not sure why you mention Was where Alfred Morris dominates the RB touches 162 to 57 over Helu) but in fantasy leagues I don't think many teams have Gio Bernard and BJGE as their RB 1 & RB 2, at least not by design.

You are more likely to see teams with Jamaal Charles & Arian Foster, Adrian Peterson & Chris Johnson, Eddie Lacey & Alfred Morris. How often do you see guys who get that many touches on the same NFL team?

The point is that the realism argument does not hold for RBs nearly to the degree that people seem to think it does. I think that rather than the "whole game" angle that you are pushing is the fact that visually on a play we are used to seeing two non-QB players in the backfield. Doesn't matter if it is RB/RB, RB/FB, RB/HB, RB/TE etc. it just looks okay to have two non-QBs in the backfield so we think that having ADP and CJ2K on our fantasy team is realistic.

The realism argument doesn't hold. And if you want realism, how is it realistic that the most valuable players in the NFL (QBs) almost never get drafted in the first round of fantasy drafts but the least valuable skill position player (RB - okay TEs are less valuable) is worth 11 of 12 first round picks? That is every bit as unrealistic as two starting QBs in fantasy.

Drafts where every team just runs after the top RBs followed by the top WRs & TEs (TEs for goodness sake) before starting to go after the QBs are kind of silly when you think about it. Adding the flex QB (or mandatory 2 QBs) and even a 3rd mandatory starting WR make drafts far less predictable and much more fun.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe because fantasy lineups in most leagues mirror the NFL, in which teams do not start two QBs. Yes, in a fantasy league you can make any silly rule you want, but some of us like leagues that are closer to the real world and for us starting two QBs a week doesn't cut it.
My main problem with this argument is that no real NFL team starts 2 halfbacks on a regular basis, and no NFL team has EVER started 7 offensive skill players (i.e. 1QB/2RB/3WR/1TE). So very few fantasy teams look like "real world" teams anyway.

 
2-QBs are the ####, my favorite type of setting. There's nothing to sell to you, just try it out and see if you like it. I like the fact that drafting strategy dramatically changes, and also the fact that it doesn't put all your chips in on starting only 1 QB... i.e. let's say if you had Matt Ryan this year as your QB1 you might be screwed, but if you picked up Phillip Rivers you just made your season more than salvageable. I also think that in 1-QB leagues, match-ups are too often decided by who you start at QB since they score the most points, so having 2-QBs tends to lessen that advantage. In the sense that a PPR league makes more WRs more valuable (although IMO 1 pt PPR leagues are ######ed, 0.5 is much better), 2-QB leagues make QBs less valuable. Obviously with a 2-QB league, the max you should have is 10 people in your league... if each team drafts 3 QB's, that's 30 QB's right there which are almost all the starters.

 
2-QBs are the ####, my favorite type of setting. There's nothing to sell to you, just try it out and see if you like it. I like the fact that drafting strategy dramatically changes, and also the fact that it doesn't put all your chips in on starting only 1 QB... i.e. let's say if you had Matt Ryan this year as your QB1 you might be screwed, but if you picked up Phillip Rivers you just made your season more than salvageable. I also think that in 1-QB leagues, match-ups are too often decided by who you start at QB since they score the most points, so having 2-QBs tends to lessen that advantage. In the sense that a PPR league makes more WRs more valuable (although IMO 1 pt PPR leagues are ######ed, 0.5 is much better), 2-QB leagues make QBs less valuable. Obviously with a 2-QB league, the max you should have is 10 people in your league... if each team drafts 3 QB's, that's 30 QB's right there which are almost all the starters.
Any chance you can help me you seem knowledgable thanks. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=698157

 
Greg Russell said:
Darryl Talley said:
Sell me on it.
1) Brings QBs fantasy relevance closer to some semblance of NFL relevance

2) Utilizes more NFL starters in fantasy.

3) When done via flex, doesn't have bye week issues.

4) Changing positional value from what every other league plays means people have to think for themselves more. Or at least find a better source to think for them.
I'm going with this ^

 
tone1oc said:
Chaka said:
Paulymaggs said:
Darryl Talley said:
Sell me on it.
Just like PPR was the natural evolution over standard leagues, 2 QB leagues are the next step in that evolution.

I think over 75% of my leagues next year will be 2 QB mandatory or at least QB flex.
Disagree about PPR. Never understood why catching a 0-1 yard pass should be worth more than a 9 yard run.
PPR was a way to give more equity to WRs in fantasy.
Haven't recent rule changes in the NFL largely removed the inequity between receivers and rbs? I think between the rise of rbbc coupledwith the demise of the feature back, along with the rise of the passing game due to rule changes, is there still a great inequity?

 
I've been in 2 2qb leagues for 10 and 5 years now. Coincidentally we also start 3 wr. The draft has so much importance in a league like that. The only ww help you get is when there is the out of no where breakouts. I'll never play a regular league again.

 
Haven't recent rule changes in the NFL largely removed the inequity between receivers and rbs? I think between the rise of rbbc coupledwith the demise of the feature back, along with the rise of the passing game due to rule changes, is there still a great inequity?
No, there is not.

That's why Calvin Johnson went in the first round of almost every standard draft, and as many WR's as RB's went in round 2.

Round 1 still favored RB's, of course, but a lot of those people got burned. Moreso than WR, TE, or QB drafters.

 
Chaka said:
It increases the value of the most important player in real football.

Never understood why the most fungible offensive player on a real NFL team (the RB) is so much more valuable than the most important player on a team.

If you blew up all 32 NFL teams and put all the skill position offensive players into a draft pool QBs would overwhelmingly be picked before WRs & RBs (WRs would go ahead of RBs in general as well, which is why fantasy leagues should start 3 WRs too).

Fantasy football should at least try to reflect the relative importance of the most valuable players in real football.

Some will argue that they don't start two QBs in the NFL, well that's true but which NFL teams start two RBs (not FBs)? Any NFL teams have Adrian Peterson and Chris Johnson on the roster? Nope. Eddie Lacey & Alfred Morris? Nope. Matt Forte & CJ Spiller? Not happening. Arian Foster & Jamaal Charles? Nope. But it happens in fantasy football all the time. So why allow that argument to hold for QBs?

It just makes the game better all around. At the very least you should allow for a QB as a flex player in your league.
That is our system and we love it. Makes the draft less RB-heavy, more balanced at the top. Not a single starting QB is ever on our waiver wire unless there is an injury. I won't play in one-QB leagues...makes the most important position in football, and also the most enjoyable to watch, irrelevant.

 
Tool said:
rude classless thugs said:
shader said:
What's the point of NOT having two qb leagues? Sell me on it?
Maybe because fantasy lineups in most leagues mirror the NFL, in which teams do not start two QBs. Yes, in a fantasy league you can make any silly rule you want, but some of us like leagues that are closer to the real world and for us starting two QBs a week doesn't cut it. But, it is a personal preference and if people want leagues that start two (or more) QBs, the more power to them.
Do you dress up in a uniform with full pads on game day?
Ummm...football coaches/owners don't wear pads and uniforms on game day - this aint baseball brohan. YWIA.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top