QBBC Theory

[MTSuper7]

This season I decided that I was tired of having a rotating carousel at QB, so I decided I was going to target 2nd tier QBs I liked in the mid rounds in most leagues (if it made sense - i.e. there wasn't some obscene value at WR, TE or RB staring at me). I landed Tony Romo in the 4th round of two of those leagues, Matt Schaub in the 4th in one of them, and I ended up waiting on QB anyway in two of them.

 

Romo's injury and Schaub's situation (Foster emerging, pass protection sucking) have thrown me back into full fledged QBBC mode. But barring injury, the Romo pick would have panned out, and I would have started him every single week regardless of matchup... This experience got me thinking that maybe I should spend an earlier pick on QBs more often. Here's what I am thinking:

 

In general, players picked in the first few rounds are 50/50 to meet or exceed their ADP (more or less) , but it seems to me like a quality 2nd tier QB is a safer pick than your typical player taken in these rounds, as QBs play all of the offensive snaps, and the quality guys usually work in a system that makes them more valuable (and often their team's defense is sub par which opens the door to even more passing). Further, it seems that you have a much better chance to fill the void of not taking a RB/WR with that 3rd or 4th round pick in the later rounds, whereas passing on a QB does two things.

 

1 - You now need to really luck out if you want any consistent value at QB. The key word here is consistent. Guys like Eli or Palmer have value, but it's kind of a crapshoot whether or not they put up big numbers or disappointing numbers each week even though their YTD totals are usually decen t.

 

2 - If the RB/WR you picked in round 3 or 4 ends up being a bust, you are now potentially hurting at QB as well as RB or WR potentially.

 

I guess in the end, I feel confident enough in my ability to target and land enough quality players in the later rounds that I'm not that concerned that I'll slip too far behind the curve in filling out my starting RB/WR slots. I also mine the waiver wire with the best of them as well.

 

I know we've had threads on this before, and it seems like the majority of people consider it a mistake to draft a QB with a pick that early. I'd like to hear from you on this subject. Doesn't it stand to reason that a decent 2nd tier QB is a safer way to go in the 4th round or so as compared to what's usually there at RB or WR? I used to think drafting a QB before round 6-7 was a mistake, but now I don't really feel that way. Am I missing something in my analysis here?

[historymike]

The key for me has always been value per round. If there is a sudden run on QBs, I know that WRs and RBs are going undrafted that need to get snagged up. Also, there are always QBs who emerge each year and creep up into the second tier, like Josh Freeman in 2010. I think I drafted Freeman in like the 10th or 11th round, and this is in a league where a second QB can start as Flex-2. I just traded him for some RB help to a QB-starved team.

 

This year I ended up taking Aaron Rodgers as my #1 player, but that was because I had a low draft number and the other owners were RB and WR happy. However, normally I think like you and settle for a solid-but-non-stud QB, and I keep my eyes out on the WW throughout the season for QBs who step up and amaze the FF world. Garrard has been something of a wunderkind the last few games he started (obviously the injury hurt his value) and he went undrafted in my 2-QB league as well as my 1-QB Yahoo league.

[delfamdelfam]

I tend to agree, I like not having to worry about a QB and just plugging them in. This year though I've had some success on QBBC with Flacco and Sam Bradford. It's really a double-edged sword, do you want to wait and bulk up on WR's and RB's or do you want a reliable QB that you can put in every week and get you 20-25 points.

[yoda83]

Yeah, it definitely depends on where you're picking. I took Gates w/ the 3rd pick of the 4th round (and was still QB-less at that point). And I believe the Romo's and Schaub's of the world were still on the board.

 

Your post got me thinking about who the "2nd Tier" QBs were going into this season. This was one of the craziest off-seasons for FF purposes that I have ever seen, so I'm not sure that 2nd Tier QB class was all that "safe" this year. Off the top of my head, here are the 2nd Tier QBs I can think of:

 

DEFINITE's: T. Romo, T. Brady, M. Schaub

 

MAYBE's: J. Flacco, M. Ryan, E. Manning (and I think Ryan and Manning could have been 3rd tier guys)

 

UPSIDE's: K. Kolb, M. Stafford

 

And I guess 1st Tier would have been: D. Brees, A. Rodgers, P. Manning, P. Rivers (and I realize some people would have put Rivers in the 2nd group in the preseason).

 

Not sure if I'm forgetting anybody... I think value can usually be had at other spots in the 4th. And IIRC you have Orton on your squad (as do I) - I think your logic about QB snaps holds for a small handful of guys that may not have been drafted. You can usually snag a solid QB early on from the WW (but not always - I had a season w/ Jeff Blake and Brad Johnson at the helm ). But your strategy definitely has merit under normal conditions. I just think that with all the changes in this off-season, this was definitely a year to steer clear of the "2nd Tier QB" strategy (even though it was working well for you until Romo's injury).

[Big Country]

From a thread this past offseason about drafting a QB in the first round

 

Pasting below, it is an analysis on QB consistency from last season. I;ve not yet had time to do the same for YTD stats to see if it is holding true thus far this season:

 

This part intrigued me so I did some research on it. I think we can agree that the 4 vs 6 point TDs is not a value adder. Consistency, however, is a value adder.

 

Pulling stats from a relatively standard scoring league I am a part of (1 per 20 yard passing, 3 point passing TDs), I pulled the percentage of games a QB was a top 5 QB for a week, a top 12 QB for a week (ie, a starter) and then also the percentages for 13-24 performances and 24+ performances. I accounted for the bye week, which I had converted to 0 points to make the formulas work, by removing one game from the calculation at the 24+ category.

 

Interesting stuff.

 

No QB was a top 5 QB more than 50% of the time (Rodgers was top 5 50% of the weeks, not really a surprise given the year he had). Of those that finished top 12 last season, the lowest %age for top 5 was David Garrard at 6% (though, the #13 QB, McNabb, was top 5 38% of weeks, tied for 3rd best percentage, and only 4 points behind Garrard on the year)

 

The top 10 QBs last year all had top 12 weeks of 50% or greater. Again, Rodgers was #1 with 81%, but oddly, Rivers, the #9 QB was 2nd with 75%.

 

One stat that jumped out at me was weeks ranked in the 25+ category.. basically, non starter and even non-starter in a 12 team start 2 QB league. Brees, the #2 overall QB, led the pack with 19% of games in the 25+ range (yes, this includes week 17 when he sat), tied with Cutler and Garrard. Again, Rodgers was the ONLY QB with no games in this range.

 

Metal - I went into this thinking that your theory was likely correct in terms of consistency, but really other than Rodgers and the great season he had, it just didn't hold true. Every single one of the top 10 QBs scored in the top 12 over 50% of the time (and the 13th and 14th ranked QBs, McNabb and Warner were that high as well, with the games missed costing them in overall ranking and giving them higher 25+ games rankings).

 

So, in addition to showing that consistency is pretty much there for all of the top 12 QBs, in this particular league which has fairly "standard scoring" (the rush/rec is 1 per 10 yards and 6 per TD, 1 PPR), the difference from the #1 to #12 QB was 98 points over the season. To compare, assuming a start 2 RB and 3 WR 12 team league, the gap from the #1 to #24 RB was 220 points (and if we exclude the hugh year CJ had, it was still a 150 point gap) and the gap for the 1-36 WR is 160 points (120 if you only start 2 WRs)

[The Waterboy]

I feel like this year, more than any other QBBC works and it's working for me, I'm 7-1.

 

Really deep position, and I think no clear-cut "top tier" ...more a gradual decline.....Rodgers, Manning, Brees, Brady, Big Ben, Romo.....I don't see a line there that I can clearly say Ryan, Eli, Flacco, Vick clearly belong below it.....hell...Fitzpatrick has been a top-5 QB the past few weeks!

 

So I've felt totally comfortable rolling with Eli Manning and Matt Ryan week-to-week.

 

The way I see it, when you do that and your QB gets hurt (a la Brady for me in 2008)....it isn't such a big loss.

 

In fact, I felt so confident, that when I picked up Kitna for a BYE week plug-in, I decided to keep him with Manning..... I just dealt Matt Ryan for Thomas Jones to handcuff Jamaal Charles (in case HE gets hurt, now I'm covered there).

Edited November 5, 2010 by The Waterboy

[Rovers]

Looking for consistancy from the QB position is an excersize in futility. What QB's other than Brees and Peyton (I'll add Orton, but who knew THAT?) haven't had a bad week? QB's including Eli, Rodgers, Schaub have all laid eggs, and then there are others like Brady who have fallen way off in FF production. Garrard always ends up with good year end numbers, but he is the epitomy of inconsistancy.

 

Sometimes you just project a QB incorrectly.... Schaub looked like a great 2nd tier QB at draft time. Eli is pretty consistant, at least in terms of laying an egg very often, but being a NE team, his numbers tend to fall off as the thermometer drops. Rothlisberger may be one of the most consistant QB's, but his numbers rarely blow up in any one given week.

 

Consistancy from ANY position is getting more difficult to project across the board. Injuries and situations change everything. The risk of first round picks seems to be greater than it used to be. The luck factor seems greater. Beyond Peyton and Brees, maybe Rodgers, I will stick to waiting on a QB in my drafts. Maybe even take a guy like Sanchez as a late round thrid QB selection. Playing matchups can work. It takes more luck too.

[Avernus]

I have done it at the QB2 position in my QB heavy league and I'm ready to trade Rodgers for an upgrade elsewhere and do a full-on QBBC...

 

I am feeling more and more comfortable with this idea right now...and if I could get Calvin or someone in exchange, I'll take it...

[MTSuper7]

My problem with QBBC (well one of my problems with it anyway) is that you can try to find two quarterbacks that have schedules that work well together, but NFL defenses usually change to the point that some teams aren't as bad as we thought they'd be defensively, and some are worse. In all of fantasy football, my least favorite decision to have to make is picking a starting QB in a QBBC. Maybe my strategy going forward shouldn't be to change how I draft but maybe to target these elite "always start" QBs in trade. I guess the odds are decent that someone using a 1st or 2nd round pick on a QB might find themselves shorthanded at RB or WR or, if injuries strike, everywhere. But in my experience, the guy spending an early pick on Manning or Brees has a warped sense of value on these QBs, so trading can be tough. I guess it's like anything else in fantasy football - do the research, trust your gut, and build your team based on the players you think will do best. That's why I went after Romo whenever I could get him in the 4th round, because I saw an offense that would rarely let me down. I'm actually optimistic that Kitna can be almost as productive passing in that offense with those weapons. But I digress... I have several months to stew over this before drafts next August.

[Avernus]

My problem with QBBC (well one of my problems with it anyway) is that you can try to find two quarterbacks that have schedules that work well together, but NFL defenses usually change to the point that some teams aren't as bad as we thought they'd be defensively, and some are worse. In all of fantasy football, my least favorite decision to have to make is picking a starting QB in a QBBC. Maybe my strategy going forward shouldn't be to change how I draft but maybe to target these elite "always start" QBs in trade. I guess the odds are decent that someone using a 1st or 2nd round pick on a QB might find themselves shorthanded at RB or WR or, if injuries strike, everywhere. But in my experience, the guy spending an early pick on Manning or Brees has a warped sense of value on these QBs, so trading can be tough. I guess it's like anything else in fantasy football - do the research, trust your gut, and build your team based on the players you think will do best. That's why I went after Romo whenever I could get him in the 4th round, because I saw an offense that would rarely let me down. I'm actually optimistic that Kitna can be almost as productive passing in that offense with those weapons. But I digress... I have several months to stew over this before drafts next August.

 

 

I wonder if Kitna can survive this game....Matthews could put him on the stretcher...

 

over/under before Kitna goes down is 4 games...

[MTSuper7]

I wonder if Kitna can survive this game....Matthews could put him on the stretcher...

 

over/under before Kitna goes down is 4 games...

 

Good point. I'll try to sell high on Kitna to someone who is desperate at QB if he makes it out alive this weekend and puts up good numbers.

[The Waterboy]

I wonder if Kitna can survive this game....Matthews could put him on the stretcher...

 

over/under before Kitna goes down is 4 games...

 

I don't understand this. Why? Cowboys are like fewest sacks allowed, aren't they? And I don't remember Kitna to be particularly brittle.

 

http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/archives...sis-cowboy.html

 

If you said Michael Vick, well I get that.

Edited November 7, 2010 by The Waterboy

[Avernus]

I don't understand this. Why? Cowboys are like fewest sacks allowed, aren't they? And I don't remember Kitna to be particularly brittle.

 

http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/archives...sis-cowboy.html

 

If you said Michael Vick, well I get that.

 

 

because Romo runs for his life....the protection sucks...

 

stats

[The Waterboy]

My problem with QBBC (well one of my problems with it anyway) is that you can try to find two quarterbacks that have schedules that work well together, but NFL defenses usually change to the point that some teams aren't as bad as we thought they'd be defensively, and some are worse.

 

Nothing is ever going to perfect for you week to week. I think QBBC is fine, but keeping an eye on the Fitzpatricks, Ortons, and Kitnas that went undrafted and have favorable schedules. You may want to make a FA your #2 QB at some point...or even carry three for a week or two during the BYEs.

 

If you try to catch lightning in a bottle at one position, it's just too hard. At least with two good, if not GREAT QBs, you stand a good chance of having an OK matchup, if not perfect, week-to-week. And hopefully, better position players than you otherwise would.

 

So I had Kitna, Ryan, and Manning. I looked down the stretch, and week 8 is a good indicator to figure out which defenses are good and which suck.....and Ryan has a tough home stretch...so I trade him for some Jamaal Charles insurance (TJ)....and I take it one week at a time.

[The Waterboy]

because Romo runs for his life....the protection sucks...

 

stats

 

Stats CAN lie. 2 sacks last week, JAX is middle of the pack in sacks on the season......maybe Romo cuts down the Cowboys allowed by a few...

 

Hang in there man, I wouldnt say it's THAT bad though. Kitna is a smart vet and knows what to do back there. If he can survive on the Bungles and Kitties (129 sacks in 36 games) for all those years, I think he'll be ok in Dallas.

Edited November 7, 2010 by The Waterboy

[The Grey Pilgrim]

What I take from the original post about drafting several middle tier QB's and then alternating them each week is this. Yes, It is a viable draft strategy, but so is targeting the Tier 1 QB's early enough to draft them as your post describes. And that is new territory for a lot of "old school" fantasy football drafters.

 

People have been too long in realizing that while it is great if you can get the steady/great RB1 in round 1 and round 2, the real key to a successful draft involves getting star value from your first few picks, regardless of what position they play. I chuckle at draft after draft to watch people take RB's that are simply too risky to spend a round 1 or a round 2 pick on, instead of taking a stud like Peyton or Drew or Rodgers.

 

Your post indicates a willingness to consider drafting Peyton early. Hello......the man has been money. And with the various teams that rotate RB's, it becomes almost as likely that you can land the "No. 2 type" RB much later. Plug in Peyton and enjoy the year.

[Avernus]

Stats CAN lie. 2 sacks last week, JAX is middle of the pack in sacks on the season......maybe Romo cuts down the Cowboys allowed by a few...

 

Hang in there man, I wouldnt say it's THAT bad though. Kitna is a smart vet and knows what to do back there. If he can survive on the Bungles and Kitties (129 sacks in 36 games) for all those years, I think he'll be ok in Dallas.

 

 

the problem I see is being his age....he'll be taking a lot of hits on top of those sacks - even if he gets the ball off...

 

I already traded away Austin earlier in the week and I am steering clear of Dallas players even though I could be wrong, but their players hold a certain risk factor....another team I'm doing this with is the Packers right now if I can move Rodgers....

 

there are certain situations I find myself gravitating towards and others that I want to leave behind...the Cowboys situation is one that I plan to leave...

[Avernus]

What I take from the original post about drafting several middle tier QB's and then alternating them each week is this. Yes, It is a viable draft strategy, but so is targeting the Tier 1 QB's early enough to draft them as your post describes. And that is new territory for a lot of "old school" fantasy football drafters.

 

People have been too long in realizing that while it is great if you can get the steady/great RB1 in round 1 and round 2, the real key to a successful draft involves getting star value from your first few picks, regardless of what position they play. I chuckle at draft after draft to watch people take RB's that are simply too risky to spend a round 1 or a round 2 pick on, instead of taking a stud like Peyton or Drew or Rodgers.

 

Your post indicates a willingness to consider drafting Peyton early. Hello......the man has been money. And with the various teams that rotate RB's, it becomes almost as likely that you can land the "No. 2 type" RB much later. Plug in Peyton and enjoy the year.

 

 

I think this is perfect for leagues that have TD's worth 6 or more instead of 3 or 4....

 

in my QB heavy league we had 4 or 5 QB's go in the 1st round alone and usually had 2 or even 3 QB's go in the 1st prior to going QB heavy because the TD's are worth so much more when you have a stud QB..

[Big Country]

I think this is perfect for leagues that have TD's worth 6 or more instead of 3 or 4....

 

 

This has almost no affect on QB value.

 

Last season , the difference between the #1 and #12 QB in number of passing TDs was 8. THat's a whopping 16 point difference between the #1 and #12 guy over the course of the season when switching from 4pt to 6 pt pass TDs.