Whats Your Favorite QBBC? (1 Viewer)

[th3f00l]

In this year's draft it seems like after Rodgers, Brady and Brees there are a lot of high-risk QB's that may not be strategically sound to target at their current ADP. I would pair up one player that is a safer pick, and one Risk/Reward type of player. Both should be players with a favorable SOS, and their best match-ups should correspond with the other's toughest.

I like the idea of

Peyton Manning and RG3

So there is a certain amount of risk regarding each player. I feel like Manning has a pretty high floor, he is a proven veteran and should be reliable. RGIII has a favorable upside but is unproven making him the a higher risk.

The Schedules look pretty good too:

1: Den vs Pit | Was @ NO

2: Den @ Atl | Was vs Stl

3: Den vs Hou | Was vs Cin

4: Den vs Oak | Was @ TB

5: Den @ NE | Was vs Atl

6: Den @ SD | Was vs Min

7: BYE | Was @ NYG

8: Den vs NO | Was @ Pit

9: Den @ Cin | Was vs Car

10: Den @ Car | BYE

11: Den vs SD | Was vs Phi

12: Den @ KC | Was @ Dal

13: Den vs TB | Was vs NYG

14: Den @ Oak | Was vs Bal

15: Den @ Bal | Was @ Cle

16: Den vs Cle | Was @ Phi

I am not that worried about week 15 because by the play offs one of these players may have become a weekly must starter, or one of those defenses may have declined from last year.

I also like:

Philip Rivers & Jay Cutler

Big Ben & Josh Freeman

 

[LHUCKS]

Vick/Romo or Vick/Roeth

Lock it up

 

[th3f00l]

Vick/Romo or Vick/RoethLock it up

I hadn't considered the Vick/Romo combo. I'm thinking Newton/Ryan might be better though.

 

[ponchsox]

I'm rolling with a Rivers/Big Ben QBBC in one league.

 

[Sarnoff]

In my keeper I had Peyton and was going to pair him up with RG3 and/or Luck if available, but both were taken too early. But Russell Wilson and Locker were around even deeper so I snagged both of them and will be running the three headed monster. Taken together they work pretty well matchup-wise.

 

[whatadai]

Rodgers(SAFE)/Brees(RISK/REWARD)

 

[ImTheScientist]

I thought the whole point of QBBC was to not have to spend high picks on QBs?

 

[th3f00l]

I know I was joking, and I am fairly certain LHucks was being sarcastic.

 

[LHUCKS]

I know I was joking, and I am fairly certain LHucks was being sarcastic.

Actually I wasn't. Romo and Roeth have slid as late as the 9th round in some leagues. So you're looking at a 4th/9th or something like that.

 

[two_dollars]

Vick/Cutler here

 

[LHUCKS]

Vick/Cutler here

I've looked at that too.

 

[Judge Smails]

Don't know if schedule wise it'sa great combo, but I took the Vick/Eli combo. Eli was just the best available QB late and a gift where he fell

 

[LHUCKS]

Don't know if schedule wise it'sa great combo, but I took the Vick/Eli combo. Eli was just the best available QB late and a gift where he fell

In 10 teamers, I'm finding random guys like Romo or Eli, slide super late at times. Interesting phenomenon with QB going pretty deep this year.A bit different in 12 teamers.

 

[TheWick]

Rg3/Freeman with a Wilson on the side

 

[LHUCKS]

Rg3/Freeman with a Wilson on the side

He and Locker are going super late and could surprise to put up top 20 numbers.

Love me some Wilson in a QBBC.

 

[Bobby Guano]

Rolling with Flacco/Ponder/Wilson in one league.

Yeah I waited a little too long on QB but WTH I won this league last year with Tim Tebow/Fitparick so who knows

 

[greggorymac]

Cutler/Schaub

 

[zandbak]

Warren Moon/John Elway

 

[Monk81]

I went Rivers/Cutler. Based on last year's passing defense you would only have to play 2 teams in the top 1/2 of the league for passing def.

I also snagged Russell Wilson late just to see what happens.

 

[Zeff]

On the cheap, I love the value in a Palmer/Fitzpatrick QBBC this year.

 

[Cyclones]

Rivers/Cutler for me.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Vick/Palmer here (4th/16th round picks)

 

[David Yudkin]

I would say it is impossible to evaluate any possible QB combinations without knowing when these guys would be taken in a draft. In the most recent draft I was in, Vick, Romo, Rivers, and RGIII all went in the 4th or 5th rounds and Roethlisberger, Cutler, and Manning went in the 6th.

So I would ask, to pair some of the guys listed together, you would have to burn a 4th and a 5th or a 6th to get the combos suggested. IMO, that's using two pretty early round picks to fill a QBBC. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. IMO, QBBC as I have used it meant waiting and waiting on QBs and then taking 3 QBs in the mid to late rounds . . . not two relatively early round picks.

 

[Cyclones]

I would say it is impossible to evaluate any possible QB combinations without knowing when these guys would be taken in a draft. In the most recent draft I was in, Vick, Romo, Rivers, and RGIII all went in the 4th or 5th rounds and Roethlisberger, Cutler, and Manning went in the 6th.So I would ask, to pair some of the guys listed together, you would have to burn a 4th and a 5th or a 6th to get the combos suggested. IMO, that's using two pretty early round picks to fill a QBBC. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. IMO, QBBC as I have used it meant waiting and waiting on QBs and then taking 3 QBs in the mid to late rounds . . . not two relatively early round picks.

I'm in a 10 teamer and had pick 10. I got Rivers at the end of round 7 and Cutler at the end of round 9. Prior to Rivers I drafted Calvin, Lynch, Nelson, Nicks, T Richardson, and Finley, then took Cutler and Donald Brown. I had eyed a Rivers/Cutler combo going into the draft if I missed on Brees or Brady at 1.10 since their schedules are favorable using them as a QBBC. To me, once I have my starting lineup set, this qualifies as a QBBC, even though I believe Rivers will perform at around a QB5 level this year, I think he is great value where he is being taken.

 

[David Yudkin]

I would say it is impossible to evaluate any possible QB combinations without knowing when these guys would be taken in a draft. In the most recent draft I was in, Vick, Romo, Rivers, and RGIII all went in the 4th or 5th rounds and Roethlisberger, Cutler, and Manning went in the 6th.So I would ask, to pair some of the guys listed together, you would have to burn a 4th and a 5th or a 6th to get the combos suggested. IMO, that's using two pretty early round picks to fill a QBBC. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. IMO, QBBC as I have used it meant waiting and waiting on QBs and then taking 3 QBs in the mid to late rounds . . . not two relatively early round picks.

I'm in a 10 teamer and had pick 10. I got Rivers at the end of round 7 and Cutler at the end of round 9. Prior to Rivers I drafted Calvin, Lynch, Nelson, Nicks, T Richardson, and Finley, then took Cutler and Donald Brown. I had eyed a Rivers/Cutler combo going into the draft if I missed on Brees or Brady at 1.10 since their schedules are favorable using them as a QBBC. To me, once I have my starting lineup set, this qualifies as a QBBC, even though I believe Rivers will perform at around a QB5 level this year, I think he is great value where he is being taken.

That's what I was essentially saying. Every draft and every league is different, and the drafts I have been in, the top 10-12 even top 15 QBs have not fallen much at all. So to me, to have to use a 4th and a 5th on QBs seems to be a lot to part with to have some of the combos as mentioned in this thread.People trying QBBCs in the leagues I have been in would try something along the lines of Luck / Flacco / Locker without investing an early pick at all.

 

[LHUCKS]

I would say it is impossible to evaluate any possible QB combinations without knowing when these guys would be taken in a draft. In the most recent draft I was in, Vick, Romo, Rivers, and RGIII all went in the 4th or 5th rounds and Roethlisberger, Cutler, and Manning went in the 6th.So I would ask, to pair some of the guys listed together, you would have to burn a 4th and a 5th or a 6th to get the combos suggested. IMO, that's using two pretty early round picks to fill a QBBC. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. IMO, QBBC as I have used it meant waiting and waiting on QBs and then taking 3 QBs in the mid to late rounds . . . not two relatively early round picks.

I'm in a 10 teamer and had pick 10. I got Rivers at the end of round 7 and Cutler at the end of round 9. Prior to Rivers I drafted Calvin, Lynch, Nelson, Nicks, T Richardson, and Finley, then took Cutler and Donald Brown. I had eyed a Rivers/Cutler combo going into the draft if I missed on Brees or Brady at 1.10 since their schedules are favorable using them as a QBBC. To me, once I have my starting lineup set, this qualifies as a QBBC, even though I believe Rivers will perform at around a QB5 level this year, I think he is great value where he is being taken.

That's what I was essentially saying. Every draft and every league is different, and the drafts I have been in, the top 10-12 even top 15 QBs have not fallen much at all. So to me, to have to use a 4th and a 5th on QBs seems to be a lot to part with to have some of the combos as mentioned in this thread.People trying QBBCs in the leagues I have been in would try something along the lines of Luck / Flacco / Locker without investing an early pick at all.

I'm finding league size makes a huge difference, I see guys like Roethlisberger sliding in 10 team leagues all the time. If we're talking really deep QBBC I like Luck/Wilson/Fitzpatrick/Locker/Bradford any three of those guys.

 

[Zeff]

I would say it is impossible to evaluate any possible QB combinations without knowing when these guys would be taken in a draft. In the most recent draft I was in, Vick, Romo, Rivers, and RGIII all went in the 4th or 5th rounds and Roethlisberger, Cutler, and Manning went in the 6th.So I would ask, to pair some of the guys listed together, you would have to burn a 4th and a 5th or a 6th to get the combos suggested. IMO, that's using two pretty early round picks to fill a QBBC. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. IMO, QBBC as I have used it meant waiting and waiting on QBs and then taking 3 QBs in the mid to late rounds . . . not two relatively early round picks.

Agreed.Can't imagine a more lame-brained scheme than spending an early pick on Vick, with the plan of running him as part of a committee.You take a Vick because he has the potential to give you #1 overall type production, hedged because he's almost a slam dunk to miss at least a few weeks. If you blow a 5th or 6th on your backup, you're giving up on what made Vick worth spending a 4th on in the first place by trying to play matchups. Insanity. If Vick stays healthy, you never use the other half of the committee anyway. If he doesn't, you're boned anyway because you gave up a ton of premium production at the offensive skill positions during the draft to pursue your cockamamie scheme.ETA: If you draft Vick, you back him up with the most consistent producer you can find on the back end of the draft, and hope (Vick x 12) + (Backup x 4) carries the day for you.

 

[Cyclones]

I would say it is impossible to evaluate any possible QB combinations without knowing when these guys would be taken in a draft. In the most recent draft I was in, Vick, Romo, Rivers, and RGIII all went in the 4th or 5th rounds and Roethlisberger, Cutler, and Manning went in the 6th.So I would ask, to pair some of the guys listed together, you would have to burn a 4th and a 5th or a 6th to get the combos suggested. IMO, that's using two pretty early round picks to fill a QBBC. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. IMO, QBBC as I have used it meant waiting and waiting on QBs and then taking 3 QBs in the mid to late rounds . . . not two relatively early round picks.

I'm in a 10 teamer and had pick 10. I got Rivers at the end of round 7 and Cutler at the end of round 9. Prior to Rivers I drafted Calvin, Lynch, Nelson, Nicks, T Richardson, and Finley, then took Cutler and Donald Brown. I had eyed a Rivers/Cutler combo going into the draft if I missed on Brees or Brady at 1.10 since their schedules are favorable using them as a QBBC. To me, once I have my starting lineup set, this qualifies as a QBBC, even though I believe Rivers will perform at around a QB5 level this year, I think he is great value where he is being taken.

That's what I was essentially saying. Every draft and every league is different, and the drafts I have been in, the top 10-12 even top 15 QBs have not fallen much at all. So to me, to have to use a 4th and a 5th on QBs seems to be a lot to part with to have some of the combos as mentioned in this thread.People trying QBBCs in the leagues I have been in would try something along the lines of Luck / Flacco / Locker without investing an early pick at all.

I follow you DY, and you're right, in the pure spirit of what a QBBC is (straight matchups,) the trio you posted above is exactly what comes to mind. I would have been happy to roll with either Schaub or Cutler as my starter had Rivers not fallen all the way to #70 in my draft, but since he did, I targeted Cutler and Brown at the next turn for me and both were there. I think the best point you make is that every draft is different. In one of my other leagues, there was a huge QB run early (Brees, Brady, Rodgers, Newton, Stafford in first, Ryan in 2nd, Vick in third) and Rivers came off in the 4th at #33. So sometimes things work based on the way the draft goes, and sometimes it doesn't. That's why its important to be flexible and open to multiple strategies when you head into a draft.

 

[David Yudkin]

I would say it is impossible to evaluate any possible QB combinations without knowing when these guys would be taken in a draft. In the most recent draft I was in, Vick, Romo, Rivers, and RGIII all went in the 4th or 5th rounds and Roethlisberger, Cutler, and Manning went in the 6th.So I would ask, to pair some of the guys listed together, you would have to burn a 4th and a 5th or a 6th to get the combos suggested. IMO, that's using two pretty early round picks to fill a QBBC. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. IMO, QBBC as I have used it meant waiting and waiting on QBs and then taking 3 QBs in the mid to late rounds . . . not two relatively early round picks.

I'm in a 10 teamer and had pick 10. I got Rivers at the end of round 7 and Cutler at the end of round 9. Prior to Rivers I drafted Calvin, Lynch, Nelson, Nicks, T Richardson, and Finley, then took Cutler and Donald Brown. I had eyed a Rivers/Cutler combo going into the draft if I missed on Brees or Brady at 1.10 since their schedules are favorable using them as a QBBC. To me, once I have my starting lineup set, this qualifies as a QBBC, even though I believe Rivers will perform at around a QB5 level this year, I think he is great value where he is being taken.

That's what I was essentially saying. Every draft and every league is different, and the drafts I have been in, the top 10-12 even top 15 QBs have not fallen much at all. So to me, to have to use a 4th and a 5th on QBs seems to be a lot to part with to have some of the combos as mentioned in this thread.People trying QBBCs in the leagues I have been in would try something along the lines of Luck / Flacco / Locker without investing an early pick at all.

I'm finding league size makes a huge difference, I see guys like Roethlisberger sliding in 10 team leagues all the time. If we're talking really deep QBBC I like Luck/Wilson/Fitzpatrick/Locker any three of those guys.

I rarely play in 10 team leagues and normally go 12-, 14-, or 16-teams. So yes, that makes a big difference.

 

[two_dollars]

Does make a big difference. I'm in a 10 team 1/2/3/wr-rb-te flex/1/1 ppr league, and landed Vick in the 9th, Cutler on the way back in the 10th. In that format passing tds are also only 4pts. Owners are very scared of injuries as well. Grabbed Russell Wilson as well in the last round before he was named the starter.

 

[ponchsox]

Does make a big difference. I'm in a 10 team 1/2/3/wr-rb-te/1/1 ppr league, and landed Vick in the 9th, Cutler on the way back in the 10th. In that format passing tds are also only 4pts. Owners are very scared of injuries as well.

Vick is another being severely undervalued. Last year he was a first round pick. Combine his injuries with 1 rushing TD last year and his stock is now after the 6th round? Tell me a QB outside the top 5 that has as much per game scoring potential as Vick. One rushing TD was an anomaly. He does have a good chance of missing games, but give me 13 games with Vick and 3 with a decent backup like Cutler or RG3 and I'll take that any day late in the draft.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

10 team leagues are like night and day.....those that don't get one of the top guys know they can just wait cause there isn't much difference between what's left and they know the guys with the studs won't be taking another one for awhile....

personally QBBC is a weekly headache I avoid...I think the value of the top tier guys is increased dramatically by the fact you don't have to play the matchup game....not only do they put up monster stats....you don't have to worry about overthinking matchups and making the wrong call...plus as has already been mentioned above, you sometimes get so focused on making sure you get that combo that you want, that you end up reaching anyway and limiting the whole purpose of going QBBC....(and some of the combos being mentioned aren't "waiting on QB" type combos)...

I am going to take the stud early (which theoretically puts me ahead of the pack of about 6 other owners already) and then rely on my drafting skills (homework, etc) to catch up any points some may think I lost at other positions....

 

[LHUCKS]

Does make a big difference. I'm in a 10 team 1/2/3/wr-rb-te flex/1/1 ppr league, and landed Vick in the 9th, Cutler on the way back in the 10th. In that format passing tds are also only 4pts. Owners are very scared of injuries as well. Grabbed Russell Wilson as well in the last round before he was named the starter.

exactly

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Does make a big difference. I'm in a 10 team 1/2/3/wr-rb-te flex/1/1 ppr league, and landed Vick in the 9th, Cutler on the way back in the 10th. In that format passing tds are also only 4pts. Owners are very scared of injuries as well. Grabbed Russell Wilson as well in the last round before he was named the starter.

exactly

In my opinion you wasted a 10th round pick....(especially in a 10 teamer where there was probably still a ton of stuff left)...your gonna ride Vick every week he is healthy....could have used that 10th on another position and grabbed Wilson or somebody else later....in a perfect world Cutler never sees your lineup...Vick/Wilson alone should have been the play....IMO

 

[LHUCKS]

Does make a big difference. I'm in a 10 team 1/2/3/wr-rb-te flex/1/1 ppr league, and landed Vick in the 9th, Cutler on the way back in the 10th. In that format passing tds are also only 4pts. Owners are very scared of injuries as well. Grabbed Russell Wilson as well in the last round before he was named the starter.

exactly

In my opinion you wasted a 10th round pick....(especially in a 10 teamer where there was probably still a ton of stuff left)...your gonna ride Vick every week he is healthy....could have used that 10th on another position and grabbed Wilson or somebody else later....in a perfect world Cutler never sees your lineup...Vick/Wilson alone should have been the play....IMO

opinions will definitely vary Vick/Wilson strikes me as a pretty risky play...and I like both.

 

[pollardsvision]

10 team leagues are like night and day.....those that don't get one of the top guys know they can just wait cause there isn't much difference between what's left and they know the guys with the studs won't be taking another one for awhile....

personally QBBC is a weekly headache I avoid...I think the value of the top tier guys is increased dramatically by the fact you don't have to play the matchup game....not only do they put up monster stats....you don't have to worry about overthinking matchups and making the wrong call...plus as has already been mentioned above, you sometimes get so focused on making sure you get that combo that you want, that you end up reaching anyway and limiting the whole purpose of going QBBC....(and some of the combos being mentioned aren't "waiting on QB" type combos)...

I am going to take the stud early (which theoretically puts me ahead of the pack of about 6 other owners already) and then rely on my drafting skills (homework, etc) to catch up any points some may think I lost at other positions....

I don't really even see the point.

I'm a huge fan of making it work with a cheap QB. That's been my typical strategy for years. But the only thing worse than having a below-average option at QB is burning 2+ roster spots to be below average at QB.

If your QB is so bad that you feel the need to play match-ups, then you are probably better off using the the entire waiver-wire as your QB bench (thus, only needing to carry one).

I think that line generally falls around Roethlisberger every year.

Him or above: Just own one and obviously start him every week.

Below him: Just own one and cut at a moment's notice.

Now, I have broken this rule this year to see how the Russell Wilson lotto ticket pans out.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Does make a big difference. I'm in a 10 team 1/2/3/wr-rb-te flex/1/1 ppr league, and landed Vick in the 9th, Cutler on the way back in the 10th. In that format passing tds are also only 4pts. Owners are very scared of injuries as well. Grabbed Russell Wilson as well in the last round before he was named the starter.

exactly

In my opinion you wasted a 10th round pick....(especially in a 10 teamer where there was probably still a ton of stuff left)...your gonna ride Vick every week he is healthy....could have used that 10th on another position and grabbed Wilson or somebody else later....in a perfect world Cutler never sees your lineup...Vick/Wilson alone should have been the play....IMO

opinions will definitely vary Vick/Wilson strikes me as a pretty risky play...and I like both.

if you think about it....going "QBBC" in any shape or form is a risky play.....you are basically saying you have no confidence in either....yet in the end you still use 2 picks on them....i'd rather use one pick (albeit early) on a virtual slam dunk....this is now a passing league and a get after/sack/pressure the passer league.....I want a top guy

 

[FDC]

if you think about it....going "QBBC" in any shape or form is a risky play.....you are basically saying you have no confidence in either....yet in the end you still use 2 picks on them....i'd rather use one pick (albeit early) on a virtual slam dunk....this is now a passing league and a get after/sack/pressure the passer league.....I want a top guy

Going with a QB in the 1st is more risky than QBBC IMO

 

[lbouchard]

I like the Vick/Flacco committee this year. I'll start Vick when healthy, but I also feel Flacco is on verge of breakout year.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

if you think about it....going "QBBC" in any shape or form is a risky play.....you are basically saying you have no confidence in either....yet in the end you still use 2 picks on them....i'd rather use one pick (albeit early) on a virtual slam dunk....this is now a passing league and a get after/sack/pressure the passer league.....I want a top guy

Going with a QB in the 1st is more risky than QBBC IMO

I think one of the only ways you can say this is because of injury risk....but that is not a fair part of the discussion.....if I take Rodgers in the 1st and he does what he does....I kick your combo's butt....you would have to hit on the QB matchup EVERY week and pick the guy that is putting up Rodger's type numbers EVERY week.....and it cost you two picks....probably two picks somewhere by/before round 9....guys with ability to even put up Rodgers's type numbers every other week should be off the board anytime after that....getting elite level type production from a QB combo ain't as easy as some may think it is....

 

[pollardsvision]

I like the Vick/Flacco committee this year. I'll start Vick when healthy, but I also feel Flacco is on verge of breakout year.

I'm still not seeing how Vick is part of a committee.As you say, you'll (wisely) start Vick when healthy. That's not a committee. You just happen to have a back-up.

 

[butcher boy]

Personally QBBC is a weekly headache I avoid...I think the value of the top tier guys is increased dramatically by the fact you don't have to play the matchup game....not only do they put up monster stats....you don't have to worry about overthinking matchups and making the wrong call...plus as has already been mentioned above, you sometimes get so focused on making sure you get that combo that you want, that you end up reaching anyway and limiting the whole purpose of going QBBC....(and some of the combos being mentioned aren't "waiting on QB" type combos)...

I'm going by the 75% rule. The first QB I take will be one I can confidently start 75% of the time. This puts my cutoff at about the Eli/Romo tier. Playing weekly matchups is a losing proposition that I'm no longer a fan of.

 

[FDC]

if you think about it....going "QBBC" in any shape or form is a risky play.....you are basically saying you have no confidence in either....yet in the end you still use 2 picks on them....i'd rather use one pick (albeit early) on a virtual slam dunk....this is now a passing league and a get after/sack/pressure the passer league.....I want a top guy

Going with a QB in the 1st is more risky than QBBC IMO

I think one of the only ways you can say this is because of injury risk....but that is not a fair part of the discussion.....if I take Rodgers in the 1st and he does what he does....I kick your combo's butt....you would have to hit on the QB matchup EVERY week and pick the guy that is putting up Rodger's type numbers EVERY week.....and it cost you two picks....probably two picks somewhere by/before round 9....guys with ability to even put up Rodgers's type numbers every other week should be off the board anytime after that....getting elite level type production from a QB combo ain't as easy as some may think it is....

Getting elite level production from a RB is harder IMO. Every year I seem to find a QB later that can put up elite numbers. More than 1 way to skin a cat. To me 1st round QB is the most risky strategy out there.If your guy doesn't perform at an elite level you are left scrambling big time.

 

[donkshow]

Gonna try Ryan and Flacco/Wilson

 

[David Yudkin]

if you think about it....going "QBBC" in any shape or form is a risky play.....you are basically saying you have no confidence in either....yet in the end you still use 2 picks on them....i'd rather use one pick (albeit early) on a virtual slam dunk....this is now a passing league and a get after/sack/pressure the passer league.....I want a top guy

Going with a QB in the 1st is more risky than QBBC IMO

I think one of the only ways you can say this is because of injury risk....but that is not a fair part of the discussion.....if I take Rodgers in the 1st and he does what he does....I kick your combo's butt....you would have to hit on the QB matchup EVERY week and pick the guy that is putting up Rodger's type numbers EVERY week.....and it cost you two picks....probably two picks somewhere by/before round 9....guys with ability to even put up Rodgers's type numbers every other week should be off the board anytime after that....getting elite level type production from a QB combo ain't as easy as some may think it is....

Getting elite level production from a RB is harder IMO. Every year I seem to find a QB later that can put up elite numbers. More than 1 way to skin a cat. To me 1st round QB is the most risky strategy out there.If your guy doesn't perform at an elite level you are left scrambling big time.

We are getting to the point where the topics in many threads have been echoed in several other threads. So to summarize my position from many other threads . . .Yes, getting elite RB production is hard to find. But after the first few backs have been drafted, there are a lot of backs that offer potentially low end RB1 or decent RB2 production. And the difference in scoring is such that there is no great value add in automatically jumping on a RB early, as there are not a lot of gimmies after the first few backs have been taken and there are a slew of guys with questions.For example . . .CJohnson has seen his numbers slip the past couple of years and he still gets drafted on the strength of his 2K rushing season.DMC hasn't been able to play close to a full sesaon.ADP and Charles are coming off of ACL injuries.Murray has had his own injury issues in the past and with the exception of one or two games is largely unproven.Forte has proven he can get a lot of yardage but not many TDs.SJackson has a lot of touches . . . over 2500 to be exact. Historically, that's a terrible spot to be for RBs.Richsardon is a rookie . . . and he's not even 100% healthy without taking a single carry.Mathews is already hurt and could miss several games.Martin is a rookie and anything can happen with them.MJD is holding out, and holdouts don't normally do as well fantasy wise if they stay out a long time.Bradshaw and Turner are looking at reduced roles with touches lost to younger backs . . . as is Gore.As I see it, there are a TON of RB question marks. In the first round, even though in the past I would have been against it, I think taking one of the elite QBs is certainly a consideration. The logic being, you can find ok RB options in proceeding rounds. All of the other non-early first round RBs have warts, flaws, and questions. So to me, hooking my wagon on a wing and a prayer at RB when I can get a stud QB doesn't seem to make a lot of sense (again, size of league, scoring system, starting roster requirements all have to be taken into account here). The question becomes, how much faith to people really have in some of the running backs vs. the consistency of one of the Top QBs?

 

[cubbie5150]

I would say it is impossible to evaluate any possible QB combinations without knowing when these guys would be taken in a draft. In the most recent draft I was in, Vick, Romo, Rivers, and RGIII all went in the 4th or 5th rounds and Roethlisberger, Cutler, and Manning went in the 6th.So I would ask, to pair some of the guys listed together, you would have to burn a 4th and a 5th or a 6th to get the combos suggested. IMO, that's using two pretty early round picks to fill a QBBC. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. IMO, QBBC as I have used it meant waiting and waiting on QBs and then taking 3 QBs in the mid to late rounds . . . not two relatively early round picks.

Yep...same thing in my main league. I waited on QB (just never felt I was in a good position to take, say, Rivers/Romo/Eli/Peyton) & wound up w/ a committee of Flacco/Luck/Locker. Gonna be an interesting year for me.

 

[Black]

Cutler / R. Wilson

No idea of strength of schedule.

Jay Cutler IND @GB STL @DAL @JAC bye DET CAR @TEN HOU @SF MIN SEA @MIN GB @ARI

Russel Wilson DAL GB @STL @CAR NE @SF @DET MIN NYJ bye @MIA @CHI ARI @BUF SF

 

[FDC]

In the first round, even though in the past I would have been against it, I think taking one of the elite QBs is certainly a consideration.

No doubt it is a worth while strategy that has worked for many and should be considered especially this year. However, I don't see why that should be discussed in a QBBC thread.I still feel that it is the most risky of strategies even this year. I want to be elite at every position and I want depth at every position. Going QB 1st round means its going to be harder to be elite at RB and it potentially could hurt my depth at multiple other positions. JMHO

 

[David Yudkin]

In the first round, even though in the past I would have been against it, I think taking one of the elite QBs is certainly a consideration.

No doubt it is a worth while strategy that has worked for many and should be considered especially this year. However, I don't see why that should be discussed in a QBBC thread.I still feel that it is the most risky of strategies even this year. I want to be elite at every position and I want depth at every position. Going QB 1st round means its going to be harder to be elite at RB and it potentially could hurt my depth at multiple other positions. JMHO

Did you not read the rest of my post? I agree, if you can be elite at every position, I don't see why taking a midland RB early and then running a QBBC helps either your RB scoring or your QB scoring. My point was, at least you lock of elite QB scoring by taking a QB early and you have almost the same chance getting an elite RB as if you took one after the top backs were drafted.SoI don't see taking a QB early THIS YEAR as being risky at all.

 

[FDC]

In the first round, even though in the past I would have been against it, I think taking one of the elite QBs is certainly a consideration.

No doubt it is a worth while strategy that has worked for many and should be considered especially this year. However, I don't see why that should be discussed in a QBBC thread.I still feel that it is the most risky of strategies even this year. I want to be elite at every position and I want depth at every position. Going QB 1st round means its going to be harder to be elite at RB and it potentially could hurt my depth at multiple other positions. JMHO

Did you not read the rest of my post? I agree, if you can be elite at every position, I don't see why taking a midland RB early and then running a QBBC helps either your RB scoring or your QB scoring. My point was, at least you lock of elite QB scoring by taking a QB early and you have almost the same chance getting an elite RB as if you took one after the top backs were drafted.SoI don't see taking a QB early THIS YEAR as being risky at all.

Yes I read it. I never said it was necessarily a risky strategy, it was the just the most risky of strategies.Its all about value to meWe are seeing a guy like Vick, who was top 6 in points per game scoring last year and 1st in 2010, having a 6th round ADP right now.Cutler, a guy who when last teamed with Marshall was top 3 at his position, has a 9th round ADP.There are just value plays all over at the QB spot. FTR, I have taken Calvin in the 1st round in 2 leagues this year. This isn't purely a RB 1st round vs QB 1st round discussion.