6 pts for passing td's.

[cmutts]

In a 12 team league that rewards passing td's for 6 pts and no turnover deductions, when do you draft a QB? Should Peyton be a top 5 or 6 pick or Brees/Palmer 2nd round picks? Or do you think it is better to just load up at WR and RB and grab a QB later, say around the 5th or 6th round? At this point there would be several QB's who could post fairly close numbers( Eli, Kitna, Leinart, Rivers ).

[Doc Holliday]

I don't think any QB deserves to be drafted in the 1st round myself. I usually wait til between rounds 5 and 7 to get my QB's, always good value there. I knock out my RB's and WR's before even thinking QB. of course this could change if for instance Peyton Manning was there for me in the middle of the 2nd(which we all know does not happen).

 

Manning has a really tough passing schedule this year. I mean we all know Peyton will put up good stats...but I don't think he comes close to any of his career highs this year.

 

Even kitna that you named will be taken higher than he should in most drafts I am guessing. lots and lots of fantasy talk about him being a sleeper. whenever that happens you lose the sleeper label.

 

I think guys like Hasslebeck,Delhomme(who has a excellent schedule this year) and Eli Manning can be gotten later in drafts and pay just about the dividends those big name guys give ya. especially if you rotate your QB's effectively.

Edited May 12, 2007 by Doc Holliday

[cmutts]

Excellent point about passing schedules. This was posted on NFL.com a little while ago and is strictly based off of last years stats. Here is how they calculated the stats: For example, the Indianapolis Colts finished second versus the pass and 32nd versus the run last season, so a team that will face them this season received a total of 34 points -- two for the pass and 32 for the run. In this formulation, the teams that finished with the most total points from the pass and run categories have the most attractive schedules.

 

Here are the top 5 easiest overall schedules and then the bottom 5. How much would you factor in these stats as well?

 

1. Carolina Panthers (577 points): The Panthers have the 10th easiest schedule versus the pass and the fourth easiest versus the run, which is terrific news for Jake Delhomme, Steve Smith and the backfield duo of DeShaun Foster and DeAngelo Williams. Games against weak run defenses like Indianapolis, St. Louis, Tennessee and Houston make Williams an even better sleeper choice.

 

2. Arizona Cardinals (576 points): Matt Leinart, Anquan Boldin and Larry Fitzgerald should do well on the stat sheets; the Cardinals have the 12th easiest slate versus the pass. Edgerrin James will also see a slight increase in value; he faces the third easiest run slate, which includes matchups against porous run defenses like St. Louis (2), Cleveland, New Orleans and Detroit.

 

3. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (569 points): The Buccaneers face the 16th easiest schedule versus the pass, and that's a positive for Jeff Garcia and Chris Simms. Where this team could thrive is on the ground; it has the second easiest schedule versus the run. That should add to the draft value of Cadillac Williams, who battles Indianapolis, St. Louis, Tennessee, Washington and Houston.

 

4. San Francisco 49ers (557 points): The departure of former offensive coordinator Norv Turner was a significant loss, but the Niners will face the fourth easiest slate versus the pass, and that will be a real positive for Alex Smith. Contests against St. Louis (2), Cleveland, New Orleans and Seattle (2) also bode well for the talented Frank Gore, who will face the 15th easiest slate versus the run.

 

5. St. Louis Rams (556 points): The Rams face the 23rd hardest schedule versus the run, but that still won't hurt the value of Steven Jackson. Where the Rams offense will make some noise is through the air, as it faces the NFL's easiest schedule versus the pass. Marc Bulger, Torry Holt and Randy McMichael should produce against Cincinnati, Atlanta, San Francisco (2) and Dallas.

 

T-28. Cleveland Browns (493 points): The Browns don't have much value at the quarterback position, so it matters little that the offense faces the 15th hardest pass schedule. What does matter is that Jamal Lewis must battle Baltimore (2), Pittsburgh (2), New England, Miami and the sixth hardest run schedule. He's a prime candidate to be a serious statistical disappointment.

 

T-28. Denver Broncos (493 points): Jay Cutler has a ton of potential in the offense of head coach Mike Shanahan, but his value is hurt a bit as he faces Oakland (2), Indianapolis, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Chicago and the fourth hardest pass slate. The Broncos also face the 15th hardest run slate, but it's hard to reduce the value of new starter Travis Henry in Denver's backfield heaven.

 

30. San Diego Chargers (486 points): Nothing short of an appearance of the cover of Madden 2008 will hurt the value of LaDainian Tomlinson, but we still must note that he faces Minnesota, Baltimore, New England, Chicago, Jacksonville and the eighth hardest run schedule. It's not much easier for his quarterback, Philip Rivers, who will have to battle the sixth hardest pass schedule.

 

31. Indianapolis Colts (481 points): Not even the best defenses could stop Peyton Manning last season, so the fact that he will face Oakland, New Orleans, Carolina, Baltimore, Jacksonville (2), New England and the seventh hardest pass slate won't hurt his value. The Colts also have the fifth hardest run slate in 2007, but Joseph Addai will remain a popular first- or second-round choice.

 

32. Buffalo Bills (465 points): J.P. Losman has some potential and Lee Evans is a borderline No. 1 or 2 fantasy wideout, but this duo will have a difficult road against the 11th hardest pass schedule. It's even worse for Anthony Thomas or whoever starts in the backfield, as the Bills face Baltimore, Pittsburgh, New England (2), Miami, Dallas and the second hardest run schedule.

[soco]

I don't think any QB deserves to be drafted in the 1st round myself. I usually wait til between rounds 5 and 7 to get my QB's, always good value there. I knock out my RB's and WR's before even thinking QB. of course this could change if for instance Peyton Manning was there for me in the middle of the 2nd(which we all know does not happen).

 

Manning has a really tough passing schedule this year. I mean we all know Peyton will put up good stats...but I don't think he comes close to any of his career highs this year.

 

Even kitna that you named will be taken higher than he should in most drafts I am guessing. lots and lots of fantasy talk about him being a sleeper. whenever that happens you lose the sleeper label.

 

I think guys like Hasslebeck,Delhomme(who has a excellent schedule this year) and Eli Manning can be gotten later in drafts and pay just about the dividends those big name guys give ya. especially if you rotate your QB's effectively.

 

On the money Doc ... in a 12 man league it is best to wait on a qb until 5 -7 or after you have 2 starting rb's and 2 wr's and then look at value of what there is at qb if it looks like you can wait than beef up at rb, te or flex then take a qb ....

[Big Country]

As long as ALL QBs get the 6pts for a passing TD, then the difference between 4 and 6 pt passing TDs has an extremely minor affect on QB values.

 

DO a search on this, you will find a lot of in depth, detailed analysis about this from last year's posts. It was discussed to death as it seemed someone new every week asked this question.

 

If you are very confident that Manning (or any other QB) will have a season in which they drastically outperform the other QBs, then they may warrant a mid-1st to early 2nd round pick, otherwise history dictates that the QB you can get in the 6th and later rouds will perform relatively similar to the QB you get in the 2nd/3rd round, however, the same is not true of the RBs/WRs you pass up by taking that QB early.

[Danny Zuko]

Is the same true in leagues that are QB-centered? A league I am entering had 16 of the top 20 scorers as QBs.

 

 

As long as ALL QBs get the 6pts for a passing TD, then the difference between 4 and 6 pt passing TDs has an extremely minor affect on QB values.

 

DO a search on this, you will find a lot of in depth, detailed analysis about this from last year's posts. It was discussed to death as it seemed someone new every week asked this question.

 

If you are very confident that Manning (or any other QB) will have a season in which they drastically outperform the other QBs, then they may warrant a mid-1st to early 2nd round pick, otherwise history dictates that the QB you can get in the 6th and later rouds will perform relatively similar to the QB you get in the 2nd/3rd round, however, the same is not true of the RBs/WRs you pass up by taking that QB early.

 

[Big Country]

Is the same true in leagues that are QB-centered? A league I am entering had 16 of the top 20 scorers as QBs.

 

 

Responded in your post. Do a search on the 6 point TDs or Peyton Manning from just before the season last year and you will find some extremely in depth discussions about using a basic valuation method to compare player values across positions.

[chaz13]

In our league QB's generally are the highest scoring position and we start 2 of them. So most that have a good QB keep them. We keep 5 players each year out of a roster of 32. We start 20 players 2QB 3RB 4WR 1TE 1K 3DL 3LB 3DB. The point scoring for QB are +1 for completions, -1 for incompletions, 1 pt at 200 yds passing and 1 point for every 10 yds after 200, 5pts for TD and -5 for INT's. I have always felt that since QB's are the most important player on an NFL team that they should be the highest scoring in fantasy. They can also get you negative pts. on a bad day. We have run our league like this since 1994 and I would never play in any other league. I see mock's where the whole 1st round is RB's. The scoring should be much more balanced. If we drafted over I bet the 1st round would have 5QB 5RB and 2 WR. And I would never play w/o IDP's. Just my opinion on the best way to run a league. All of our owners have been in other more standard leagues and every one says this is by far the best. If anyone wants our scoring system for something a little different let me know.

[Big Country]

In our league QB's generally are the highest scoring position and we start 2 of them. So most that have a good QB keep them. We keep 5 players each year out of a roster of 32. We start 20 players 2QB 3RB 4WR 1TE 1K 3DL 3LB 3DB. The point scoring for QB are +1 for completions, -1 for incompletions, 1 pt at 200 yds passing and 1 point for every 10 yds after 200, 5pts for TD and -5 for INT's. I have always felt that since QB's are the most important player on an NFL team that they should be the highest scoring in fantasy. They can also get you negative pts. on a bad day. We have run our league like this since 1994 and I would never play in any other league. I see mock's where the whole 1st round is RB's. The scoring should be much more balanced. If we drafted over I bet the 1st round would have 5QB 5RB and 2 WR. And I would never play w/o IDP's. Just my opinion on the best way to run a league. All of our owners have been in other more standard leagues and every one says this is by far the best. If anyone wants our scoring system for something a little different let me know.

 

 

Chaz - The first bolded selection is the main reason QBs have value in your league, you have adjusted the typical baseline so that the last required starter is much frther down the line than in most typical leagues. It has little to do with your scoring system.

 

The second bolded portion about QBs being the highest scoring fantasy position has very little relevance to fantasy VALUE. Value is a function of how much player A outscores the other players from his own position, as in order to win in fantasy football, you must outscore your opponent. If all QBs put up about 200 points, with a range of say 20 points between the top and 12th QB, there is little value compared to an RB that puts up just 100 points, but with a range of 50 points between him and the 24th RB, because the RB outscores his fellow RBs by so much more. However, by expanding the number of starting QBs, you lower that baseline for QBs, thus increasing their value.

 

Not sure how many teams you have to allow for starting 3 RBs, but your lineup requirements definitely inflate QB value by doubling the normal number of starters, but only increasing the RB and WR starters slightly (50% for RBs based on a start 2 standard league and 33% for WRs based on a standard start league), and you definitely keep TEs, which start out with relatively low values other than the top 3 or so, low on the value chain by only requiring one.

[Bronco Billy]

It would be difficult to enhance what's been written here already. In a start 1 QB league, even at 6 pts/pass TD, Manning shouldn't be going before the very end of round 1. The next 4 top QBs probably ought to go no earlier than the early 4th round, and after that owners can wait quite a bit before picking up a decent QB tandem.

 

Start 2 QB leagues are a whole different animal...

[Muggsy]

In a 12 team league that rewards passing td's for 6 pts and no turnover deductions, when do you draft a QB? Should Peyton be a top 5 or 6 pick or Brees/Palmer 2nd round picks? Or do you think it is better to just load up at WR and RB and grab a QB later, say around the 5th or 6th round? At this point there would be several QB's who could post fairly close numbers( Eli, Kitna, Leinart, Rivers ).

 

 

you should talk a lot and hype up how many points QBs get in this system, get your competitors all excited about the QBs and let them use early picks on the top ones while you load up on the big name RBs & WRs they should have been taking, then grab yourself a perfectly good starter later on...

[chaz13]

Chaz - The first bolded selection is the main reason QBs have value in your league, you have adjusted the typical baseline so that the last required starter is much frther down the line than in most typical leagues. It has little to do with your scoring system.

 

The second bolded portion about QBs being the highest scoring fantasy position has very little relevance to fantasy VALUE. Value is a function of how much player A outscores the other players from his own position, as in order to win in fantasy football, you must outscore your opponent. If all QBs put up about 200 points, with a range of say 20 points between the top and 12th QB, there is little value compared to an RB that puts up just 100 points, but with a range of 50 points between him and the 24th RB, because the RB outscores his fellow RBs by so much more. However, by expanding the number of starting QBs, you lower that baseline for QBs, thus increasing their value.

 

Not sure how many teams you have to allow for starting 3 RBs, but your lineup requirements definitely inflate QB value by doubling the normal number of starters, but only increasing the RB and WR starters slightly (50% for RBs based on a start 2 standard league and 33% for WRs based on a standard start league), and you definitely keep TEs, which start out with relatively low values other than the top 3 or so, low on the value chain by only requiring one.

We only allow 8 teams. I understand value and in our league there are 50% of the QB's (16 of 32) starting, vs. 75% of RB (24 of 32). Based on this it would be reasonable to assume that it is harder to fill the RB position than the QB position w/ quality players. The top tier QB score more than the top tier RB, and that is the main reason QB's are kept and drafted high. Based on that thought TE's would be drafted high and/or kept b/c of the value of having a top TE, but rarely is a TE kept b/c overall their production is not that high. Bottom line I would not keep a TE that scores 14 pts. a game over a QB that scores 24 pts a game even if the value of the top scoring TE is greater. Value is important in drafting but having the most points is what wins. And there are few QB's that are in that top tier that score that many pts. Maybe 3 a year and the dropoff to the 16 QB is quite a bit.

[Big Country]

We only allow 8 teams. I understand value and in our league there are 50% of the QB's (16 of 32) starting, vs. 75% of RB (24 of 32). Based on this it would be reasonable to assume that it is harder to fill the RB position than the QB position w/ quality players. The top tier QB score more than the top tier RB, and that is the main reason QB's are kept and drafted high. Based on that thought TE's would be drafted high and/or kept b/c of the value of having a top TE, but rarely is a TE kept b/c overall their production is not that high. Bottom line I would not keep a TE that scores 14 pts. a game over a QB that scores 24 pts a game even if the value of the top scoring TE is greater. Value is important in drafting but having the most points is what wins. And there are few QB's that are in that top tier that score that many pts. Maybe 3 a year and the dropoff to the 16 QB is quite a bit.

 

 

Your own statements here show that you may not fully understand value. The fact that top tier QBs score more points than the top tier RBs is completely irrelevant. THe point differential from the top RBS to the bottom RBs compared to the differential from the top QBs to the bottom QBs is what is important. Now, you may well find that QBs are of high value, but that is doubtful because your starting requirements work out to be very little different from a typical 12 team league.

 

And, by having the players with the greatest value, you will outscore your opponents as in order to have value, they must outscore their counterparts at their position, which means you are outscoring your opponent.

 

As posted in the thread by NoFatChix, I would suggest you do a quick value analysis of your league to see where the value truly lies. Knowing that your leaguemates covet QBs, perhaps to a fault, may well allow you to stock up on much higher value players at the other positions putting them in a no win situation.

 

A copy of the key post from the other thread:

 

These numbers are irrelevant without knowing what other QBs tend to score and what other RBs tend to score.

 

DO a quick value analysis of your league (i've posted the steps many times in the past, but here it goes again).

 

Step 1. Run the FF scoring for each position, separated by position, for the last 3 years. Have separate columns for each year.

 

Step 2 - Throw out the names assosciated with the numbers, and rename them RB1, RB2, etc., for each position.

 

Step 3 - Average the numbers of the last 3 years. S0, average the top scoring RB from each year gives you RB1 avg score. Do this for each position, and go as deep as needed to cover each starter at each position, so, for a 12 team league starting 1/2/3/1 (ignore K and D for now) do this for the top 12 QBs, top 24 RBs, top 36 WRs and top 12 TEs.

 

Step 4 - Now that you have the average for the last 3 years for each position, calculate the value. Do this by subtracting the score of the last starter from each player at that position. So, if your QB12 puts up 250 points, subtract 250 points from every QB. Do this for each position.

 

Step 5 - Combine the separate positional lists into one, and sort by your value score. This will show you where the value of each position lies based on your scoring system and starting lineup requirements, on average over the last 3 years.

 

Step 6 - Look at the list. Most standard leagues will see 8-10 RBs in the top 12-15 spots, with 1-2 QBs and 1-2 WRs and maybe 1 TE. This is because in general the top RBs outscore the other Bs by that many more points, then there is a drop off and leveling of the field, whereas less QBs and WRs and definitely TEs outscore their counterparts by a large margin before dropping off into a relatively flatter field. The other thing to look for is big gaps in the numbers within a position. So, if your scoring and setup really does have QBs jumping way up in value so that the top 10 are all QBs, but you see large gaps in RBs just below that, it may behoove you to grab the better RB first as you may be able to get a comparable QB, albeit a higher "valued" one than the RB, later on, giving you a greater overall "value".

 

 

This is very simple to do using a stats program (I reccomend FFLM or do exports from MFL) and Excel.

 

[keggerz]

relevant....its all relevant

[keggerz]

here is a question to ponder...if Kickers got 9pts for FGs rather then 3pts when would you draft your kicker?

that would mean a kicker would score in the neighborhood of 300+pts

used an avg of 30FGs and say 40xpts

Edited June 6, 2007 by keggerz

[chaz13]

Your own statements here show that you may not fully understand value. The fact that top tier QBs score more points than the top tier RBs is completely irrelevant. THe point differential from the top RBS to the bottom RBs compared to the differential from the top QBs to the bottom QBs is what is important. Now, you may well find that QBs are of high value, but that is doubtful because your starting requirements work out to be very little different from a typical 12 team league.

 

And, by having the players with the greatest value, you will outscore your opponents as in order to have value, they must outscore their counterparts at their position, which means you are outscoring your opponent.

 

As posted in the thread by NoFatChix, I would suggest you do a quick value analysis of your league to see where the value truly lies. Knowing that your leaguemates covet QBs, perhaps to a fault, may well allow you to stock up on much higher value players at the other positions putting them in a no win situation.

 

A copy of the key post from the other thread:

 

I understand value fully. That is how I draft. When others are picking tier 4 RB I'm taking tier 2 LB b/c I can get better value there. Not to toot my own horn, but I have been the highest scoring team in the league 3 out of the last 4 years and have more championships than anyone else in the league. My original point was not about value, it was that to me it seems that in standard leagues QB are not the most important position. Maybe it's b/c there is only 1 starter per team. And points are important. Take TE's for example. There is a huge point differential % wise between no.1 and no. 8. A larger percentage than Qb's. But I certainly would not take a TE # 1 that scores 14 pts. a game over a QB that scores 25 pts. a game. If the #1 TE scores 14 pts a game and # 8 scores 7 pts. a game, that is a 100% increase in production. On the other hand if the # 1 QB scores 25 pts. a game and the no. 8 QB scores 15 pts a game that is an increase of 67% from 15 to 25. Using strictly value the TE that scores 100% more as opposed to the QB that scores 67% more would be the value choice. But the QB has a ten pt. differential per game where the TE has a 7 pt differential per game making the QB a better choice. The # 1 TE + the # 8 QB= 29 pts per game. The # 1 QB + the # 8 TE = 32 pts a game, even though by strictly value the #1 TE and the #8 QB seemed like a better choice, which clearly it is not. When you compare two different positions you are not comparing apples to apples, you must take into consideration how much each position scores.

[Big Country]

Did you even read the quoted post about calculating value? I mean, you are essentially arguing my point for me by quoting it and my comments that the main reason QBs may be more valuable in your league is due to using two QB startes, which boosts their value by lowering the baseline?

 

You don't use percentage increase to calculate value across positions, which is what we are looking at here. The percentage increase is only useful when comparing like position, ie one TE vs. another TE but is fairly useless (see caveat below) when comparing across positions, ie TE vs. QB.

 

In your example, the TE has a value of 7 and the QB has a value of 10 based on the valuation method posted and explained in detail in this and other posts, thus the QB at that point in the draft is more valuable (caveat being that one most also take a look at the "cost" of taking the higher value player at that point, ie, if the next TE would have a calue of only 3, but the next 3 QBs are all in the 8-9 value range, it may make more sense to take the TE with the 7 value now and one of the other QBs later rather than taking the QB with the 10 value now and missing out on the 7-value TE as your teams total value would be greater than taking the QB with a 10 value , but that is getting into a lot more detail than is needed here.)

Edited June 7, 2007 by Big Country

[chaz13]

I do agree about value and using it to draft. My whole point originally was that in most leagues QB's seem less important. You turned it into a value argument. What I was trying to say was that in most leagues RB is the most important position and QB seem overlooked, where in real football QB are the most important position. If fantasy is supposed to reflect the NFL than QB's should be more important. That's all I was saying.

[Big Country]

I do agree about value and using it to draft. My whole point originally was that in most leagues QB's seem less important. You turned it into a value argument. What I was trying to say was that in most leagues RB is the most important position and QB seem overlooked, where in real football QB are the most important position. If fantasy is supposed to reflect the NFL than QB's should be more important. That's all I was saying.

 

 

Say that to the Baltimore Ravens and Trent Dilfer.

 

And your initial point stated that because QBs score more in your league they have the highest value and I merely pointed out that the requirement to start 2 was the greater determining factor of value, not the scoring system

[Bronco Billy]

I do agree about value and using it to draft. My whole point originally was that in most leagues QB's seem less important. You turned it into a value argument. What I was trying to say was that in most leagues RB is the most important position and QB seem overlooked, where in real football QB are the most important position. If fantasy is supposed to reflect the NFL than QB's should be more important. That's all I was saying.

 

 

Tell that to Walter Payton. Or Barry Sanders. Or Eric Dickerson. DEN lost 3 SBs with Elway at QB but won 2 straight when TD joined Elway in the backfield. How about BAL with Jamal Lewis in the backfield & Trent Dilfer at QB?

 

Don't underestimate the power of a stud RB. With a very few exceptions, championship teams run the football, and they do it very well.

[Bronco Billy]

Say that to the Baltimore Ravens and Trent Dilfer.

 

 

 

 

Didn't even read your response before I posted.

 

You are my hero, big guy!

Edited June 8, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[Big Country]

 

Didn't even read your response before I posted.

 

You are my hero, big guy!

 

[cblhb]

I've played in a 12 team 6 pt td QB league for several years. Peyton is justifiable as a 1st round pick. Palmer and Brees are 2nd round at best. Be careful about waiting till the 5th or 6th round. In my experience, a run on QB's starts around the 4th. I waited til after that last year and got stuck picking between romo and grossman from week to week. Depending on that run happening I would say late 4th/early 5th is when you want to go if you want a decent QB. The Studs will be gone by early third though.

[cmutts]

WOW! Post is still going after a month. My league does have the three year average so I will post just the numbers and let the rest of you make the call. Scoring is 6 pt td's, 1 pt every 20 passing, 1 pt every 10 rush/rec, no ppr

 

QB1: 421

QB6: 322

QB12: 274

 

RB1: 335

RB6: 215

RB12: 166

RB18: 148

RB24: 124

 

WR1: 225

WR6: 166

WR12: 144

WR18:126

WR24: 112

WR30: 104

WR36: 94

Edited June 9, 2007 by cmutts

[Big Country]

WOW! Post is still going after a month. My league does have the three year average so I will post just the numbers and let the rest of you make the call. Scoring is 6 pt td's, 1 pt every 20 passing, 1 pt every 10 rush/rec, no ppr

 

QB1: 421

QB6: 322

QB12: 274

 

RB1: 335

RB6: 215

RB12: 166

RB18: 148

RB24: 124

 

WR1: 225

WR6: 166

WR12: 144

WR18:126

WR24: 112

WR30: 104

WR36: 94

 

SO, QB1 has a value of about 150, which would put him in the middle of the first most likely which is not uncommon value wise, but, that is a simple look. If you look the players likel to be taken, and the cost there, then you see the run on RB and the value you are likely to ge there by passing on an RB and going with a QB, etc., and see that it is a lot easier to pick up value at the QB spot later on because so many score very similarly.