Leagues with 2 QBs

[Roo]

This year our 10 team league decided to go with a 2 QB format.

 

It seems to be more popular these days in 10 team leagues, but it's very rare to find any strategy on it.

 

It makes sense to add the extra QB slot, since the talent is deep enough to support at least 3 QBs per team - we felt like it would ad more strategy to our draft.

 

The question I have, is do you think it becomes even more neccessary to draft a top QB early?

Edited July 21, 2005 by Roo

[Big Country]

not neccesarily more important, but it drives their value up a lot. It is more important to say grab two top ten guys if possible as that would give you a pretty big advantage. Maybe look to go RB/RB/QB/WR/QB or something like that.

[Roo]

not neccesarily more important, but it drives their value up a lot. It is more important to say grab two top ten guys if possible as that would give you a pretty big advantage. Maybe look to go RB/RB/QB/WR/QB or something like that.

 

889042[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah good call, that's what I am thinking too - but I might have a shot at Manning in the 3 hole. (4 pts pass TD/25 yrds per pt)

 

The other crazy factor is we have a flex spot (WR/RB/TE). We all know the best choice would be a 3rd RB, which puts even more pressure on the RB position.

 

So if I took Manning, it's more like:

QB/RB/RB/RB/QB/WR

 

If I went with Holmes, it's more like:

RB/RB/QB/RB/handcuff/QB

 

And if I go with say, Edge (or another safer RB), it's more like:

RB/RB/QB/RB/QB/WR

 

Man, it's gonna be nuts.

[LegFuJohnson]

My ten teamer is also going to 2 QB's. And I absolutely think it changes where you have to draft them

 

Obviously, make the 3 QB's you draft have different bye weeks, because almost (if not all) all the starters will be taken.

 

But the whole theory behind taking RB's early, is the difference between the top QB and 10th QB isn't that high, and why not take RB's early, let others take their QB's, and then grab a Trent Green or Brady later.

Well, those guys aren't going to be there later. People might take 2QB's in the first 3 rounds (depending on your owners and scoring). Having Carson Palmer as a QB in a one QB league is OK, if the rest of your team is strong. If you end up with Palmer and Warner in a 2QB league... that's trouble.

 

I think in a 10 team league with 2QB's (again, depending on your scoring), Manning, C-Pep, even McNabb can be 1st round picks.

Edited July 21, 2005 by LegFuJohnson

[Roo]

My ten teamer is also going to 2 QB's.  And I absolutely think it changes where you have to draft them

 

Obviously, make the 3 QB's you draft have different bye weeks, because almost (if not all) all the starters will be taken.

 

But the whole theory behind taking RB's early, is the difference between the top QB and 10th QB isn't that high, and why not take RB's early, let others take their QB's, and then grab a Trent Green or Brady later.

Well, those guys aren't going to be there later.  People might take 2QB's in the first 3 rounds (depending on your owners and scoring).  Having Carson Palmer as a QB in a one QB league is OK, if the rest of your team is strong.  If you end up with Palmer and Warner in a 2QB league... that's trouble.

 

I think in a 10 team league with 2QB's (again, depending on your scoring), Manning, C-Pep, even McNabb can be 1st round picks.

889254[/snapback]

 

Nice analysis. I am hoping if I take Manning, it will start coaches scrambling for QBs (and rightly so). If so, I should have no trouble landing a couple decent backs.

 

It's true, with one QB, you can get by with any top 10'er. In this format, if you wait too long and end up with something like Delhomme and Bledsoe....trouble.

[AoNrDaYnAge]

I'd say take LT or Alexander if you can in the first round but otherwise take Manning...I would rather go with a RB in the first because there is so little depth at that position while there are a good 15 or more QBs that are serviceable like Manning, Cpep, Mcnabb, Trent Green, Aaron Brooks, Bulger, Collins, Brees, Hasselback, Leftwich, Favre, Vick, Carson, Brady, Pennington, as well as some guys that are a little questionable but could serve as a fine number 2 QB like McNair, Carr, Greise...etc...while I think RB is way less deep, there may be fifteen solid RBs but there is a huge dropoff somewhere around there. I think you'd be best off taking an RB in the first, and if a QB like McNabb falls to you in the second I'd take him and then another RB in the third and then I think you could get a decent QB and RB in the fourth and fifth. Just my opinion but even though you have two QBs, RBs are just so rare that it'll be worth it to take RBs early. I would even say you could possibly take 3 RBs in the first 3 rounds if good ones keep falling to you but if Alexander and LT are taking 1st and 2nd, take Manning.

 

But like you said, if you can get them to scramble for QBs by taking Manning, that would be the best case scenario cause you could land some solid backs and Manning.

Edited July 22, 2005 by AoNrDaYnAge

[Seahawks21]

Call me old school, but I don't like the 2 QB idea at all. Make it kind of feel like its a real game, plugging a team together at the right positions and all that. Honestly, I'm a geek...I consider my starting QB my team's leader. On most occasions my team plays as well as he does. Oh I guess it doens't hurt that I've got Peyton.

[Roo]

Call me old school, but I don't like the 2 QB idea at all.  Make it kind of feel like its a real game, plugging a team together at the right positions and all that.  Honestly, I'm a geek...I consider my starting QB my team's leader.  On most occasions my team plays as well as he does.  Oh I guess it doens't hurt that I've got Peyton.

 

891714[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I hear yah, that was definately one of the arguments against adding a second QB when our league was trying to decide. It feels less like a true team.