Value difference between QBs and RBs - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Value difference between QBs and RBs

Moderator: Football Moderators

Value difference between QBs and RBs

Postby JoJo_White » Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:31 pm

I made a similar post to this ealier but i was hoping to get some more insight on the problem im having. In my league, the scoring system and rosters are set up in which QBs are valued higher than most RBs. I did some VBD calculations and my top 12 (12 teams in my league) consisted of 9 QBs, Tomlinson, Holmes, and Moss. My main dilema is how i should go about drafting my team the first few rounds. Unless i have a 1st or 2nd pick, i've been considering drafting QB, QB or QB, RB, QB. Any thoughts or opinions on this?
JoJo_White
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 192
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby hawksfan896 » Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:42 pm

Most of the time QBs will score more than RBs on average, but RBs value is there because there's only a few RBs who can consistantly get you big points, where at least half the QBs in the league can score big for you every week. If you draft QB QB (unless you start 2) you can only use 1. Even if you get CPepp and Manning, the biggest scorers in most systems, you can only use 1 a week. Meanwhile you have passed up Holmes, LT, AGreen, SA, etc. etc. who will score much better than the next tier of RBs, while a guy like Trent Green or Marc Bulger will score hopefully somewhere in the neighborhood of the best QBs in the league. So you'll be left with one great QB, then a guy like maybe Corey Dillon or Kevan Barlow as your #1 RB. Not bad players, but will probablly average about 7 to 10 points/game in an average scoring system, while Holmes or LT will average more like 15. Meanwhile, say CPepp averages 20-24 and Trent Green would average 16-20. It's hard to say without knowing your scoring system/starts per position, but that's the gist of the RB draft style. Hope you understood it, I think I confused myself a little bit. Also, with a lot of scoring styles it's not unusual for the top few RBs to average more than the top QBs.
"When I was a kid I thought I was going to be the starting centerfielder for the Boston Red Sox. Life sucks, get a f___ing helmet." --Dennis Leary
hawksfan896
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 432
Joined: 1 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: las vegas

Postby JoJo_White » Tue Aug 17, 2004 12:48 am

oops...ya i forgot to mention that we start 2 QBs. Thats why i was questioning the value between them.
JoJo_White
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 192
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby hawksfan896 » Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:01 am

Well, it still doesn't change things much in my opinion. Consider this (using 1 pt per 15 yd rushing/receiving, 1 pt per 30 yd passing...i'm sure yours is a little different, but probably similar results): Manning was best QB last year using that format with 297 total points. Tom Brady was #10 with 234. The total difference was 63 points, or about 5 points a game. Priest Holmes was #1 for RBs with 300 pts. Travis Henry was 10 with 158 pts for a difference of 142 points, or just over 9 points a game. See what I'm getting at? It's what economists call a scarcity theory, what fantasy geeks call the Marshall Faulk theory. Granted RBs won't score as many points, but the dropoff is HUGE between 1 and 10. The winning strategy here is to try to get two top 10 backs, because the numbers keep going down. QBs level off: Hass, TGreen, Favre and McNair (No.s 3-6) were separated by less than 10 points total. If I were you, and the scoring system isn't completely skewed towards QBs, I would grab RB RB first 2 rounds, because if everyone else is thinking like you they'll grab QBs early and leave you some top tier RBs, then you can grab a couple of still good QBs later, because the point dropoff isn't that big. BTW WRs 1-10 is about a 5 pt. a game difference too, so in most leagues they should be valued about as much as QBs. Hope that helped.
"When I was a kid I thought I was going to be the starting centerfielder for the Boston Red Sox. Life sucks, get a f___ing helmet." --Dennis Leary
hawksfan896
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 432
Joined: 1 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: las vegas

Postby KingGhidra » Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:02 am

hawksfan896 wrote:Well, it still doesn't change things much in my opinion.


It changes everything. QBs are more scarce than RBs because there are only 32 starters, no QBBC. As far as VBD goes, the top QBs will be better than the top RBs. As far as some fantasy common sense goes, RBs are more consistent from year to year than RBs. If you have two guys who are pretty equal, I'd take the RB. The first 2 picks, the QB is probably much higher than the RB, so you gotta go with him and pick up 2 RBs later. Just remember that you have to have your QBs pretty early because if you miss a chance to get a decent backup, the only way you get one is through injury/benching.
KingGhidra
General Manager
General Manager

Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 4303
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football


Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 11:35 hours
(and 35 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact