DRAFT QB?

[biju]

These arguments continue to come up because some people refuse to acknowledge VBD. The people who use it and believe in it will always say that whether or not a QB's TDs are worth 4 or 6 it doesn't change where you draft them because of:

a) scarcity: how many will be required and drafted vs. how many there are
b) relational position value: what the #1 will do vs. the #12

and as I've said before, this is for the most part true. It does widen the gap (b) between some of the tiers for sure, but otherwise it doesn't make a big difference.

For those of you that disagree I ask one question: why do you wait until the last two rounds to pick a defense and kicker? Make sure to be complete in your answer and not simply choose the "it varies too much year over year" argument because the same can be applied to this and you're arguing total points with the QBs.

[sirchadwick1]

Good thread, with lots of good points. I'm in a 6 pt QB TD league, PPR, where we start 1 QB, 3WR, 2RB, TE and Brees/Brady will be off the board in the 1st round no doubt. I see Peyton going in the mid 2nd and Rodgers/Rivers/Warner going in the 3rd and 4th.

While it's VERY tempting to take one of these guys... I won't unless they fall to me at a decent value. I'm perfectly fine stacking up my RB and WR until the 6th round and taking McNabb, Ryan, or Shaub for a deal.

If you go w/ the strategy to take a QB late in 6 pt QB TD leagues, then you MUST draft a solid backup/matchup QB sooner than you normally would in standard. I have won 2 out of 3 seasons in my competitive money leagues this way.

This year I have the #7 overall pick out of 10, and I'm most likely going WR-RB-WR-RB-WR or RB-WR-RB-WR-WR. I want to put a little more influence on top WR's considering we must start 3, but if I see a RB at a good spot I'm taking him if he's the better value. Holding off on the QB should pay off... I'll let everyone else in the league gamble on Brady and Brees hitting the jackpot again.

[benb18a]

The same as if passing TDs are worth 500000 pts.... Changing the value of passing TDs does not change the rankings of QBs to other positions. The only time a QB should be elevated in value is if the starting requirements are 2 QB.

This is my thinking. As long as passing TDs aren't worth MORE than regular TDs, there is no need to draft QBs earlier than normal. This happened in a league I just drafted in. The 12th QB was taken by the beginning of round 6, and I was like WTF is this? They used the all TDs = 6 excuse. So I was like Ok, I'll sit back and amass the best RB/WR core in the league while you guys pick up Romo in the 4th round etc.

[2ksports]

Good thread, with lots of good points. I'm in a 6 pt QB TD league, PPR, where we start 1 QB, 3WR, 2RB, TE and Brees/Brady will be off the board in the 1st round no doubt. I see Peyton going in the mid 2nd and Rodgers/Rivers/Warner going in the 3rd and 4th.

While it's VERY tempting to take one of these guys... I won't unless they fall to me at a decent value. I'm perfectly fine stacking up my RB and WR until the 6th round and taking McNabb, Ryan, or Shaub for a deal.

If you go w/ the strategy to take a QB late in 6 pt QB TD leagues, then you MUST draft a solid backup/matchup QB sooner than you normally would in standard. I have won 2 out of 3 seasons in my competitive money leagues this way.

This year I have the #7 overall pick out of 10, and I'm most likely going WR-RB-WR-RB-WR or RB-WR-RB-WR-WR. I want to put a little more influence on top WR's considering we must start 3, but if I see a RB at a good spot I'm taking him if he's the better value. Holding off on the QB should pay off... I'll let everyone else in the league gamble on Brady and Brees hitting the jackpot again.

Your sig pretty much summarizes how to draft QBs.

[joejlitz]

Drafting a QB early is a mistake. You can shuffle 2-3 avg QBs vs bad defenses and get the same net result. QBs are like defenses in leagues where you can only play 1 QB, except rather than get them off waivers each week, you just pick 2 decent ones near the end of the draft (Edwards & Hasselbeck) and shuffle them vs whichever pass defense is worse.

I have to say I totally agree with this lad.

And really - what are we talking about here? Saving our VALUE picks? Trying to be the smartest drafter around?

I draft my RB1, RB2, WR1, WR2, QB1, and TE1 all within the first 6 rounds of the draft and I try to be smart within those first 6 picks as to which round to choose the player at one of those positions. Because the bottom line is: It is your starters that win for you (we don't have a WR3 in my $$ league). So I could care less about taking a great RB3 in the 6th round because he ain't starting for me! If injuries happen or I miscalculated who my "sure things" were, I'll be an active and shrewd GM, play the waiver wire, and work trades. But I'm not going to sit here and tell myself that I can't draft a QB until the 8th round because I can get the great value for Schaub and maybe...just maybe...he'll perform as well as or slightly under Rodgers. The heck with that! I'm taking as many sure things as I can. Then I'll go pick Orton late in the draft and other guys with lots of unfulfilled potential and high ceilings.

[buffalobillsrul2002]

These arguments continue to come up because some people refuse to acknowledge VBD. The people who use it and believe in it will always say that whether or not a QB's TDs are worth 4 or 6 it doesn't change where you draft them because of:

a) scarcity: how many will be required and drafted vs. how many there are
b) relational position value: what the #1 will do vs. the #12

and as I've said before, this is for the most part true. It does widen the gap (b) between some of the tiers for sure, but otherwise it doesn't make a big difference.

For those of you that disagree I ask one question: why do you wait until the last two rounds to pick a defense and kicker? Make sure to be complete in your answer and not simply choose the "it varies too much year over year" argument because the same can be applied to this and you're arguing total points with the QBs.

First, QB with 6 pt. TD are worth a little more (not a lot more, but a slight bit more) relative to WR and RB becuase it does increase b) the relative positional value of QBs. It doesn't make a big difference, and it has more effect on how you rank QBs than how you rank them relaitve to WR and RB, but to say it has absolutely zero effect is just plain foolish. I assume you expect your #1 ranked QB to throw more TD passes than your #12 QB; hence, relational position value goes up and QBs should be drafted a bit higher. Not much higher, but a bit higher... I think everyone is assuming that the people saying QBs should go higher in a 6 pt. TD league are saying that they should all be moved up a full round or something and that everyone should have their starter by the end of the 5th round. They aren't; what should happen is QBs should be picked maybe a few picks higher than they would normally go because the value between tiers increases somewhat.....

Drafting a QB early is a mistake. You can shuffle 2-3 avg QBs vs bad defenses and get the same net result. QBs are like defenses in leagues where you can only play 1 QB, except rather than get them off waivers each week, you just pick 2 decent ones near the end of the draft (Edwards & Hasselbeck) and shuffle them vs whichever pass defense is worse.

Ah, the ol' QBBC. One big reason you change defenses week-to-week though is that there are always 16 (or so) defenses out on the waiver wire in a 12-team league, and week-to-week, at least one is bound to be OK and have a nice matchup. With QB, the waiver wire sucks, unless you have an injury like Cassel last year (and maybe Thigpen to some extent). However, in a 12-team league, usually around 25-28 QB are owned (pretty much every team takes 2, some teams take a 3rd in the last few rounds). Also, 80% of the time if the starting QB for a team gets hurt, the team won't let the backup QB throw nearly as much. The result of this is that if you are going to play QBBC, you have to hit on your 2 QB picks for it to succeed (it's possible to succeed if one hits, your team is an epic disaster most likely if both miss). It's an awful lot of pressure on two mid-to-late round picks.

For instance, you want Edwards + Hasslebeck (for example) around rounds 9-11 (based on a 12-team league). Edwards is risky because you are betting that for the first time ever, Dick Jauron decides to throw the ball, and you are taking a QB with a bad o-line, and little mobility/physical skill, and betting he will succeed. With Hasslebeck, you are betting that his back stays healthy for the entire year. You also know going in that if either starter gets hurt (remember, Edwards had a concussion last year too), then the backup is virtually worthless. I'm not saying QBBC is a bad strategy, because it's one I like to use if QB is flying way too high off the board for my taste. QBBC just looks a lot better on paper than it often plays out in real life....

[moochman]

Drafting a QB early is a mistake. You can shuffle 2-3 avg QBs vs bad defenses and get the same net result. QBs are like defenses in leagues where you can only play 1 QB, except rather than get them off waivers each week, you just pick 2 decent ones near the end of the draft (Edwards & Hasselbeck) and shuffle them vs whichever pass defense is worse.

I have to say I totally agree with this lad.

And really - what are we talking about here? Saving our VALUE picks? Trying to be the smartest drafter around?

I draft my RB1, RB2, WR1, WR2, QB1, and TE1 all within the first 6 rounds of the draft and I try to be smart within those first 6 picks as to which round to choose the player at one of those positions. Because the bottom line is: It is your starters that win for you (we don't have a WR3 in my $$ league). So I could care less about taking a great RB3 in the 6th round because he ain't starting for me! If injuries happen or I miscalculated who my "sure things" were, I'll be an active and shrewd GM, play the waiver wire, and work trades. But I'm not going to sit here and tell myself that I can't draft a QB until the 8th round because I can get the great value for Schaub and maybe...just maybe...he'll perform as well as or slightly under Rodgers. The heck with that! I'm taking as many sure things as I can. Then I'll go pick Orton late in the draft and other guys with lots of unfulfilled potential and high ceilings.

Do you then take the top D? While I usually try to fill my roster, if I don't get an elite QB, I will fill some backup positions before taking a QB in the 8-10th rounds.
To clarify my stance on the 6pt per TD thingie. I am always battling with taking a QB early. I think Brady is hands down the best QB this season becuase he will throw so many TDs. In a 6pt league, I would succumb and take him with my first pick.

[smoyer]

Thanks fellows I do not think any of you are wrong.Just different views on drafting,which makes fantasy exciting.

[Kensat30]

People get caught up in drafting starters and backups during the draft.

Bottomline, no one is a starter or a backup for your team until week 1 of the season. Some people don't realize this until 8 weeks of underperformance from their "RB1" gives them the motivation to bench the guy. Other owners won't bench the guy all year regardless of how he is performing. Yet another guy sees a matchup in WEEK ONE and will start his RB3 or RB4 etc. over guys he took ahead of them because he realizes the goal is to score the most points, not to start your highest draft picks.

The strategy of getting the most points in your starting lineup doesn't necessarily mean to draft your "starters" at certain positions versus your "backups" at other positions. And getting the most points in your lineup is not over once the draft is complete, that's where the second phase of fantasy skill comes into play, roster management. My goal at the end of each draft is to get the most high upside players with the least amount of risk that will allow me to play matchups and choose from variety of quality options on game day. How you go about getting those players through the draft is not the same as optimizing your starting lineup at the beginning of the draft IMO.

Instead of viewing picks as backups and starters, why not view all of you picks as potential starters? If I can get Larry Johnson as a RB3 relatively early in the draft instead of Tony Gonzalez as a "starting" TE, is the cost really all that high if I land Greg Olsen 4 rounds later when I would have taken someone like Fred Jackson instead? Where is the lost opportunity. And as a RB3 is Larry Johnson automatically a backup? Weren't Deangelo Williams, Matt Forte, Steve Slaton, etc. etc. backups for most players last year? Hell, going back to my initial example, in that situation Greg Olsen might even outperform Tony Gonzalez even though he goes 3 or 4 rounds later. How did you optimize your starting lineup there? All I see is that you've got a low upside guy in Fred Jackson sitting on your bench, while I am debating whether I want to start Larry Johnson versus the Raiders or Ryan Grant versus the Bears in week 5 or whatever.

Actual draft "slot" position is only important as it relates to ADP and predicted draft values prior to making the picks. Don't get caught in the trap of thinking high draft picks spent on all the starting positions are going to automatically create a better "starting" lineup for you.

[biju]

These arguments continue to come up because some people refuse to acknowledge VBD. The people who use it and believe in it will always say that whether or not a QB's TDs are worth 4 or 6 it doesn't change where you draft them because of:

a) scarcity: how many will be required and drafted vs. how many there are
b) relational position value: what the #1 will do vs. the #12

and as I've said before, this is for the most part true. It does widen the gap (b) between some of the tiers for sure, but otherwise it doesn't make a big difference.

For those of you that disagree I ask one question: why do you wait until the last two rounds to pick a defense and kicker? Make sure to be complete in your answer and not simply choose the "it varies too much year over year" argument because the same can be applied to this and you're arguing total points with the QBs.

First, QB with 6 pt. TD are worth a little more (not a lot more, but a slight bit more) relative to WR and RB becuase it does increase b) the relative positional value of QBs. It doesn't make a big difference, and it has more effect on how you rank QBs than how you rank them relaitve to WR and RB, but to say it has absolutely zero effect is just plain foolish. I assume you expect your #1 ranked QB to throw more TD passes than your #12 QB; hence, relational position value goes up and QBs should be drafted a bit higher. Not much higher, but a bit higher... I think everyone is assuming that the people saying QBs should go higher in a 6 pt. TD league are saying that they should all be moved up a full round or something and that everyone should have their starter by the end of the 5th round. They aren't; what should happen is QBs should be picked maybe a few picks higher than they would normally go because the value between tiers increases somewhat.....

Yep, that's exactly why I said that it doesn't change things "for the most part" and that the gaps/tiers widen a bit. That's *absolutely not* saying there is zero effect, just a very minimal one that is effectively negligible given the context that people think they need to start grabbing QBs a round or two earlier.