When to take that backup QB?

[Company of Heroes]

So you're thru the first 5 rds of a standard 12 team redraft, and have a solid core group of 2 RBs, 2 WRs, 1 QB. All of you picks so far are solid options, no major risks or weakness. Now you need to fill out a flex and TE for your starting lineup. The RBs and WRs available fall into a group that are all OK, but not great and the first tier of TEs are gone, leaving a mix of so-so options there.

 

But, a QB (in the range of Romo/McNabb/Schuab) is still available and represents a better value that mix of players that are available ahead of time.

 

Do you go ahead and grab that value QB as a great backup and take a hit by waiting to round out your flex and TE over the next couple rounds, ensuring that one or both of those starters will be so-so? It also somewhat forces you to address those needs immediately over the next two rounds instead of taking advantage of value picks over those rounds.

 

Or do you pass on the QB, help another team (ugh) by letting them grab the value QB as their starter, and go for a slight upgrade for your last two starters?

 

My tendency is go for a nice value pick (even if its on your bench) and work a trade later if needed to address your weakness. But sometimes at the end of the draft, you can end up with less overall balance and flexibility on your team.

 

Thoughts?

[Randall]

Last year I took Aaron Rodgers in the 11th to backup Derek Anderson.

 

I usually go later but didn't think he'd be there.

[Big Ernie McCracken]

So you're thru the first 5 rds of a standard 12 team redraft, and have a solid core group of 2 RBs, 2 WRs, 1 QB. All of you picks so far are solid options, no major risks or weakness. Now you need to fill out a flex and TE for your starting lineup. The RBs and WRs available fall into a group that are all OK, but not great and the first tier of TEs are gone, leaving a mix of so-so options there.

 

But, a QB (in the range of Romo/McNabb/Schuab) is still available and represents a better value that mix of players that are available ahead of time.

 

Do you go ahead and grab that value QB as a great backup and take a hit by waiting to round out your flex and TE over the next couple rounds, ensuring that one or both of those starters will be so-so? It also somewhat forces you to address those needs immediately over the next two rounds instead of taking advantage of value picks over those rounds.

 

Or do you pass on the QB, help another team (ugh) by letting them grab the value QB as their starter, and go for a slight upgrade for your last two starters?

 

My tendency is go for a nice value pick (even if its on your bench) and work a trade later if needed to address your weakness. But sometimes at the end of the draft, you can end up with less overall balance and flexibility on your team.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

5 rounds into a 12 team redraft, I wouldn't expect Romo or even McNabb to be available. if Romo were, I'd certainly consider using that pick on a backup QB.

[Bronco Billy]

But, a QB (in the range of Romo/McNabb/Schuab) is still available and represents a better value that mix of players that are available ahead of time.

 

Romo, McNabb, & Schaub are not in the same range. Romo's ADP has him going in the mid 5th round (12 team ppr), McNabb is going at the beginning of the 7th round, and Schaub is going at the beginning of the 8th round. Romo is already off the board under your scenario and you can grab another player if you like McNabb and 2 more players before you target Schaub.

 

Thoughts?

 

Unless a stud QB (Brees, Brady, Manning) falls into the 4th round, I much prefer to be one of the waiters. The value you'll get out of a QB is much better later in the draft and I can live with playing a tandem with 2 of the four of E Manning, Garrard, Flacco, Edwards, & Hasselbeck that allows me to load my roster everywhere else.

 

Given your scenario specifically, there's no way if I have burned one of my top 4 picks on a QB to nail the stud that I burn another pick on QB in the 6th. That puts me 1 to 2 rounds behind all other teams in drafting midrange RB/WR types that give me the depth and strength that I need to do well in leagues. That's a major disadvantage that forcing other teams to draft QB9 instead of QB8 or QB11 instead of QB10 will never account for.

 

I also draft to strengthen my team and really don't worry about other teams too much. Getting caught up in screwing other teams in the draft will only end up in your screwing yourself (and that's not pretty).

[Big Country]

5 rounds into a 12 team league and you only start one Qb and you've drafted one already?

 

 

j/k -

 

The whole point of taking a QB early (if you go that route) is that you can wait on a backup or two until much later so that in those mid-rounds you can load up on RB/WR/TE talent. So, if you have taken a QB already, and you are in a league where owners pay to trade for a QB, and you are presented with this situation, there could be a reason to take one of those QBs... but your intent would be to trade the QB for better value at the positions you neglect by doing so.

 

As much as I am a proponent of the theory that points on my bench are points not in my opponents lineup, I'm a bigger proponent of points not in my lineup are points being used against me (basically, by taking a backup this early, I am weakening my starting lineup significantly and allowing the other owners an advantage, unless the perfect storm of an owner overpaying for a QB early in the season arises)

 

 

Just don't look up what I did my very first year playing FF...... though it may well have shaped my FF inclinations

 

ETA: BB and I have have very similar philosophies here

Edited June 1, 2009 by Big Country

[Company of Heroes]

If you've already grabbed your QB, then my post can't help you, but J2V wrote an article last year explaining/detailing the whole 2-headed QB approach, which, for the most part, is the only way I draft.

 

If this isn't a hypothetical question, maybe you can post who you've drafted already at QB? Cuz I really like McNabb this year and if you hadn't grabbed a QB already, I'd take him in the sixth and another QB in the 7th or 8th.

 

Yeah, this is a hypothetical. But, aside from my specific mention of a QB in the 6th, I'm basically talking about someone falling into your lap that shouldn't be there, even if you have other starter needs to address.

[Big Country]

Yeah, this is a hypothetical. But, aside from my specific mention of a QB in the 6th, I'm basically talking about someone falling into your lap that shouldn't be there, even if you have other starter needs to address.

 

At QB, I likely pass. At other positions, it really matters just how much more highly I value that player, and what I think it does to the overall strength of my team by taking that player vs. addressing a moe immediate need. If we're talking taking a 4th RB over my K or D, no brainer. Taking a 4th RB over say my last WR, probably would do it too depending on how much of a drop I saw at the WR spot, etc. Very situation specific.

[Bronco Billy]

ETA: BB and I have have very similar philosophies here

 

I've always liked you, BC.

[Company of Heroes]

At QB, I likely pass. At other positions, it really matters just how much more highly I value that player, and what I think it does to the overall strength of my team by taking that player vs. addressing a moe immediate need. If we're talking taking a 4th RB over my K or D, no brainer. Taking a 4th RB over say my last WR, probably would do it too depending on how much of a drop I saw at the WR spot, etc. Very situation specific.

 

Thanks to everyone for the replies!

 

There was plenty of dealing last year in my league and times when people were scrambling for a QB (think Brady owner or myself after the McNabb benching).

 

Passing on a "bargain" in the draft sometimes is tough for me for but I guess most here think that it is worth it to achieve better balance on the team. Even if that leaves that bargain on the table for one of your opponents.

[Company of Heroes]

If this isn't a hypothetical question, maybe you can post who you've drafted already at QB? Cuz I really like McNabb this year and if you hadn't grabbed a QB already, I'd take him in the sixth and another QB in the 7th or 8th.

 

Actually that does help, and is probably a more likely scenario. With say a mid range option like McNabb as my starter and going for a backup while several lower QB starters (think QBs #10-12) are still on the board for a backup.

[Company of Heroes]

Unless a stud QB (Brees, Brady, Manning) falls into the 4th round, I much prefer to be one of the waiters. The value you'll get out of a QB is much better later in the draft and I can live with playing a tandem with 2 of the four of E Manning, Garrard, Flacco, Edwards, & Hasselbeck that allows me to load my roster everywhere else.

 

You are a braver soul than me!

 

In general, I think the 2-headed QB thing makes sense but I'd tend to make those two QBs from a pool just above the ones you've mentioned.

 

-Heroes

 

PS though I do like Hass as a backup with upside this year.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Company of Heroes

[Bronco Billy]

In general, I think the 2-headed QB thing makes sense but I'd tend to make those two QBs from a pool just above the ones you've mentioned.

 

If that's the case, you're still burning 2 of your top 8 picks on QBs, and the way QB value flattens after QB5/QB6, you aren't getting the value out of your QBs that offsets the loss of depth at other more critical positions (RB3/WR3).

[Company of Heroes]

If that's the case, you're still burning 2 of your top 8 picks on QBs, and the way QB value flattens after QB5/QB6, you aren't getting the value out of your QBs that offsets the loss of depth at other more critical positions (RB3/WR3).

 

You think it flattens after QB5 or 6? I don't have the numbers to back it up, just my general impression would be something like:

 

Brees, Brady, Manning

Warner, Rodgers, Rivers,

Romo, McNabb

Schaub, Ryan

 

then the rest

 

So I'd try to snag two towards the bottom of those 10...

[Big Country]

You don't even want to know how in depth my research into QB tandems goes. I end up with a color coded chart showing prime pairings that takes into account strength of schedule based on the primary QB you are looking at. So, for example, if you have Manning as your #1, it takes into account the SOS of the other 31 starters looking a Mannings bye weeks and games against top passing defenses. The chart for Brady does the same for him, but it uses Brady's bye week and week's against top defenses. The tool is more useful for the two or even three headed QB strategy as you will be playing matchups more often.

 

The obvious caveat is that most preseason SOS is based on last year's defensive performances, so while a useful tool, it is far from precise.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Big Country

[Company of Heroes]

You don't even want to know how in depth my research into QB tandems goes. I end up with a color coded chart showing prime pairings that takes into account strength of schedule based on the primary QB you are looking at. So, for example, if you have Manning as your #1, it takes into account the SOS of the other 31 starters looking a Mannings bye weeks and games against top passing defenses. The chart for Brady does the same for him, but it uses Brady's bye week and week's against top defenses. The tool is more useful for the two or even three headed QB strategy as you will be playing matchups more often.

 

The obvious caveat is that most preseason SOS is based on last year's defensive performances, so while a useful tool, it is far from precise.

 

Actually, I've done something similar. McNabb seems to be a good match with several this year including Schaub, Cassel, Cutler, & Orton Also Schaub with Cutler & Cassel or Ryan w/ Cutler. But McNabb is a solid #1 option, so I'm not sure if the two-headed QB approach would apply with him and a lower tiered backup (despite matchups).