Drafting a QB early... did the experts get it right?

[Big Country]

I'm not missing that point. I'm saying it's wrong. Drafts are changing and top qb's are going earlier. It's not that easy to get a top qb late in the draft anymore. I see people taking qb's earlier and earlier in my leagues, because of all the reasons cited. There are more busts early among rb's than ever before. The theory that it's safer going RB early and QB late is not true. I'm not missing that point, I think it's false and based on theories from 10 years ago.

 

 

No one is saying you will get a top QB late... we are saying you will fairly easily find a top 10 QB pretty late, and that top 10 QB produces only marginally less than the top 2-3 QBs.

 

We are also saying that if 80% of the top 10 RBs are coming from the RBs drafted in the first 3 to 4 rounds, you are much more likely to get a top 10 RB by drafting the RBs there. Those guys also outscore the later RBs by a much wider margin.

 

If you wait to draft RBs in the latter rounds, you have a much higher bust rate (well, a much lower rate of success getting a top 10 guy), giving you a greater point disparity to try and work out of.

 

As I have repeated many times, any strategy can work as long as you draft the right players, I'll just choose to follow the stats that say I am more likely to find the right players with a particular approach that maximizes my chances of outscoring my opponent on a weekly basis.

[BrooklynCrew]

We are also saying that if 80% of the top 10 RBs are coming from the RBs drafted in the first 3 to 4 rounds, you are much more likely to get a top 10 RB by drafting the RBs there. Those guys also outscore the later RBs by a much wider margin.

 

I know... I get the relative value of QB's and all... but this number above "80% of the top 10rbs are drafted in rounds 3-4" is where I think the pitfall is. I think that is changing a LOT. I don't believe that stat is true at all anymore. I think half the top 10 rb's are often drafted in the mid rounds now - 4-8ish... with so many committees and the uptick in passing...

 

Personally, I don't think I've ever taken a qb in round 1... it burns. "Can't do it". But I'm seeing more and more guys having success by mixing in early top WR's and a top 3-4 QB over the first 4 rounds and then taking a slew of mid round RB's and striking gold on just one of them. This was not really a viable option 10 years ago because you HAD to have 2 of the top ball carriers who were all off the board by middle of round 3.

 

Jumbo's article last week speaks to some of this discussion:

 

http://www.thehuddle.com/x11/season/w04/jum.php

 

I think it's an interesting discussion... at least in terms that the NFL is changing, which probably means that strategies for Fantasy Football should be changing as well.

[lkirc]

So. let me get this straight. I need to pick the right players at the right time who will then score more points than my competition.

 

Now I know how to win my league next year.

 

Thanks!

 

I think drafting a QB early can work out. It isn't a black and white thing. Drafting a QB early makes it harder to pick the right players at RB/WR because you are picking them a round later. No matter what you do, every team seems to have a weakeness, either at RB2, QB, or Flex.

 

As long as you are smarter than every other owner in your league, you are good.

[detlef]

I know... I get the relative value of QB's and all... but this number above "80% of the top 10rbs are drafted in rounds 3-4" is where I think the pitfall is. I think that is changing a LOT. I don't believe that stat is true at all anymore. I think half the top 10 rb's are often drafted in the mid rounds now - 4-8ish... with so many committees and the uptick in passing...

 

Personally, I don't think I've ever taken a qb in round 1... it burns. "Can't do it". But I'm seeing more and more guys having success by mixing in early top WR's and a top 3-4 QB over the first 4 rounds and then taking a slew of mid round RB's and striking gold on just one of them. This was not really a viable option 10 years ago because you HAD to have 2 of the top ball carriers who were all off the board by middle of round 3.

 

Jumbo's article last week speaks to some of this discussion:

 

http://www.thehuddle.com/x11/season/w04/jum.php

 

I think it's an interesting discussion... at least in terms that the NFL is changing, which probably means that strategies for Fantasy Football should be changing as well.

The 80% success rate number for top 15 RBs I gave above was from last year. The data that illustrates that 80% of the guys in this year's top 10 were from the early rounds is, from this year. That's pretty recent. So how is that a thing of the past?

 

And, frankly, the more people move away from bellcow RBs, the less viable options there will be at RB, so the more important it will be to get one that is good. I only see this increasing the need to grab RBs early even more.

 

After all, in most leagues you need 2. So, in a 12 team league, that means 24 RBs start. If only half the teams either run enough or feed one guy enough carries to make him a potential stud, that means 8 teams are starting a guy who's a marginal FF RB. So, you'd better do what you can to get two good ones. And that means devoting a few picks to the position at a point in the draft where the odds of getting it right are good.

[delusions of grandeur]

And, frankly, the more people move away from bellcow RBs, the less viable options there will be at RB, so the more important it will be to get one that is good. I only see this increasing the need to grab RBs early even more.

Definitely this... Yes, RBBC's devalue RBs in general, but this only increases the value of the bellcow ones... And it's not like RBBC is something that all teams are doing... if you look at most of the guys in the top 20 RBs, nearly every single one of them is getting the vast majority of carries, and even someone splitting like Bradshaw is still talented enough to be highly productive... Yes, in hindsight we can see some busts there, but those have been primarily due to injury or situation more than being stupid picks. I challenge anyone to show that RBs later have a lower bust rate, or anywhere near the success rate of the top RB selections.

 

Further, does it matter if early QBs have a lower bust rate than RBs, if later QBs have a similar bust rate and comparable representation/scoring differential in the top 10? Again, you can't compare QBs to RBs. Comparing QBs to QBs and RBs to RBs only shows a greater differential between those RBs, while starting QBs remain comparable (and as Det and BC have highlighted, in most cases only occupy 1/2 or less spots than RBs occupy).

 

I'll buy that going with strong WRs in PPR leagues is becoming a more viable strategy, but there is not much besides opinion to back up the assertion that QBs are gaining value... If anything, a more passing-oriented league only means more viable options at that position.

[Azazello1313]

QBs are a little more predictable and less likely to get inured. I kinda like the strategy of drafting a start-every-week QB in round 2 or 3, and loading up the quiver with those mid round RBs and WRs. if you spend all your wad of either early picks or auction dough on 3 or 4 high value RBs and WRs, then you end up having to use 2 or 3 of those precious mid-round picks that really make or break your draft on middling QBs. if you wait until round 6 and get a matt ryan, then you are going to start thinking pretty soon about an eli or bradford or stafford to go with him. that's one less pick with which you can take a flyer on an RB like a tolbert or reggie bush or starks or fred jackson. whereas if you use one fairly early pick on a brees or brady, you can wait until the ass end of the draft to take a chump QB with a nice bye week matchup before you use another pick on a QB.

 

now obviously you'd rather have a 2nd round RB than a 7th round RB, but by getting QB out of the way relatively early you can focus on building some nice depth in the middle rounds at the more hit-or-miss positions like RB.

[delusions of grandeur]

QBs are a little more predictable and less likely to get inured. I kinda like the strategy of drafting a start-every-week QB in round 2 or 3, and loading up the quiver with those mid round RBs and WRs. if you spend all your wad of either early picks or auction dough on 3 or 4 high value RBs and WRs, then you end up having to use 2 or 3 of those precious mid-round picks that really make or break your draft on middling QBs. if you wait until round 6 and get a matt ryan, then you are going to start thinking pretty soon about an eli or bradford or stafford to go with him. that's one less pick with which you can take a flyer on an RB like a tolbert or reggie bush or starks or fred jackson. whereas if you use one fairly early pick on a brees or brady, you can wait until the ass end of the draft to take a chump QB with a nice bye week matchup before you use another pick on a QB.

 

now obviously you'd rather have a 2nd round RB than a 7th round RB, but by getting QB out of the way relatively early you can focus on building some nice depth in the middle rounds at the more hit-or-miss positions like RB.

It's a good point about being able to "set it and forget it" at QB that I have considered if the value is right... But one recent problem with that strategy has been that everyone seems to be doing it, and it's rare to never that QBs end up being at their appropriate value to still build a strong team.

 

But are you really QBBCing a guy like Ryan, who unless you got him in the 7th, you should have been drafting as your unquestioned starter? You shouldn't be handcuffing him until at least the 9th or 10th (when all the other positions look like a crapshoot anyway), or you shouldn't have drafted him with a decently high pick if you didn't believe in him... Without looking at what RBs and WRs I'd be missing out on later (or along the same lines, not having to spend picks on with fixtures already at those positions), I'm still pretty sure those options are not going to be attractive enough for me to place reliance on them to hit, just so I can have an above-average QB that might not even outscore his peers by much.

 

So while I do think that your suggestion is one to keep in mind if you don't want to have to load up on QB later, the fact still stands that QBs as a whole are less injury prone, more consistent and usually among the top scorers, not just the top ones. So I don't know that it's enough incentive to not have to sacrifice a later-round pick on an extra QB , when it then causes me to have to load up on total crapshoots at more top-heavy positions.

Edited October 7, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Grits and Shins]

I think what we are seeing is that there are a variety of draft strategies

 

1) If you take a QB early than you better get one of the top 5 QBs and it will be pretty important to get solid, consistent skill players later in the draft. If you drafted Aaron Rodgers early and had to settle for RBs Shonne Greene and DeAngelo Williams then Aaron Rodgers may win you some games but you are going also going to lose some games having to field one or both of those RBs. If you don't get one of the top 5 QBs then you are probably screwed.

 

2) If you take a QB late, odds are pretty good you will get a top 10 QB. To compensate for the difference between the QB you land late and one of the top 5 it will be pretty important that you hit on at least two top tier skill players early in the draft. So you get Fitz late in the draft you should be able to roll out something like McFadden + Megatron.

[Thews40]

I think what we are seeing is that there are a variety of draft strategies

Agree. If there was a universal method that worked every time, we'd all use it.

 

1) If you take a QB early than you better get one of the top 5 QBs and it will be pretty important to get solid, consistent skill players later in the draft. If you drafted Aaron Rodgers early and had to settle for RBs Shonne Greene and DeAngelo Williams then Aaron Rodgers may win you some games but you are going also going to lose some games having to field one or both of those RBs. If you don't get one of the top 5 QBs then you are probably screwed.

I agree about the getting a top 5. The main point to this was where the big names are right now based on preseason predictions. Teams that throw a lot and are consistent winners have other big money players to back them up. For a QB, the O line is key in giving him time.

 

2) If you take a QB late, odds are pretty good you will get a top 10 QB. To compensate for the difference between the QB you land late and one of the top 5 it will be pretty important that you hit on at least two top tier skill players early in the draft. So you get Fitz late in the draft you should be able to roll out something like McFadden + Megatron.

Disagree here. Without picking through who you would have to get and how they are doing, the possibilities are endless. Out of your possible starting QB's, while it's true there are more NFL teams to get a starting QB, if you rolled with Big Ben as a supposed top 10, it's no lock. In a 12 team league, there will be two teams that don't get a top 10 QB, and lot of hit/miss QB's that show up every other week.

 

Since I used The Ladder (4 point passing TD) as a relative example, consider this:

 

#11 is Rivers with 81.4 and #24 is Roethlisberger with 68.7. That's a 12.7 delta outside the top 10 through 24. #6 Vick at 94.9 with #10 Romo at 87.7 is a 7.2 delta. Rogers at 129.6 and Stafford at 102 is a 27.6 delta.

 

Right now, Forte is at #1 with 101.4 and #5 Ryan Mathews is at 91.2. #2 McFadden, #3 McCoy and #4 Rice all went high based on the preseason rankings, but Forte and Mathews are exceeding expectations. Tolbert #7, Sproles #8 AP at #9 with 69.5 and Best at #10 with 68.5. The point is where these players went WRT to the preseason rankings and the return value on the pick.

 

We could break this down many different ways and I realize the season is still young, but I really don't think by the end of the season (barring injury) Brees/Brady and Rogers are going to be outside the top 5. I'm still not sold on Newton and Fitz just yet. Newton put up 16.6 and Fitz 10.5 last week. Rogers lowest game is 24.4, Brady is 31.5 and Brees is 25.7. They are very consistent instead of feast or famine, and have much more value than what you claim is a "top 10" QB.

 

As you said, it's all strategy and we all play the game differently, but what I find interesting is an almost universal sentiment from the experts that good QB's can always be found in later rounds and it's unwise to "waste" a high pick on a QB. Good ones on some weeks maybe, but we'll see how it all pans out in the end.