I've been working on an index of QBs to drill a bit deeper into the numbers and try to really tell the difference between the "must-starts" and a "matchups-only" players.
What I want from the QB position is ~16 FPs/game. Generally, on draft day, I'll choose a guy who I think will get me that or better more or less weekly over a guy (like, say, Vick) who will regularly give me less (requiring me to make up those points elsewhere) but once in a while go off. So that's the standard against which I judge a QBs performance.
First, I looked at average points/game (more or less standard CBS Sportsline scoring) for the top 30 guys who might conceivably have been started by a FF manager Week 5 or 6 (as such, I only counted points scored in games started, hence Young only has 2 games worth included). Then I looked at their variation. Rather than go all nuts with the statistics and calculate how consistently they stayed within a standard deviation of their average, I decided to use a rougher (statistically) but more direct (and, for FF purposes, I think more useful) measure of their consistency: How often are they getting me the ~16 PPG I want and how often are they falling well short (plus a nod for when they give me blowout numbers).
The symbols at the end indicate their volatility. For 16-29 point games, no symbol is given. A ^ means a 30+ FP outing; a * means 10-15; and a # means 9 or less (there are a handful of negative point games in the set, which I thought about giving another symbol to, but haven't yet; if more show up, I may do that).
Hasselback is an excellent example of why I think this kind of charting can help with roster decisions. He's ranked 7th in PPG (I think that will go up as DEFs figure out how to handle Gradkowski and Leinert as I think their averages are at least partly due to the fact that no-one had any film on them), but he has 2 <10 FP games even as he has 2 >30 FP games. Contrast with McNabb who turned in what is for him a disappointing effort Sunday by only scoring 19 points - higher than all but the top 5 guys' averages - with 2 30+ FP games.
Anyway, this is a new idea for me and will likely evolve. Feedback is therefore welcome.
Name / FP / G / PPG / Volatility
McNabb, Donovan 168 (6) 28 ^^
Manning, Peyton 105 (5) 21 *^
Manning, Eli 101 (5) 20.2 *
Bulger, Marc 119 (6) 19.8 #*^
Leinert, Matt 39 (2) 19.5
Gradkowski, Bruce 38 (2) 19
Hasselbeck, Matt 86 (5) 17.2 ##*^^
Leftwich, Byron 85 (5) 17 #*
Frye, Charlie 82 (5) 16.4 #**
Brees, Drew 96 (5) 16 #**
Grossman, Rex 95 M (6) 15.8 #**^
Brady, Tom 78 (5) 15.6 **
Kitna, Jon 91 (6) 15.2 #***
Favre, Brett 76 (5) 15.2 ##*
Carr, David 76 (5) 15.2 #
Smith, Alex 73 (5) 14.6 *
Bledsoe, Drew 73 (5) 14.6 ##
Palmer, Carson 71 (5) 14.2 ##
Vick, Michael 70 (5) 14 ***
Pennington, Chad 83 (6) 13.8 #**
Rivers, Philip 81 (6) 13.5 #*
Delhomme, Jake 75 (6) 12.5 (##)**
Brunell, Mark 72 (6) 12 ###*
Losman, J.P. 72 (6) 12 ##**
Young, Vince 23 (2) 11.5 *
Huard, Damon 57 (5) 11.4 ###
Johnson, Brad 51 (5) 10.2 ##***
McNair, Steve 53 (6) 8.8 ##***
Plummer, Jake 39 (5) 7.8 ####
Roethlisberger, Ben 28 (4) 7 ###
There are some surprises if you look at QBs this way. Palmer is considered a must-start by most (or at least was until the last couple of games) but Carr outperforms him on PPG and volatility. it's hard to believe that makes Carr a better option, since Palmer has so much more upside, but it does suggest that both ought to be considered matchup plays (at least until CIN gets their O-line back up to par). Oh, and Delhomme's two ## are in parentheses because those are the two games he didn't have Smith.
This isn't the be-all and end-all, since it doesn't account for streaks (Bulger's two mediocre games were Week 1 and 2, for instance). But I think it's a better starting point that a raw average.