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

[Thews40]

I hear this often from the experts, which is to wait on a QB because there's so many good ones. After 4 weeks, Brees/Brady/Rodgers are in the top 5 (Huddle Ladder scoring). Newton is 5th, Stafford comes in at 7 and Vick at 11. Eli/Fitzpatrick/Hasselbeck/Romo come in at 16-19. The delta between 16 and 5 is 22.4, or an extra 5 and change for every game through 4. In 6 point per TD leagues this delta is more. Without doing a complete analysis based on different scoring systems, my point is asking was it worth the high pick for Rodgers/Brees/Brady?

 

Going forward (and not counting in injuries to any player at any position), it would seem a safe bet that the top 3 QB's are going to justify the high picks based on the preseason predictions. Next year, do you envision the same "wait on a QB" expert advice, or will the tides start to turn?

Edited October 5, 2011 by Thews40

[bankerboy]

I hear this often from the experts, which is to wait on a QB because there's so many good ones. After 4 weeks, Brees/Brady/Rodgers are in the top 5 (Huddle Ladder scoring). Newton is 5th, Stafford comes in at 7 and Vick at 11. Eli/Fitzpatrick/Hasselbeck/Romo come in at 16-19. The delta between 16 and 5 is 22.4, or an extra 5 and change for every game through 4. In 6 point per TD leagues this delta is more. Without doing a complete analysis based on different scoring systems, my point is asking was it worth the high pick for Rodgers/Brees/Brady?

 

Going forward (and not counting in injuries to any player at any position), it would seem a safe bet that the top 3 QB's are going to justify the high picks based on the preseason predictions. Next year, do you envision the same "wait on a QB" expert advice, or will the tides start to turn?

 

 

I bet the folks that picked Vick early will wait on QBs.

[detlef]

In what scoring system is Fitz ranked 16? I'd have to guess he's top 10 in pretty much anyone worth a damned.

 

 

Regardless, In Huddle performance scoring, the top 10 is split evenly between guys you had to take early (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Vick, Romo, and guys you could have waited on (Newton, Stafford, Fitz, Eli, Hasselback).

 

Mind you, this is not a great year for the stud RBs, so there's that.

[Thews40]

I bet the folks that picked Vick early will wait on QBs.

I agree, but this wasn't without warning. Vick is an explosive running QB, so he's prone to injury. It's feast or famine, and when it's feast it's the gambe you take. Again, based on preseason predictions, the elite QB's are always scary to go up against. I would have taken Rice with the 5 slot if he fell; he didn't, so I took Rogers. Looking back, I'm sort of glad he didn't fall. The year isn't done and I can't claim it will pan out like I think it will, but if I have Rogers/Brees/Brady on any team, it would take a lot to let them go and would, IMO, justify the high picks based on consistency, and were all predicted to be where they are right now in the preseason.

[Thews40]

In what scoring system is Fitz ranked 16? I'd have to guess he's top 10 in pretty much anyone worth a damned.

 

 

Regardless, In Huddle performance scoring, the top 10 is split evenly between guys you had to take early (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Vick, Romo, and guys you could have waited on (Newton, Stafford, Fitz, Eli, Hasselback).

 

Mind you, this is not a great year for the stud RBs, so there's that.

Number of Passing TDs 1-10 4 points each

Passing Yards 1-999 0.05 points each

Pass Interceptions Thrown 1-10 -1 point each

 

Newton, Fitz, Eli and Hasselbeck are, IMO, going to be hit/miss going forward. Stafford looks like a lock, but that's not the point, as it's based on the preseason rankings. Brady, Rodgers and Brees are going to hit more than miss IMO.

[delusions of grandeur]

Yes, a strong team can definitely be built by going QB early, but it's the opportunity costs/risks at other positions that make me take pause in doing so. We've had a number of positional scarcity arguments here, so I won't get into the numbers too much, but:

 

It can work just fine if you wait on RB and take a Blount, Fred Jackson, or Wells, but if you're sitting with guys like Greene, Ingram, Moreno, Grant, Hightower, than you might be hating waiting on RB... Like Det said about the QBs you could have waited on, so if you can identify those guys who you can get a lot cheaper that might be servicable or better starters, than I'd rather load up with guys I like at other positions to give myself as many chances as possible to hit at the more volatile positions, until I think the value is right to take a QB.

 

If you look at my Ladder team "DoG" from last week, they scored 150 points with Roethlisberger sucking and only putting up 10 points. The game is still all about making decisions to put together the best team, and not just hitting on your early pick....

 

Again, not saying it won't work to go QB early, but the Rodgers owner in another BoTH league is off to an 0-4 start, so it's far from a fool-proof strategy that you can be strong at QB and wait elsewhere.

[lennykravitz2004]

I picked at 1.10 in a 10 team local redraft, and selected Vick. At 2.1, I took Mendenhall. When I picked, I picked the players I thought would get me the most points every week, on a consistent basis. My record is currently 1-2-1, mostly because I sat Austin in Week 1, and Fred Jackson until week 4 (i.e. poor decisions). I got stubborn on Greene (who I took at 3.10) and Mendenhall. Those have hurt me more than Vick's injuries. By far.

[delusions of grandeur]

Well, if we're going to use the Ladder scoring system, might as well show the results, right?

Teams led by Rodgers:

2-2

2-2

1-3

 

Teams led by Brady:

2-2

3-1

2-2

 

Only one winning team out of 6 so far.... Now here are the top 3 teams in all three 12 team divisions, where only 2 of the 9 took a QB early (if you count Brees at 2.12 that early. I'd call that appropriate value for Brady/Rodgers-like production and a pick right after at 3.01, and actually you can interchange him for the 3.01, picking on the corners):

 

HOF:

Stafford /E. Manning/Newton

Bradford/Grossman

Brees/McCoy

 

AP:

Brady/Flacco

Roeth/McCoy

Schaub/Kolb/Newton

PS:

Romo/Orton

Manning/Fitzpatrick/Grossman

Roeth/McCoy

 

 

 

Perhaps we should revisit this at a later date before we declare this the year of the early QB.

Edited October 5, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[detlef]

Number of Passing TDs 1-10 4 points each

Passing Yards 1-999 0.05 points each

Pass Interceptions Thrown 1-10 -1 point each

 

Newton, Fitz, Eli and Hasselbeck are, IMO, going to be hit/miss going forward. Stafford looks like a lock, but that's not the point, as it's based on the preseason rankings. Brady, Rodgers and Brees are going to hit more than miss IMO.

Lot's of IMO's in a post that started out trying to look at what has happened to back up the theory about taking a QB early.

 

I see 5 of the 10 QBs in the top 10 right now as being guys you could have grabbed reasonably late (6th round or later).

 

Compare that to the top 10 RBs as of week 4 (again, using basic Huddle Performance scoring):

DMac

McCoy

Rice

Fred Jax

Forte

Ryan Matthews

B Wells

AP

M Turner

A Bradshaw

 

Only B Wells (65) and Fred Jackson (80) could have been had after pick 45 in MFL ADP (choosing only drafts that happened after 8/15 because of the lock-out and all) and 6 of the top 10 were top 25 overall.

 

By comparison, Stafford (69) and Manning (83), along with Newton, Fitz, and Hasselbeck (not in the top 100 ADP) make up half the top 10 in QBs.

Edited October 6, 2011 by detlef

[panhead55]

You can build a winning team by going QB, RB, or WR early. It doesn't matter. The real key is being able fill your holes with gems in rounds 6-14. These are the rounds where leagues are won. The first five rounds I try to take the best available player and then hope to hit a homerun or two later in the draft to cover my weaknesses.

[detlef]

You can build a winning team by going QB, RB, or WR early. It doesn't matter. The real key is being able fill your holes with gems in rounds 6-14. These are the rounds where leagues are won. The first five rounds I try to take the best available player and then hope to hit a homerun or two later in the draft to cover my weaknesses.

I respectfully disagree. The simple fact is, the first 5 rounds are filled with plenty of busts and, avoiding those early busts goes at least as far as nailing the later picks.

 

Look at the top 10 RBs above. only two of them came after round 5. But there's plenty of RBs picked in the first 5 rounds not on that list. And teams who whiffed on those picks are far more likely to be sitting at 1-3 than teams who thought Ochocinco was worth an 8th round flier.

[panhead55]

I respectfully disagree. The simple fact is, the first 5 rounds are filled with plenty of busts and, avoiding those early busts goes at least as far as nailing the later picks.

 

Look at the top 10 RBs above. only two of them came after round 5. But there's plenty of RBs picked in the first 5 rounds not on that list. And teams who whiffed on those picks are far more likely to be sitting at 1-3 than teams who thought Ochocinco was worth an 8th round flier.

 

At least in a PPR you don't have to have stud RBs to win a championship. Give me a top QB, three top 25 WRs and a top TE in the first 5 rounds and I can win a championship with those. It is about how many points you score. I don't care if little of my scoring comes from my RBs. I don't need a top 10 RB. They're nice to have, but not essential. With all the RBBCs there are lots of serviceable RBs late in the draft. They may not be studs, but if my recievers are studs, I don't care. RBs have the highest injury rate and therefore their replacements become available as the season unfolds. If you missed out early you always have a shot on the waiver wire.

[Thews40]

Well, if we're going to use the Ladder scoring system, might as well show the results, right?

Teams led by Rodgers:

2-2

2-2

1-3

 

Teams led by Brady:

2-2

3-1

2-2

Too lazy to break it all down to include Brees, but the above is telling, as there's only one team under .500. The power ranking using overall W-L against all teams would be a better metric.

 

Perhaps we should revisit this at a later date before we declare this the year of the early QB.

Not claiming it is the year of the QB, but rather the safest bet with a first or second round pick. Outside the top 3, how well do the preseason rankings match up with what's happened so far? For those that went with Foster, we all knew there was concern in the preseason. It may pan out, but with 4 games in the books, if you're 1-3 you'll need to win the next 2 to get to .500.

 

Going forward, how does the Newton or Fitz owner (great value) feel about their chances vs. the Brees/Brady/Rogers owner? It'll be interesting to revisit this at the end of the year.

[Thews40]

At least in a PPR you don't have to have stud RBs to win a championship. Give me a top QB, three top 25 WRs and a top TE in the first 5 rounds and I can win a championship with those. It is about how many points you score. I don't care if little of my scoring comes from my RBs. I don't need a top 10 RB. They're nice to have, but not essential. With all the RBBCs there are lots of serviceable RBs late in the draft. They may not be studs, but if my recievers are studs, I don't care. RBs have the highest injury rate and therefore their replacements become available as the season unfolds. If you missed out early you always have a shot on the waiver wire.

Agree... you nailed it with a top TE

[detlef]

At least in a PPR you don't have to have stud RBs to win a championship. Give me a top QB, three top 25 WRs and a top TE in the first 5 rounds and I can win a championship with those. It is about how many points you score. I don't care if little of my scoring comes from my RBs. I don't need a top 10 RB. They're nice to have, but not essential. With all the RBBCs there are lots of serviceable RBs late in the draft. They may not be studs, but if my recievers are studs, I don't care. RBs have the highest injury rate and therefore their replacements become available as the season unfolds. If you missed out early you always have a shot on the waiver wire.

Fine enough, but that's not what you said above.

 

I'm not saying that you have to go one way or the other with your draft in the early rounds, but I do tire of people saying "it's all about the late rounds" when it's really not. Everyone loves to point to Arian Foster and Mike Vick from last year. But, for every one of them, there's a dozen Austin Collie or Knowshown Moreno from this year. The thing is, if you whiff on them, you'll be OK, just so long as you also didn't whiff on DWill and Rashard Mendenhall. That's where you're hosed. Because dude picking in front of you grabbed L McCoy and dude picking behind you grabbed D Mac. When you were picking Gore, he was picking Forte. That's where the league was won or lost.

 

And, yes, there's certainly merit in taking QBs, WRs, or TEs early. Someone has to take Brady in the top 20, because he's worth that pick. And they're certainly not regretting that pick right now.

 

My only issue is, this thread was started by a guy who doesn't believe in the "wait on QB" technique and he seemingly thought that the stats, thus far this year, validated his position. The funny thing is, they don't. What they show is that, if you wanted a top 10 back (so far this year), you pretty much had to spend an early pick on one, since 80% of the top 10 were off the board by the 4th round. However, if you wanted a top 10 QB, you absolutely didn't. Some, in fact, may not have been drafted before the 12th round if at all.

 

Oh, and btw, of the three main positions, RB is the only one where every guy in the top 10 was someone picked by the 8th round or so. With Decker and Steve Smith in the mix at WR, there are two guys picked late or not at all who are putting up those kinds of numbers.

Edited October 6, 2011 by detlef

[bostonsoxandy]

I bet the folks that picked Vick early will wait on QBs.

 

Everyone is looking at you Matthew Berry!

[bostonsoxandy]

Agree... you nailed it with a top TE

 

Lolz it sounds like Berry saying you NEED Vick and Gates. Has there really been much of a difference between owning Gates/Witten/Clark/Finley/Davis to owning a Graham/Marcedes/Pettigrew/Gonzalez/Gronk....

[historymike]

I draft based on value and mob psychology. I first develop a draft list that projects season-long fantasy production for all positions, and this is my guide in the draft. I look for the best value in any given round, and I am much less concerned about some position strategy like RB-RB-WR-W-QB and so on. As far as mob psychiology: when I notice a positional run, I start looking to see the quality players who are getting ignored while the league is temporarily going ga-ga over TEs or defenses.

 

This year In decided to until the last round to draft a defense, and I waited until the 11th round to draft a TE (I landed Jimmy Graham, hardly a slouch). I drafted a kicker next-to-last and my backup QBs next-to-next-to last round. I look to fill my rosters with as many quality RBs and WRs as possible, figuring that I will either have a lot of depth or a ton of trade bait for the owners who make questionable decisions like drafting two TEs, three QBs, and two defenses.

 

In one league I lost Jamaal Charles, my first round pick, but because I also drafted Matt Forte, Ryan Matthews, Fred Jackson, and Jahvid Best, I am still 3-1. In two leagues I "settled" for Romo, who always seems to put up decent FF numbers despite his proclivity to be reckless and occasionally cost his team games, and in each of these leagues Romo was available around round 6. I am 3-1 with two teams led by Romo and 4-0 with one team led by Fitzpatrick. I would love a Brady or Rodgers, but if they go in the first round I am not going to shed a tear. Yes, they are capable of stellar numbers, but the difference between their PPG and a second tier QB is not as significant as the difference between tier one RBS and tier two and tier three RBs. Also, each year there are one or two QBs who emerge as near-studs that no one seemed to recognize on draft day; look at Cam Newton, who went undrafted in two of my three leagues, and was still available in one league on the week 3 waiver wire.

 

Oh,and here are the records of the Brady, Rodgers, Vick, and Philip Rivers owners in my three leagues:

 

Brady owners: 2-2, 2-2, 1-3

Rodgers owners: 3-1, 1-3, 1-3

Rivers owners: 2-2, 1-3, 2-2

Vick owners: 1-3, 1-3, 2-2

 

In other words, out of twelve owners in three different leagues, only one has a winning record so far by drafting a marquee QB in the first or early second round. Meanwhile most of the 3-1 and 4-4 owners in my leagues are led by QBs like Romo, Roethlisberger, Stafford, and Fitzpatrick, and these teams off to a fast start (with the exception of one Rodgers owner) drafted QBs in the third round or later.

 

So I am not hating on the marquee QB philosophy,and I recognize that there are still 9 or 10 weeks to go until the playoffs, but a marquee QB is at best an advantage at one position, and it may end up costing an owner valuable RB or WR talent.

Edited October 6, 2011 by historymike

[rajncajn]

My local had an unusual amount of QBs go early this year, even for our league. 7 QBs in the 1st two rounds, 5 of those in the 1st round, taken as follows:

 

1.07 Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB

1.09 Brees, Drew NOS QB

1.13 Vick, Michael PHI QB

1.14 Brady, Tom NEP QB

1.16 Rivers, Philip SDC QB

2.13 Manning, Peyton IND QB

2.14 Schaub, Matt HOU QB

 

Of those QBs only Rodgers, Brady and Brees are in the top 10 in overall scoring for our league and only 4 are in the top 10 QBs. And of those owners only 1 team (Brees owner) is in the top 5 as a team for our league (16 team), the rest are middle-of-the-pack or worse. The top 5 teams in our league right now, listed in order of position, drafted their QBs as follows:

 

7.08 Stafford, Matthew DET QB

1.09 Brees, Drew NOS QB

8.05 McNabb, Donovan MIN QB

4.02 Romo, Tony DAL QB

4.06 Manning, Eli NYG QB

 

Note that the Romo owner also got Cam Newton in the 11th.

Edited October 6, 2011 by rajncajn

[detlef]

Thews, look at it this way.

 

Take a look at the top 20 RBs according to Huddle performance scoring so far this season.

 

There are a total of three guys who were not getting a ton of pre-season discussion and considered top 50-75 picks (mostly top 30 though). Of those three, one is a hand-cuff (Tate) who will drop like a rock and be replaced by another pre-season stud (Foster) provided Foster stays healthy. The other two are Sproles and McGehee. It bears mention that none of these three are ranked better than 15th and all of them were drafted in every league I'm in. It's just that you could get them late.

 

In the top 10 QBs, one was probably not drafted in anything but really big leagues (Hasserlbeck) and two were either not drafted or picked very late (Fitz, Newton). Another, Eli, was being picked about the same time guys were nabbing Sproles, and Stafford was also a guy you could wait on.

 

In the top 20 WRs, you've got 4-5 Eric Decker, D Moore, and to a lesser degree, Jordy Nelson AJ Green, and Steve Smith. I had Decker on my radar, but only because I was in a league with return yardage. But I still never got to him before the draft ended. And I'm about certain that, unless you were in a return yardage league, you didn't even know who he was until week 2. However, unlike the RBs, where the late rounders are bringing up the rear of the top 20, these guys are ranked 3rd, 7th, 11th, 16th, and 17th. So, they're spread throughout the top 20.

[Azazello1313]

I draft based on value and mob psychology. I first develop a draft list that projects season-long fantasy production for all positions, and this is my guide in the draft. I look for the best value in any given round, and I am much less concerned about some position strategy like RB-RB-WR-W-QB and so on. As far as mob psychiology: when I notice a positional run, I start looking to see the quality players who are getting ignored while the league is temporarily going ga-ga over TEs or defenses.

...

In one league I lost Jamaal Charles, my first round pick, but because I also drafted Matt Forte, Ryan Matthews, Fred Jackson, and Jahvid Best, I am still 3-1.

 

it sounds like your winning strategy is actually to play in 8 team leagues with kindergarteners.

[Azazello1313]

I will say this....brady and brees in particular were generally undervalued coming into this season. these guys are essentially locks (at least as close as you can get in FF) to be top 5 at the highest scoring position. all the other QBs more or less went where they should have IMO.

[Scooby's Hubby]

Cam Newton and Matthew Stafford are proof that you don't need to waste a 1st round pick on a QB. But, of all years, this may be the one to take a QB at the top and get away with it. B/C of injuries to guys like J Charles, AJ and Foster and the CJ holdout, in addition to disappointments by Mendy and Gore, you could possibly do well by taking a Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady first.

 

It is picking guys like Welker and Steve Smith (CAR) and Fred Jackson that pay off. The guy who has Aaron Rodgers in our local also has Welker, Ryan Matthews and Jimmy Graham and in first place in points

[panhead55]

Fine enough, but that's not what you said above.

 

I'm not saying that you have to go one way or the other with your draft in the early rounds, but I do tire of people saying "it's all about the late rounds" when it's really not. Everyone loves to point to Arian Foster and Mike Vick from last year. But, for every one of them, there's a dozen Austin Collie or Knowshown Moreno from this year. The thing is, if you whiff on them, you'll be OK, just so long as you also didn't whiff on DWill and Rashard Mendenhall. That's where you're hosed. Because dude picking in front of you grabbed L McCoy and dude picking behind you grabbed D Mac. When you were picking Gore, he was picking Forte. That's where the league was won or lost.

 

And, yes, there's certainly merit in taking QBs, WRs, or TEs early. Someone has to take Brady in the top 20, because he's worth that pick. And they're certainly not regretting that pick right now.

 

My only issue is, this thread was started by a guy who doesn't believe in the "wait on QB" technique and he seemingly thought that the stats, thus far this year, validated his position. The funny thing is, they don't. What they show is that, if you wanted a top 10 back (so far this year), you pretty much had to spend an early pick on one, since 80% of the top 10 were off the board by the 4th round. However, if you wanted a top 10 QB, you absolutely didn't. Some, in fact, may not have been drafted before the 12th round if at all.

 

Oh, and btw, of the three main positions, RB is the only one where every guy in the top 10 was someone picked by the 8th round or so. With Decker and Steve Smith in the mix at WR, there are two guys picked late or not at all who are putting up those kinds of numbers.

 

In defense of your position that Thews statement is not validated, I offer these stats using the Ladder scoring system.

 

The top 4 QBs are averaging 123 points total. The #9-12 QBs are averaging 85 points total. The difference is 38 points.

 

The top 8 RBs are averaging 90 points total. The #17-24 RBs are averaging 53 points total. The difference is 37 points.

 

This would suggest that it makes no difference in your drafting approach as far as when positions are selected.Tthe key is selecting players who do well based on their draft position.

 

As far as my statement that leagues are won in the latter rounds, I stand by that. You can not draft a player in the first round who will drastically out produce his ADP, but you can in the latter rounds. I agree with you that you can't afford to miss in the early rounds. You need the early round selections to match their ADP. It is the latter round picks that can give you separation from the field. This is of course a generalization, but in my experience holds pretty true.

[Big Country]

There ar only multiple years of statistical analysis that consistently have supported the waiting on a QB approach.

 

There is also what I like to think of as a form of "survivorship bias" on the part of those that advocate the taking a QB early approach - you remember that one league where you went QB early but found the Foster last year or Beanie this year (if he maintains his level of production). People conveniently forget the other leagues (or even the other teams in their league) that followed a similar approach and did not hit on the RB that came from virtually nowhere.

 

As I said many times in the preseason, and will say again as the numbers this year continue to represent the philosophy, I'll load my gun up with as many bullets from the early RBs, as they are much more likely to end up top 10 at their position (a position, I'll remind you, that has the highest scoring disparity between starters in most setups), and I'll take my chances on a late round QB that is generalyl as likely to be in the top 10 as the earlier QBs (in the position that generally has the least scoring disparity amongst starters).