Do you ever screw another owner intentionally in a draft?

[Upper Class Trash 67]

I took Stafford in the 4th round of a recent redraft. A couple owners were waiting on QB's (Romo & Cutler mostly). The guy picking in front of me took Cutler in the 7th, although he already had Brees and then I followed up with Romo. Our rosters already look very solid with the necessary starters already drafted. We now have two owners out of twelve who are down to some pretty lousy choices at QB. After we drafted, I think the rest of the league caught on and took their backups as well. Both owners thought they could nab these guys in the 8th and had already picked in the 7th.

 

Is this bad sportsmanship, or good drafting? I think taking Cutler and Romo if your roster is filled out (RB's & WR's) is simply a smart move to back up a key position. The two owners are bitching that the league conspired against them. It is a no-trade league, so they aren't happy.

[tanatastic 2,061]

its not bad sportsmanship at all. Im sure those guys that waited on qb still got guys they are happy with. In most cases you only hurt yourself trying to block others at qb. But in that case id say stafford and romo are a fine pair. The only concern of mine is the emphasis on starters. backups are just as, if not more important. How often has your lineup looked completely different halfway through the season? Backups are monumentally important, especially through the bye weeks. but you didnt do anything too crazy. Would I call it good drafting? No. If both qbs play all 16 games then you will just be playing weekly matchups and NEVER picking the right one while the fantasy gods up above snicker. Generally thearlier you take your starter, the later you wait for a backup, and 4th rnd is early. But I wouldnt call it crazy either, its not like you took romo in rnd 5 so you will live.

 

The real morons are those that think they are being clever by spending 2 relatively early picks on qbs. I just laugh and take a qb normally later when I want and get a guy im perfectly happy with. Meanwhile they burned a top pick that could have been this years surprise mvp at rb or a pro bowl wr.

[posty 2,295]

The real morons are those that think they are being clever by spending 2 relatively early picks on qbs. I just laugh and take a qb normally later when I want and get a guy im perfectly happy with. Meanwhile they burned a top pick that could have been this years surprise mvp at rb or a pro bowl wr.

Depends on your scoring and league setup...

[R8RMick 242]

Depends on your scoring and league setup...

Exactly.

[bobby heenan 60]

If it isn't collusion, and there's money involved, there is no such thing as screwing someone over imo...unless there's a situation that I'm not thinking of at the moment

 

Last year in a very high stakes league....one of my main competitors (on a yearly basis)were both in the top 3 spots with several weeks to go...we do blind bid waivers and have a season cap òn bid money....there was an obvious guy I wanted and thought he might be very interested as well...I actually happened to stumble upon a post he made on another forum (first initial and last name screen name and identical roster)....I realized he wasn't considering the guy and was going to go in another direction...and I would not have to outbid him for the services....anything to gain an advantage

[GreenTD 56]

its not bad sportsmanship at all. Im sure those guys that waited on qb still got guys they are happy with. In most cases you only hurt yourself trying to block others at qb. But in that case id say stafford and romo are a fine pair. The only concern of mine is the emphasis on starters. backups are just as, if not more important. How often has your lineup looked completely different halfway through the season? Backups are monumentally important, especially through the bye weeks. but you didnt do anything too crazy. Would I call it good drafting? No. If both qbs play all 16 games then you will just be playing weekly matchups and NEVER picking the right one while the fantasy gods up above snicker. Generally thearlier you take your starter, the later you wait for a backup, and 4th rnd is early. But I wouldnt call it crazy either, its not like you took romo in rnd 5 so you will live.

 

The real morons are those that think they are being clever by spending 2 relatively early picks on qbs. I just laugh and take a qb normally later when I want and get a guy im perfectly happy with. Meanwhile they burned a top pick that could have been this years surprise mvp at rb or a pro bowl wr.

This. I'm notorious for waiting on the QB position to fill depth at the RB/WR position & it's screwed me several times in the past with owners taking my target as their back-up. It's on me for not taking the QB earlier.

 

No issue from what I see.

[weepaws 2,450]

Agree. If you wait , you might get burned . It's happen to me in the past .

[Baker Boy 1,466]

Anytime you start a run on a position it is a good pick.

[Ray_T 587]

Bad Sportsmanship is when you do something shady to hinder someone in some way.

 

there is no bad sportsmanship in a draft. by not drafting any given player, you are taking your chances that you will be able to get that player later, or you are saying you don't care if someone else takes the player in question.

 

So if you have a QB, you need a solid backup right? well if these guys aren't picking their QB's and you are taking your backup, that's their issue. not yours.

 

keep in mind, by taking a backup QB you are forfeiting a player at another position.

 

a draft is all about tradeoffs.

 

and if a person drafted 6 QB's their roster would be pretty bare at other postions. That is the price you pay for having 6 QB's.

 

so don't worry about this. you are well within your rights to do what you are doing.

[We Tigers 71]

I think it's neither bad sportsmanship nor good drafting. If you spend your 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round pick on a QB, taking a backup that early strikes me as a less-than-ideal luxury pick. Sure, you might have your starters filled in, but I'd much rather have an extra Golden Tate/Terrance West/Reggie Wayne on my roster than a QB I'm going to start once.

[Stewburtx8 67]

I think it's neither bad sportsmanship nor good drafting. If you spend your 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round pick on a QB, taking a backup that early strikes me as a less-than-ideal luxury pick. Sure, you might have your starters filled in, but I'd much rather have an extra Golden Tate/Terrance West/Reggie Wayne on my roster than a QB I'm going to start once.

 

 

Agreed. As someone who almost always waits on a QB, it drives me absolutely crazy when someone uses a high pick on Manning, Rodgers, or Brees, but then comes back in the 7th or 8th round and drafts a Cutler or Romo. What is the point? You drafted a QB that high for the safety/security of having a top 3 guy. You should never need a backup other than one bye week. So you just wasted a pick that could of been used on RB/WR depth that you are likely chasing because you took a QB early.

[bandrus1 413]

Him and vowed to never speak of it again

[JtmoneyJag 25]

I had Graham at 2.04 and then took Rudolph in the 10th. I knew a guy who was targeting him and he is left with a crappy TE situation now. It helps even more since he is in my division and I play him twice. Plus if Rudolph goes off, then I have great trade bait with an owner desperate for TE.

 

So to answer your question, yes. I don't think it is screwing him over, it is just being very strategic. Obviously you do so because it benefits you, not just to piss someone off.

[Flgatorguy87 160]

That's the entire premise of a draft right? To make your team better by taking players before another team? Tell these clowns to fock off.

[Flgatorguy87 160]

One time I had my friend pretend to be a realator and sneak into another guys house to steal his pre draft rankings.

[laxdad57 2]

The QB situation I think has several possibilities, most all agree the position is very deep and many favor waiting, myself included. That said, the top tier is very very good and if they fall like in a pro draft I will jump on one of them. So even if I end up with one of the big three there are still those 10-15 ranked guys that I really think have high ceilings and I may grab one of them as well, if I guessed right on the late QB I'm in a great position to strengthen my team by trading either QB to gain a stud at another position. The same value occurs for those stockpiling RB/WR's who hit on both early and late picks and are in a position to then trade for help at other positions.

[tanatastic 2,061]

 

 

Agreed. As someone who almost always waits on a QB, it drives me absolutely crazy when someone uses a high pick on Manning, Rodgers, or Brees, but then comes back in the 7th or 8th round and drafts a Cutler or Romo. What is the point? You drafted a QB that high for the safety/security of having a top 3 guy. You should never need a backup other than one bye week. So you just wasted a pick that could of been used on RB/WR depth that you are likely chasing because you took a QB early.

1000x this. You only pay the high price for such a deep position because of the guaranteed returns and security of not needing to take a backup qb til late. Its spending alot now to save later, like buying an expensive power tool vs 3 crappy ones over a year.

[laxdad57 2]

The only wasted pick is a bad pick. If you're in a no trade league that sets different and more balanced depth needs.

 

As an example, a team in one of my 10 team leagues actually drafted 4 QB's, three after P. Manning and hit on two of the three late QB picks and dropped the other. He traded (to the team that got screwed waiting for a QB) P. Manning for D. Thomas and an RB2 half way through the season and was still solid at QB.

 

If you're winning with a solid starting line-up and your bench is going off (regardless of bench balance) you're in a great position to deal and while those guys are going off on your bench they are not helping anyone else in your league (screw them).

[ZeroTolerance 582]

Yeah, if anyone complains about someone drafting a backup QB before they have taken their first one, that is a joke. If you choose to wait into late rounds to take your first QB (or TE), you are assuming a risk in exchange for what you would perceive to be a reward (an extra round or two where you can add to your RB/WR depth).

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

The only reason i would take an early backup would be for trade bait later. Its not bad sportsmanship though.

[jaxjag 43]

 

 

Agreed. As someone who almost always waits on a QB, it drives me absolutely crazy when someone uses a high pick on Manning, Rodgers, or Brees, but then comes back in the 7th or 8th round and drafts a Cutler or Romo. What is the point? You drafted a QB that high for the safety/security of having a top 3 guy. You should never need a backup other than one bye week. So you just wasted a pick that could of been used on RB/WR depth that you are likely chasing because you took a QB early.

 

Guys don't get hurt in your world?

[We Tigers 71]

The only wasted pick is a bad pick. If you're in a no trade league that sets different and more balanced depth needs.

 

As an example, a team in one of my 10 team leagues actually drafted 4 QB's, three after P. Manning and hit on two of the three late QB picks and dropped the other. He traded (to the team that got screwed waiting for a QB) P. Manning for D. Thomas and an RB2 half way through the season and was still solid at QB.

 

If you're winning with a solid starting line-up and your bench is going off (regardless of bench balance) you're in a great position to deal and while those guys are going off on your bench they are not helping anyone else in your league (screw them).

 

QBs are rarely valuable trade assets though, especially in any league that's 12 teams or less. Because it's actually not that hard to "hit" on late QB picks given how heavy a passing league the NFL has become, you're unlikely to receive solid value for a QB. Obviously you'll get a pretty good payoff if you trade the guy having the best season by a quarterback in NFL history, but I've almost never see them pay off outside of a 2QB league.

 

 

 

Guys don't get hurt in your world?

 

They do; they're just usually RBs and WRs. Another good reason not to splurge on a luxury backup at QB.

[JT 137]

Just good draft strategy if that's the strategy you want to pursue. Certainly nothing shady or unsportsmanlike.

[JT 137]

 

 

They do; they're just usually RBs and WRs. Another good reason not to splurge on a luxury backup at QB.

 

 

51 different guys started at QB in the NFL last season.

 

There may be other solid arguments against front-loading with QB depending on your league structure, scoring, roster limits etc. But that they don't tend to get injured doesn't seem to be one of them.

[DrG 94]

People in one of my leagues know I like to cuff my backs so a few will take my backups early to mess w me. Usually it hurts them. Keep an eye on the wire and matchups and you'll be fine

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

People in one of my leagues know I like to cuff my backs so a few will take my backups early to mess w me. Usually it hurts them. Keep an eye on the wire and matchups and you'll be fine

How does it usually hurt you? Because i cant seem to pick the cuff in a draft that is going to start to save my life.

[DrG 94]

When you draft based on what you think hurts someone else you are usually not making the best move for your team

[WhiteWonder 2,170]

Agree with tantastic. Love when people do this. I'll take the next man up. Enjoy your two qbs in the top 7 rounds

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

I wouldn't consider it dooshy but it's shooting yourself in the foot. Screw grabbing a second QB and get the added depth on the RB/WR/TE position as year to year (other than a few guys) you don't know if your top picks are busts this year.

[Stewburtx8 67]

 

Guys don't get hurt in your world?

 

 

I don't draft with the expectation that my top 3 QB is going to get hurt. If Manning, Rodgers, or Brees get hurt, and I used a 1st or 2nd round pick on them (hypothetical, I never take a QB early), I am likely in trouble anyways.

 

By the way, I'm not saying you should not take a backup QB at all (even though I probably wouldn't), but there is absolutely no reason to use a middle round pick on a backup QB. If anything, take a backup QB in the 14th round or later.

[Ray_T 587]

 

 

Agreed. As someone who almost always waits on a QB, it drives me absolutely crazy when someone uses a high pick on Manning, Rodgers, or Brees, but then comes back in the 7th or 8th round and drafts a Cutler or Romo. What is the point? You drafted a QB that high for the safety/security of having a top 3 guy. You should never need a backup other than one bye week. So you just wasted a pick that could of been used on RB/WR depth that you are likely chasing because you took a QB early.

I gotta disagree with you on that.

 

You ALWAYS need a backup because injuries do happen.

 

I have found that most years there are two types of teams that end up near the top.

 

1) teams that drafted reasonably and had no injuries

2) Teams that drafted reasonably, had injuries, but due to depth at the key positions Were not hurt sufficiently to cause them to lose a ton of games.

 

There is nothing wrong with wanting a good backup. While I would agree RB's are more prone to injury so backup RB's are more important, but I'd say a backup QB would be the next best position to have depth at.

 

WR's are easy to find replacements for. There always seem to be a couple out there who are on the Waiver wire, but have a decent matchup and are good enough for an emergency/bye week filler.

 

I think solid backups are important.

 

That being said, having more than 2 QB's on a roster in a 10 team league may not be wise (unless you are in a 2 QB league) But that is another story.

[WhiteWonder 2,170]

to echo Stewburt

 

i don't think the issue is having or not having a backup QB as the owner of a top 3 guy you drafted early. Some people would elect not to draft a backup and simply grab one off waivers for the bye week, but there is nothing wrong with grabbing a bradford type later on. The issue is using a 7th or 8th on another QB. Theoretically that guy should play once during the year for you. Sure, its nice to have someone on your bench in case Brees goes down but how thin do you want to leave yourself everywhere else?

 

Some people think they are hurting the guys who wait for QB's. What I think they don't realize is they are actually pulling the wool over their own eyes. QB is so deep that even if a few owners take their backups early, I would be perfectly fine with Rivers, Romo, Cutler, Kaepernick, Wilson, Dalton, Big Ben while I load up at other positions.

 

 

I have also seen guys think they are slick taking 2 early QBs and thinking "yeah i'll gouge the owner who waits in a trade!!" ...... good luck with that

[We Tigers 71]

Some people think they are hurting the guys who wait for QB's. What I think they don't realize is they are actually pulling the wool over their own eyes. QB is so deep that even if a few owners take their backups early, I would be perfectly fine with Rivers, Romo, Cutler, Kaepernick, Wilson, Dalton, Big Ben while I load up at other positions.

 

 

I have also seen guys think they are slick taking 2 early QBs and thinking "yeah i'll gouge the owner who waits in a trade!!" ...... good luck with that

Yeah. There are 13 guys I'd be really pleased to get at their cost, and then 3 more I'd be fine with were there a massive run on QB. You'd need a lot of guys in on this "take all the QBs!" plan to really wreck someone's day.

[WhiteWonder 2,170]

Yeah. There are 13 guys I'd be really pleased to get at their cost, and then 3 more I'd be fine with were there a massive run on QB. You'd need a lot of guys in on this "take all the QBs!" plan to really wreck someone's day.

 

years ago in my first or 2nd 'FFT June Mock' i waited way too long on a QB. Late guys I targeted started to go and by the time I drafted my QB, 5 or 6 teams had backups already. I ended up with Eli Manning.

 

pretty sure he finished top 10.

[tanatastic 2,061]

 

I have also seen guys think they are slick taking 2 early QBs and thinking "yeah i'll gouge the owner who waits in a trade!!" ...... good luck with that

Yea I could write a book on QB trade value and how its almost nonexistant without rb/wr in the deal as well. People look at draft position and disregard relative value. Trust me, in a 1 for 1 trade you couldnt even get an rb2 for your top 3 qb. Why? Cuz the guy with that stud is perfectly content with his cutler, romo, ryan etc. He doesnt care if you spent a 1st round pick on brees, thats your problem. Hes not just going to decimate himself at RB to replace a qb he is already happy with or at least "Willing to ride out and see what happens.".

[WhiteWonder 2,170]

Yea I could write a book on QB trade value and how its almost nonexistant without rb/wr in the deal as well. People look at draft position and disregard relative value. Trust me, in a 1 for 1 trade you couldnt even get an rb2 for your top 3 qb. Why? Cuz the guy with that stud is perfectly content with his cutler, romo, ryan etc. He doesnt care if you spent a 1st round pick on brees, thats your problem. Hes not just going to decimate himself at RB to replace a qb he is already happy with or at least "Willing to ride out and see what happens.".

 

yup. to make that trade you have to wait until the season starts and hope someones #1 shits the bed so badly (or gets injured) AND that team has so much RB depth that they would be willing to listen.

 

i'd much rather own Ryan with Peterson and Bernard than to trade for Brees, lose Bernard and have to start Chris Johnson....

[Vikings4ever 496]

The two owners are bitching that the league conspired against them. It is a no-trade league, so they aren't happy.

They gambled and lost. Tough sh*t.

[Ray_T 587]

to echo Stewburt

 

i don't think the issue is having or not having a backup QB as the owner of a top 3 guy you drafted early. Some people would elect not to draft a backup and simply grab one off waivers for the bye week, but there is nothing wrong with grabbing a bradford type later on. The issue is using a 7th or 8th on another QB. Theoretically that guy should play once during the year for you. Sure, its nice to have someone on your bench in case Brees goes down but how thin do you want to leave yourself everywhere else?

 

Some people think they are hurting the guys who wait for QB's. What I think they don't realize is they are actually pulling the wool over their own eyes. QB is so deep that even if a few owners take their backups early, I would be perfectly fine with Rivers, Romo, Cutler, Kaepernick, Wilson, Dalton, Big Ben while I load up at other positions.

 

 

I have also seen guys think they are slick taking 2 early QBs and thinking "yeah i'll gouge the owner who waits in a trade!!" ...... good luck with that

Agreed. if you are grabbing QB's thinking you'll be able to kick butt in a trade, you are dreaming.

 

the only QB's people will really pay for are the top 4 or 5 on the board (ie. the mannings, Brees, Rodgers of the league). After that, you wont get much for a QB in trade. If you grab a QB you grab it for yourself. in some cases, you may do it to keep someone from getting it, but the cases where that scenario makes sense are few and far between.

 

In this case where a bunch of people grabbed 2nd QB's if you grab the last player in a Tier for your backup this would be the time to do it. Especially if the guy drafting after you hasnt taken his starter yet.

 

in a draft, sometimes timing is everything.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

I have drafted backup qbs kind of high and traded them for value later in the season. Won a ship because of it one year. If the best available person on the board is a qb then take him. I took tom brady in the 9th of a draft this year when i already had a qb, and before everyone had a starter. Too good of value to pass up.

[murf74 461]

I am in an all guys league and nobody screws nobody else at the draft intentionally or unintentionally (how does that happen anyway), we ain't into that.