17 replies to this topic

[cmutts]

In the new pass happy NFL, is it better to have a true elite QB(Rodgers or Brady) or one of the few true elite RB's(Rice, Foster, McCoy)? This is a 12 team league with 1 ppr and passing td's are 6 points

Edited by cmutts, 20 May 2012 - 03:26 PM.

[Big Country]

Lineup requirements have an affect, but, assuming 2 required RBs and only 1 required QB, I'm still using an early pick on an RB if one of the few that can be considered a true "stud" is there. This "pass happy NFL" is something that a lot of teams are embracing, so we are seeing increased stats across the board for QBs, which at the end of the day means that you still are not seeing them distance themselves within the position to the same degree you see with RBs.

It's also easier to find a QB that will produce stats - last year 10 Qbs had 4000+ yards (250 yd/gm) and 10 QBs had 24+ TDs (1.5TD/gm). Conversely, only 7 RBs had 1200+ yards (75 yd/gm) and 15 had 8+ total TDs (0.5 TD/gm). When you consider that a typical league starts 12 Qbs and 24 RBs minimum, it is clear to see that RB is still the position of scarcity.

What is interesting is that WR is more and more appearing to be a position of scarcity, at least at the top ranks, as there were only 8 WRs with 1200+ yards and 18 with 8+ total TDs. In PPR leagues, only 9 had 80+ catches (5/pg). When you consider that many leagues are going to a PPR scoring and 3 required WR setup, I would postulate that it would be more beneficial to lock up one of the true stud WRs rather than a QB if the RB options have been thinned by the time your pick comes up.


Please note that the stats I'm showing here do require a deeper dive analysis before taking the conclusions presented as "fact" for lack of a better term, but I think that this high level review can be fairly telling of what this "pass happy NFL" and "RB specialization" is doing to fantasy values. Again, deeper dive required, but it appears that stud RBs are becoming even more scarce, QBs are becoming even more plentiful, and the balls are being spread around so much that there are a lot of viable situational/matchup play WRs, but fewer true studs.

[Zooty]

pass happy means good QBs will be more plentiful and RBs will become more scare since teams are passing more.  Therefor the stud RB will be more valuble

[Scorcher]

I play in one league that is non ppr. Every year it is the teams that have one stud rb and one consistent rb that do well throughout the year. One team that drafted Rodgers first and another that drafted Brady first didn't come close to the playoffs.

[cmutts]

Standard lineup is 1Q, 2 R, 3W, 1 T,K,D. We are allowed 3 keepers. No one drafted in the 1st 4 rounds can be kept the following year. 1st year keeper cost 1 round higher, 2nd year+ cost ADP based on rankings one week before the draft. I am keeping Redman 12th, J Nelson 11th and J Jones for a 5th.  The elite RB's are available and Rodgers, Brady and Brees. Cam, Stafford, Eli will be kept. I believe that almost all the top WR' s are available.

[cmutts]

Now that the huddle has posted projections, does Rodgers over 5000 yards and 49 tds change you mind?

[Zooty]

cmutts, on 06 June 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

Now that the huddle has posted projections, does Rodgers over 5000 yards and 49 tds change you mind?

no

[giantsfan]

Personally, I think the question that should be asked is what do you do at # 4. Pretty safe to say Foster/McCoy/Rice will go 1-3 in most leagues, maybe someone goes Rodgers in some leagues, but for the most part those RB's are the top 3. What happens at # 4?

Do you keep taking RB's like MJD, CJ, DMc, Charles, TRich? Do you take a WR like Calvin? Or do the stud QB's, ARod, Brees, Brady, Staff, Cam start going?

In a 6 point per passing TD league I think I go QB's next OR maybe Calvin before I take the next RB, MJD I guess.

To me that is the discussion though. I bet almost all leagues that start 1 QB will have those three RB's 1-3 (maybe some have ARod in there...but for the most part the RB's go 1-3).

That is the interesting question to me.

[Big Country]

6 pt passing TDs barely affect value, so that should not be a major consideration.

Lineup requirements however should be.

Assuming PPR (and relatively standard yardage scoring), as that seems to be the norm now, it comes down to how many starters are required at each position.

If you only require 1 RB but also require 3 WRs, than a very strong case could be made for a WR there. If you require 2 RB and 2 WR (both of these scenarios assume only 1 QB allowed), than the argument for going WR is a lot weaker given the relative depth of the position, and more importantly, the major lack of potential 3 down backs, and you go with whom you have as your top RB (unless you really think a WR is going to distance himself from the remainder of the top 6-8 WRs).

2 QB league and everything changes and you should see QBs in that range for sure.

[giantsfan]

I think 6 pts. per passing TD along with QB heavy scoring does have some impact. Like 1 point every 25 passing yards. And/or .5 points per completion for QB's. Things like that drive up QB value IMO.

With scoring that like, 4 on is an interesting discussion IMO. Another RB? One of the elite 5 QB's? Or Calvin?

Interesting...

[Big Country]

Completions definitely affect it due to the hugh range in completions, even at the top of the QB scoring. The last two years the range has been about 130-140 completions from te #1 to #12 guy (it was only about 80 in 2009), which comes out to 70 points on the season, or about 4.5 PPG.

6 pt TDs on the other hand have almost no affect, compared to 4 pt passing TDs.

2008 - 13 TD spread from #1 to the 12th range QBs, about 1.5PPG difference
2009 - 8 TD difference from #1 to the 12th range QBs - comes out to 1 PPG difference from #1 to #12
2010 - A jump to a 12 TD spread, which comes out to 1.5 PPG.
2011 - Doubled to 25 TD spread, a 2.5 PPG difference


The other thing that completion scoring generally does is create the situation where QB scoring is so high related to other positions, that normal methods of valuation may as well be thrown out, as the QBs can be generating 50%+ of a fantasy teams total on average, soit essentially becomes a game of whose QB has the better week.


So yes, in a league that gives completion points (and, as noted in my response before, assuming all else is a relatively standard setup) QB should be considered at 4, and relistically probably should be considered at 1, 2 and 3 as well.

Edited by Big Country, 16 June 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[giantsfan]

We agree 100%. In those types of leagues QB's are very important and should be in the mix that high.

One league I am in gives .5 per completions, which I am not a fan of, and QB's dominate. All of the big 5 QB's, I have Stafford, will be kept. QB's dominate the league. SB was Brees against Rodgers. Stafford and Brady made the playoffs. It is a huge edge.

So scoring being equal I go RB's or Calvin. Heavy QB scoring with 6 pts. per passing TD/pts. per completion/pts. for every 25 yards passing, I think I go stud QB's early.

Edited by giantsfan, 16 June 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[White lightning]

_{I'm in a 10 team, PPR, redraft, auction, and I'm struggling with the option of going stud QB (Rogers, Brady, Brees) or stud RB (McCoy, Foster, Rice). As of now, I'm gunning for R. Matthews and Vick/Rivers. I think both of those QBs will be top 6 QBs and Matthews could finish as the #2 ranked RB in fantasy football.}

[LordOpie]

There aren't struggles in 10-team leagues

[White lightning]

LordOpie, on 25 June 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

There aren't struggles in 10-team leagues

Are you poo pooing my 10 team league? Don't tell me you only play in 16-team "man" leagues.

[stethant]

giantsfan, on 16 June 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

Personally, I think the question that should be asked is what do you do at # 4.

This is the issue for me.  Running the usual LAG for my non-PPR 12-team league, the top 5 QBs last year had about 100pts more than the 3-year average - after that QBs 6-20 were identical to the 3-year average.  RB points for 2011 were roughly the same as for the past 3 years.

Now, personally, I don't think 5 QBs are going to blow it out again this year and dramatically overplay the 3-year QB averages.  If you do and you played in this league, you'd be very hard pressed not to grab a top 5 QB in the early rounds (assuming you know who those 5 QBs are going to be).  I do think Rodgers will light it up again though, so if I'm at #4 this year I'm thinking long and hard about him.  The risks of McFadden, MJD, Mathews are real for a 1st round pick and with The Huddle's help I think I can identify a few later round RBs that may end up with good production, like Sproles did last year. The part that makes this a bit more tricky, specific probably to just this league, is that we start 2RBs, 3WRs, 1TE and a flex, so there are alot of positions to fill other than QB.

Bottom line: I hope I don't have the #4 pick so then I don't have to worry about it.  I hate taking a QB early but if I land at #4, this could be the year.

Edited by stethant, 26 June 2012 - 05:37 PM.

[giantsfan]

In a regular scoring league, meaning no points per completion or heavy yardage points for QB's, I would take Rodgers 4.

In a heavy QB scoring league like I called out above, I would take Rodgers 1 I think. And Rodgers/Brees/Brady/Stafford/Cam would all be gone by pick 12-15 worst case.

[cmutts]

What happens if Rice & MJD both have lengthy holdouts? I would assume that Foster & McCoy go 1 & 2. Makes pics 3 & 4 very interesting.