Slugs3511 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I know it depends on the style league you play in....so here are some questions... 1. If QBs throwing TDs are all worth 6 points....does it make them more valuable..... a. So do you take them earlier and if so....who do you take and when.... 2. If they are 4 points throwing TDs.....how does this change philosophy of taking the QB.... a. Earliest taken, and who do you take...? 3. Throwing TDs....4 points and all TDs 6 points... a. Obviously makes Vick a better QB with his rushing TDs...but what is too early with the RBBC so often used now... Any and all advice is well appreciated.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I've decided that this year I'm going to try & get one of the top tier QBs. I'm assuming that I'll be spending a 3rd or 4th round pick on them. I will not spend a 1st or 2nd again for a QB. I learned my lesson last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telestar Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 It is always a difficult task to decide in advance when to take any position - but I agree with you that you should be prepared and have something in mind as you go into the draft. You can get a variety of answers on the topic of how rules like these affect when to take a position, but I would say that 1 and 2 don't change matters all that much. If you took last year's stats and scored all QBS, I don't think you'd see much of a greater difference between QB1 and QB10 under either approach. Rule #3 does seem to favor Vick, but I'm not sure that would move him into the first round for me even so. Most of the other guys wouldn't be affected that much - it would help Rodgers a bit but he is a top QB under any scenario anyway. So my suggestion is to make up your draft list and play the value game. If you see a QB that is undervalued, then go for it. If everyone is taking QBS early, then go for RB and WR. You can make it work with a middle-tier QB if your RB and WR are strong enough. Good luck this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 paging BC. BC to the white courtesy phone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolly Rodgers Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 (edited) QB tends to be a spot that you can wait until the 3-5 round range and still get a quality starter. LIke mentioned above, there is not a HUGH difference between QB1 and QB 10. However, there is a bigger gap between RB1/WR1 and RB10/WR10. Edited August 14, 2011 by Jolly Rodgers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I know it depends on the style league you play in....so here are some questions... 1. If QBs throwing TDs are all worth 6 points....does it make them more valuable..... a. So do you take them earlier and if so....who do you take and when.... 2. If they are 4 points throwing TDs.....how does this change philosophy of taking the QB.... a. Earliest taken, and who do you take...? 3. Throwing TDs....4 points and all TDs 6 points... a. Obviously makes Vick a better QB with his rushing TDs...but what is too early with the RBBC so often used now... Any and all advice is well appreciated.... 1. Minimal affect. Last year, there was a difference of 12 TDs between the #1 and #12 QB in terms of number of TDs. The switch from 4-6 points adds 24 points to the year end total for point differential, or 1.5PPG over the course of the season. Either way, the drop in scoring at the QB position is simply not there compared to the other positions. Detlef is big on the phrase "positional scarcity" and it plays out well here. QB just is not a scarce position in terms of getting FF value. 1a. - I don't, many will, and when they do, I will be able to draft RBs and WRs that I believe will do better than I could of if the QBs weren't coming off the board. 2. It doesn't. 2a. See 1a. 3. I don't see a difference with this as with your 2. If you believe Vick will continue to perform at career high levels like he did last year (though I believe Bronco Billy had a post earlier that showed the breakdown of Vick;s first 6 games vs. his last 6 games that was quite enlightening), then he is worth an earlier pick. If you think we will perform closer to his mean, or even somewhere closer to the middle of his mean and last year's numbers, then he is not worth the early pick. paging BC. BC to the white courtesy phone Es todo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 1. Minimal affect. Last year, there was a difference of 12 TDs between the #1 and #12 QB in terms of number of TDs. The switch from 4-6 points adds 24 points to the year end total for point differential, or 1.5PPG over the course of the season. Either way, the drop in scoring at the QB position is simply not there compared to the other positions. Detlef is big on the phrase "positional scarcity" and it plays out well here. QB just is not a scarce position in terms of getting FF value. If you look at the projections for QB, RB and WR, the 29th ranked RB has 12 TDs less than the #1 (#12 RB has 10 TDs) and the #1 WR is projected to have 12 TDs, the #12 WR has 9 TDs. The projections for QB work out to having the #12 QB have 27 TDs. Ratio of #1 to #12 for each (12/1) QB: 27/35 = 0.77 RB: 10/18 = 0.55 WR: 9/12 = 0.75 As a percentage, it is pretty obvious that RBs fall off quicker than WRs and QBs. However, as an absolute delta, The #1 QB will score you more points over the season than the #12 as compared to either WR or RB. If these numbers old, you would be much better off taking a #1 QB late in the first round as the WR and RB TD numbers plateau around the #8 or so at the position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delfamdelfam Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 If you look at the projections for QB, RB and WR, the 29th ranked RB has 12 TDs less than the #1 (#12 RB has 10 TDs) and the #1 WR is projected to have 12 TDs, the #12 WR has 9 TDs. The projections for QB work out to having the #12 QB have 27 TDs.Ratio of #1 to #12 for each (12/1) QB: 27/35 = 0.77 RB: 10/18 = 0.55 WR: 9/12 = 0.75 As a percentage, it is pretty obvious that RBs fall off quicker than WRs and QBs. However, as an absolute delta, The #1 QB will score you more points over the season than the #12 as compared to either WR or RB. If these numbers old, you would be much better off taking a #1 QB late in the first round as the WR and RB TD numbers plateau around the #8 or so at the position. but you normally start 2 RB's and WR's and only one QB, so if you compare QB#1 to QB#12, you'd have to compare RB#1 to RB#24 to make it proportional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 There's an issue with simply comparing the #1 to #12 and #1 to #24, and that is because we don't actually know who that is. So, what needs to happen is that we need to also determine how likely players taken at certain ADP ranges are going to end up being good. Not the best, but simply among the best. I'm going to have some time this week and I plan to do this. Further, the part that often gets overlooked is what is the cost of missing on your pick. For instance, let's assume that taking a top 10 pre-season back yields a successful FF player as much as taking a top 5 QB. OK, so what if you wait. And by virtue of that, pick a guy who fails to be top 12 (and thereby a worthy starter). How bad is that? Even more glaring than the lack of drop-off between the best and worst of those ranked high enough to start is the fact that, even below that mark, the drop-off isn't so bad. Likely because, on any given week, there are 32 QBs who are touching the ball virtually every snap of the game. By contrast, there are maybe 15 or 20 RBs who are even getting enough touches to have a good chance of being great. Yet, only about 1/3 of the QBs who are given the chance to put up good numbers, need to do in order to make every guy in a 12 team league reasonable happy. In the case of RB, not only do all the guys who are seeing a lot of touches have to do something with those touches, another 5-10 who are sharing the load also need to do something cool in order for those same 12 guys to be happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junta Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 1. Minimal affect. Last year, there was a difference of 12 TDs between the #1 and #12 QB in terms of number of TDs. The switch from 4-6 points adds 24 points to the year end total for point differential, or 1.5PPG over the course of the season. Either way, the drop in scoring at the QB position is simply not there compared to the other positions. Detlef is big on the phrase "positional scarcity" and it plays out well here. QB just is not a scarce position in terms of getting FF value. 1a. - I don't, many will, and when they do, I will be able to draft RBs and WRs that I believe will do better than I could of if the QBs weren't coming off the board. 2. It doesn't. 2a. See 1a. 3. I don't see a difference with this as with your 2. If you believe Vick will continue to perform at career high levels like he did last year (though I believe Bronco Billy had a post earlier that showed the breakdown of Vick;s first 6 games vs. his last 6 games that was quite enlightening), then he is worth an earlier pick. If you think we will perform closer to his mean, or even somewhere closer to the middle of his mean and last year's numbers, then he is not worth the early pick. Es todo? I suggest reading: http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football...11_TMRManifesto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 but you normally start 2 RB's and WR's and only one QB, so if you compare QB#1 to QB#12, you'd have to compare RB#1 to RB#24 to make it proportional. So you would be willing to take an RB2 over a QB1 ? The RB#24-29 are projected to score 7 TDs. So, you are drafting 12th, the top 6+ RB's are off the baord (RB#6 ~ 11 TDs). Do you take RB#7 at 10 TDs over QB#2 or QB#3 who is projected to score 30+ TDs? especially when you can wait on RB#29 who is projected to score 3 less than TDs than a first round pick (RB#7). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I suggest reading: http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/football...11_TMRManifesto I skipped it since 1- its an ESPN article and 2- Its written by M. Berry. If your setting your strategy based on ESPN's advice well good luck to you. If your lucky the other league members care even less than you do. In a nutshell- Fantasy players come to realize that its not driven by QB. Any advice that pushes QBs as any sort of value in early rounds are pretty much a joke and piss-poor advice one caveat- leagues that start 2 QBs but I highly doubt that Berry's article was written with those in mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 So you would be willing to take an RB2 over a QB1 ?The RB#24-29 are projected to score 7 TDs. So, you are drafting 12th, the top 6+ RB's are off the baord (RB#6 ~ 11 TDs). Do you take RB#7 at 10 TDs over QB#2 or QB#3 who is projected to score 30+ TDs? especially when you can wait on RB#29 who is projected to score 3 less than TDs than a first round pick (RB#7). In my case probably. Because a passable QB is going to be much easier to find than a passable RB2. Supply and demand yada yada yada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I don't have much to add in terms of concrete information, but I have noticed over the years that teams with elite fantasy QB's tend to make the playoffs much more often than teams without elite fantasy QB's. If you've got Manning, Brady, Brees or Rodgers, or probably even Vick, you've got a decent shot to make your fantasy playoffs. The QB position seems more consistent than others, and can cover up some other holes or inconsistencies in the rest of your lineup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 So you would be willing to take an RB2 over a QB1 ?The RB#24-29 are projected to score 7 TDs. So, you are drafting 12th, the top 6+ RB's are off the baord (RB#6 ~ 11 TDs). Do you take RB#7 at 10 TDs over QB#2 or QB#3 who is projected to score 30+ TDs? especially when you can wait on RB#29 who is projected to score 3 less than TDs than a first round pick (RB#7). Again, you can't fixate on what the #7 RB end of season is going to have. You need look at the number of RBs who, going into the season, are in a position where you have any faith in them being good. As in: Is he a featured back? If he's sharing, is he on a team that pounds the rock so much that both guys put up good numbers. Things like that. You get into the 20s in terms of pre-season rankings and you start getting into a list of guys that it's hard to feel good about your chances. Meanwhile you get to end of the top 12 in QB and you're saying, "Big Ben? Matt Ryan? Sure, no problem." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junta Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I skipped it since 1- its an ESPN article and 2- Its written by M. Berry. If your setting your strategy based on ESPN's advice well good luck to you. If your lucky the other league members care even less than you do. In a nutshell- Fantasy players come to realize that its not driven by QB. Any advice that pushes QBs as any sort of value in early rounds are pretty much a joke and piss-poor advice one caveat- leagues that start 2 QBs but I highly doubt that Berry's article was written with those in mind Who cares if it was written by ESPN's Matt Berry? There is a lot of good information in this article. The more informed opinions I hear, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rd and schlong Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 I have a lot more faith in the 12th best qb than the 24th best rb or wr. I haven't taken a qb in the first 6 rounds in any of my leagues this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Is he a featured back? In 2011, this is true for 6-10 backs. So, rnd 1 is mandatory RB? Even if the 6-10 featured back doesn't project well? In this world of RBBC, if I am picking in the lower half of the first round, I see no reason to pick a RB. You will get the same value 4-5 rnds later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 An easy way to look at it is like shopping for new appliances on a budget, where you have a number of different pieces to buy within that budget. Thus, the amount you spend on any particular appliance affects what you can spend the other ones you need. First, you see a few really awesome fridges (QBs), but you only need 1 of those, and there are a ton more available, some for alot less cash that can satisfy your needs plenty well enough there... Next, you know you need 2 sinks and 3 countertops. You see lots of options there, but many look shoddy, could break easily, or not perform up to your standards, compared to a small number of really good ones that look much better. Furthermore, the good ones are all going out of stock quickly, so if you want ones up to your standards of either, you need to go ahead and grab them. Just the same here, it's absolutely supply and demand, as well as percieved difference in quality (scoring). So if there are a number of available QB options for cheaper that can bring you closer to the quality of the elite ones, then that should make the more elite options less valuable in your eyes, especially if you overpay and prevent yourself from purchasing the other quality "appliances" you still need to get your "kitchen" the way you want it. In other words, you better have picked the QB that was damn well worth it if you spend a high pick on one, and have a plan for how you cover other defeciencies, which isn't always easy (try some mocks and see what you end up with). Unless that QB scores so greatly beyond the others and isn't just "above average", then you will have to either be extremely savvy, lucky or a WW shark at other positions for this strategy to work... Remember that you're going for the highest scoring team, not necessarily the highest scoring player if you can find another high scorer much later (i.e., QB and DEF in particular). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Last year I waited forever to pick a QB and spent more of my efforts on RB and WR - I then picked up Vick off the waiver wire. The above I believe is the correct answer to the posted question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Who cares if it was written by ESPN's Matt Berry? There is a lot of good information in this article. The more informed opinions I hear, the better. Berry's advice is antiquated at best. He'll tell you to go RB/RB than grab a TE (which is crazy this year with TE depth). Then another article he'll tell you to take a QB in the 1st round? Sorry but after 16 years I learned a long time ago the QBs early are a waste and surefire way to NOT win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Last year I waited forever to pick a QB and spent more of my efforts on RB and WR - I then picked up Vick off the waiver wire. The above I believe is the correct answer to the posted question. I picked up Foster in the 12th round and CJ in the first. Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Miscreant Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Because something worked one time last year does not make it a good strategy. I'm in a league where guys take QBs so early that one guy 2 years ago already had two of them in the first five rounds. This is insane I'm thinking but it so quickly depleted the QB pool that if you're dead set on waiting you end up with crap. I decided last year that unless a gem fell to me at pick 9 in terms of RBs and WRs I was going with Rodgers. Long story short, I picked Rodgers which started a crazy run on QBs(something like 4-5 went in the late 1st and second round, I think another 3 in the 3rd) and now I'm getting to pick guys that had no business still being on the board. I won that league last year after struggling for two straight years. However... I'm still leary of taking a QB early because of positional scarcity and more importantly I think the position is pretty deep this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osu1322 Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 Because something worked one time last year does not make it a good strategy. I'm in a league where guys take QBs so early that one guy 2 years ago already had two of them in the first five rounds. This is insane I'm thinking but it so quickly depleted the QB pool that if you're dead set on waiting you end up with crap. I decided last year that unless a gem fell to me at pick 9 in terms of RBs and WRs I was going with Rodgers. Long story short, I picked Rodgers which started a crazy run on QBs(something like 4-5 went in the late 1st and second round, I think another 3 in the 3rd) and now I'm getting to pick guys that had no business still being on the board. I won that league last year after struggling for two straight years. However... I'm still leary of taking a QB early because of positional scarcity and more importantly I think the position is pretty deep this year. I agree that this makes drafting (at least with a snake format) a lot like playing poker. If i'm able to force people to worry about picking a QB then it gives more knowledge. Also knowing that, this drafting a QB early could backfire and force u to take sub par RB or WR.... Some people draft in a strict RB, RB, WR, WR for their first 4 picks. Knowing this and knowing who is going to do gives u an advantage know that u need to take those players otherwise ur opponent will. I personally like to draft my QB in the 2nd or 3rd round. 2 years ago I took Rivers in the 3 rd and last year I took Peyton Manning in the second. I won the league both years... granted this is my personal preference but it seem to work out well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooknladder Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 always take your QB late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.