This has been discussed to death in the past but....

[himmystyles 29]

In a ppr league with 6 pt passing tds and l yardage bonuses at 300, 350, 400, etc do you grab a top end qb in the second round or still stack high end wr/rb and look for later value? Basically, are the big three worth the investment very early on. I know this has been talked about in past years, but would like updated thoughts based on this year. In my league with this format, brees/Rodgers/cousins/Brady were far and away the highest point producers by years end obviously.

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

In a ppr league with 6 pt passing tds and l yardage bonuses at 300, 350, 400, etc do you grab a top end qb in the second round or still stack high end wr/rb and look for later value? Basically, are the big three worth the investment very early on. I know this has been talked about in past years, but would like updated thoughts based on this year. In my league with this format, brees/Rodgers/cousins/Brady were far and away the highest point producers by years end obviously.

 

I don't change my strategy at all. If somehow Rodgers or Brady fell to the 3rd round I would go against my strategy and take one but that's it. My first two rounds are strictly for the best RBs and WRs.

[weepaws 2,459]

Don't see any reason to draft a QB before round 6.

 

And a Te.

[Kent 228]

I play in a league with friendly QB scoring like this. Brady, Rogers, and Brees go in the first round every year. Those teams routinely do well/contend.

 

The people who are telling you otherwise don't understand the format well enough.

[Oriole8159 86]

I play in a league with friendly QB scoring like this. Brady, Rogers, and Brees go in the first round every year.

 

The people who are telling you otherwise don't understand the format well enough.

agreed

[himmystyles 29]

agreed

Yes we've been doing this format in my big money league for years and I don't rmember a team winning without a top 5 qb. Sucks to swallow that pill and take a Rodgers/Brady but the other level production you get is crazy. Many weeks have been won solely on their 50-point performances.

[Kent 228]

Yes we've been doing this format in my big money league for years and I don't rmember a team winning without a top 5 qb. Sucks to swallow that pill and take a Rodgers/Brady but the other level production you get is crazy. Many weeks have been won solely on their 50-point performances.

Odds are this year in the QB friendly league I play in, Brady goes #1 overall.

[Ray_T 589]

In a ppr league with 6 pt passing tds and l yardage bonuses at 300, 350, 400, etc do you grab a top end qb in the second round or still stack high end wr/rb and look for later value? Basically, are the big three worth the investment very early on. I know this has been talked about in past years, but would like updated thoughts based on this year. In my league with this format, brees/Rodgers/cousins/Brady were far and away the highest point producers by years end obviously.

how big are the yardage bonuses?

 

with 6 point passing TD's the top QB's will be worth more, the mediocre ones wont (because once you get beyond the top 3 or 4 QB there is no advantage to picking early)

 

The yardage bonuses help but depending on how large they get, it could make picking a QB early to your advantage.

 

I'd strongly consider Rodgers or Brees because you know they are gonna get a lot of TD's.

 

Brady would be the third QB of the big 3. His age scares me a bit but the potential rewards are too large to ignore.

 

That being said, I dont want to give you a complete answer because I'm still not with complete info. (what are those yardage bonuses?)

 

Keep in mind, those bonuses will once again add value to your top QB's and the rest .... meh.

[Captain Goomy Noomy Roo 47]

You have to go QB early if your scoring is one point per completion for the QB.

 

That just stacks the points and if you are not in on that you are lost.

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

I play in a league that awards 6 points for passing TDs and a 10 point bonus for over 300 yards. No team has won are even finished second in the last three years with a top 5 QB on their roster. Every team that has won had an average QB with a couple great RBs and WRs. This doesn't mean that taking those QBs high were the reason they didn't win but it proves that it's not necessary. It's all about picking the right players in multiple positions, mostly RB and WR though.

[himmystyles 29]

how big are the yardage bonuses?

 

with 6 point passing TD's the top QB's will be worth more, the mediocre ones wont (because once you get beyond the top 3 or 4 QB there is no advantage to picking early)

 

The yardage bonuses help but depending on how large they get, it could make picking a QB early to your advantage.

 

I'd strongly consider Rodgers or Brees because you know they are gonna get a lot of TD's.

 

Brady would be the third QB of the big 3. His age scares me a bit but the potential rewards are too large to ignore.

 

That being said, I dont want to give you a complete answer because I'm still not with complete info. (what are those yardage bonuses?)

 

Keep in mind, those bonuses will once again add value to your top QB's and the rest .... meh.

300 is 5 pt bonus and 5 points for every 50 yards after that (350, 400, 450 etc) and 1 pt every 25 yards passing.

[Ray_T 589]

300 is 5 pt bonus and 5 points for every 50 yards after that (350, 400, 450 etc) and 1 pt every 25 yards passing.

Those make for some huge games for your top QB's.

 

I think if you pick at the top you need to grab one.

 

If you pick much later than 5 or 6 you are likely better off grabbing a top RB.

[Brutal Brutus 182]

I'd consider Rodgers and Brady in the late second, early third. When your QB consistently puts up 20-30 points in standard scoring, you just about always have a chance. While every QB has a chance to do that on any given week, consistency is the key at that position. The other reason I'd lean towards drafting a QB early, is that I don't see a massive drop off in the skill positions from the late second to mid rounds. I think the late second round picks are more questionable than in previous years and the mid round picks are better than in previous years. If I'm staring down Rodgers, low end WR-1s, & high RB 2's, I'm going to be tempted to grab Rodgers. I'm not sure if he'll be there or not, as a lot people seem to want to grab him earlier, but it's earlier than I've been willing grab a QB in the past.

[Kent 228]

I play in a league with friendly QB scoring like this. Brady, Rogers, and Brees go in the first round every year. Those teams routinely do well/contend.

 

The people who are telling you otherwise don't understand the format well enough.

UPDATE: In my QB friendly league I got Rogers with the 9th pick. Brady and Brees were already gone.

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

I play in a league with friendly QB scoring like this. Brady, Rogers, and Brees go in the first round every year. Those teams routinely do well/contend.

 

The people who are telling you otherwise don't understand the format well enough.

Every championship over the past 20 years in my league have won by a team with a QB that finished in the top 3.

So if you want to win, you have to nail the QB first.

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

Rodgers, Brady went in round 1

Bree's and Ryan went in round 2

[himmystyles 29]

I had went brady in last pick of round 2- hoping last night was an anomaly.

[stonewall 647]

Don't see any reason to draft a QB before round 6.

 

And a Te.

 

I know you say this a lot, and I respect the right of every owner to draft as he/she sees fit.

 

However, in standard scoring leagues, if one is consistently winning league titles using this strategy, it is not because of it, but in spite of it.

 

That's just the hard truth in my experience. Have won exactly two titles with later round/waiver QB's over the years....Warner and Rodgers (1st year). But, consistently win titles (or at least make playoffs) with tier 1 set-it-and-forget-it QB's. I find that they single-handedly win you 3-5 games per year, which is often the nudge you need to make the post-season cut.

[Law 220]

It's never about position, but rather scoring and value.The value comes in how far down the list does scoring go, how reliable is it, how many positions are in starting lineups, and how many teams are in your league.

 

My league is set up where positional scoring is relatively the same - top QBs, RBs, and WRs score about the same. It's a 10-team that starts 2 QBs, 2 RBs, 3 WRs, a TE, and 1 W/R/T flex - not to mention 1 K, 1 DEF, and 5 IDPs. Most teams want 3 QBs (2 to start and 1 bench). QBs can go pretty quick. There's only 32 starters in the NFL, and some of them aren't too reliable. Usually, one or two teams take a QB in round one. This year, Brady went 7th and took Rodgers 10th. Brees and Ryan went in the 2nd before the real rush began. If you don't take them, you won't be left with anything viable and will be screwed. But, this is 10 teams playing 2 QBs.

 

If your league starts only 1 QB, it's usually better to wait. There's 10-15 very good QBs to be had. What's the difference between 1 and 15? 5 points per game on average? What's the difference between the #1 RB and #15 RB? 10 ppg? It's all about value and getting the best overall starting lineup.

 

It all comes down to league settings on number of teams, scoring, and relative value.

 

There is no ONE answer for ALL leagues.

[Redstone 0]

At 6 points per TD makes the QB weighted heavily. Like most leagues to even out the positions we changed to 4 per TD years ago. If you are in a league with 6 points per TD, target a stud QB early

[stonewall 647]

If you are in a league with 6 points per TD, target a stud QB early

 

 

Yeah, all mine are. I just feel like they are deserving of the same six they get in real time.

[mobb_deep 917]

Cancel out theory IMO.

[redsrback 30]

I play in a league with friendly QB scoring like this. Brady, Rogers, and Brees go in the first round every year. Those teams routinely do well/contend.

 

The people who are telling you otherwise don't understand the format well enough.

 

The difference between Rodgers and Eli Manning last year who was almost undraftable was 400 yds for passing. I may not know your format, but the 1 described by himmystyles tells me somebody would have to be an idiot to pass on a stud position player for what amounts to a point a game difference with a QB. I will get more from a stud in yardage and TDs.

[Kent 228]

 

The difference between Rodgers and Eli Manning last year who was almost undraftable was 400 yds for passing. I may not know your format, but the 1 described by himmystyles tells me somebody would have to be an idiot to pass on a stud position player for what amounts to a point a game difference with a QB. I will get more from a stud in yardage and TDs.

You're leaving out the TD comp. That's kind of a big deal.

[stonewall 647]

You're leaving out the TD comp. That's kind of a big deal.

 

....not to mention rushing

[Kent 228]

 

....not to mention rushing

Yeah. Rodgers had 14 more TDs. That's almost an extra TD per game. The two aren't close.

[redsrback 30]

Yeah. Rodgers had 14 more TDs. That's almost an extra TD per game. The two aren't close.

without that extra point you were taking a position player anyways

[Kent 228]

without that extra point you were taking a position player anyways

Extra 6 points per game plus bonus for yards. It's the difference between winning and losing. You have no compelling argument with this comp.

[redsrback 30]

But you arent basing taking a QB on the 6 pts in the first round , just the 1 extra pt per game is your rationality between Eli and Rodgers. Unless you want to be on record to take a QB in all leagues in the first. My only argument was the 1 extra point per game isn't enough to influence me to take that drastic of a strategy. So what round you take a kicker with bonus points for yardage which 1 could argue would give even more bonus points then a QB.

[Kent 228]

But you arent basing taking a QB on the 6 pts in the first round , just the 1 extra pt per game is your rationality between Eli and Rodgers. Unless you want to be on record to take a QB in all leagues in the first. My only argument was the 1 extra point per game isn't enough to influence me to take that drastic of a strategy. So what round you take a kicker with bonus points for yardage which 1 could argue would give even more bonus points then a QB.

You're the one making the one point extra per game argument. I'm not basing anything on that premise. Total score for the year separates the elite QBs. Enough already.

[IMMensaMind 459]

I got stuck with the #1 pick, and took Johnson. At the turn, I felt I had to solidify WR, so I took BPA: Baldwin, as I perceived a dropoff past him. And then Brees was staring at me.

 

As commish, I reviewed scoring results last year, and QBs scored 100 points more than other position, on average, with Brees/et al nearly 150 points higher. That's a pretty big differential; about 13% of total scoring in the league, so I dialed back passing TDs from 5 to 4.

 

Our league, though, rewards points for length of TD, which still makes a top QB very important. Brady and Rodgers were already gone, so I took Brees @ 3.1 (25th overall player taken). I couldn't justify another pick since I wasn't going to see another chance until 4:12 (49th overall).

 

Hope it works out.

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

First thing I will say is that I know it's only the first week and a lot is going to change.

 

With that being said, has week one changed anyone's opinions on taking a QB in the first two rounds at all? Maybe a little or was week one just a fluke? The top QBs were all guys that could have been taken very late or just picked up off waivers.

 

Now, I know what most are going to say, Rodgers and Brady are going to have great years yet. That is most likely to be true. What's also true is that every week there are going to be cheap guys putting up top 5 games every single week.

 

To me week one just solidified the reasoning behind taking a QB late. This doesn't mean that a QB should never be taken early I just think it weakens the reason for taking one so early.

[Kent 228]

First thing I will say is that I know it's only the first week and a lot is going to change.

 

With that being said, has week one changed anyone's opinions on taking a QB in the first two rounds at all? Maybe a little or was week one just a fluke? The top QBs were all guys that could have been taken very late or just picked up off waivers.

 

Now, I know what most are going to say, Rodgers and Brady are going to have great years yet. That is most likely to be true. What's also true is that every week there are going to be cheap guys putting up top 5 games every single week.

 

To me week one just solidified the reasoning behind taking a QB late. This doesn't mean that a QB should never be taken early I just think it weakens the reason for taking one so early.

Week 1 TD passes were EXTREMELY low compared to last year. Still want that elite QB in QB leagues.

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

Anyone that took QB early this year, was it worth it? This year seemed like a lot of other years were high scoring QBs were available on waivers throughout the year. I just checked my league and the highest drafted QBs that have been scoring well are Wilson and Brady, maybe Newton. I know Rodgers getting hurt didn't help but we was still only averaging the 7th most points per game in my league. Not worth that 3rd round pick at all.

[jgcrawfish 232]

People, it's a crapshoot. Rodgers is worth the early investment, until he breaks a collarbone and isn't. Brady is worth the investment, until he slows down at the end of the season and isn't. Nobody would ever bank on Blake Bortles, until he gets hot at the end of the season and carries teams to championships. No one is a guarantee, no one is injury proof. If you had Alex Smith early and Ben Roethlisberger or Philip Rivers late in the season you probably performed as well or better than any single QB out there. Past performance does not guarantee future results, or health.

[seafoam1 1,879]

Don't see any reason to draft a QB before round 6.

And a Te.

Except for Kelce .

[Hawkeye21 1,853]

People, it's a crapshoot. Rodgers is worth the early investment, until he breaks a collarbone and isn't. Brady is worth the investment, until he slows down at the end of the season and isn't. Nobody would ever bank on Blake Bortles, until he gets hot at the end of the season and carries teams to championships. No one is a guarantee, no one is injury proof. If you had Alex Smith early and Ben Roethlisberger or Philip Rivers late in the season you probably performed as well or better than any single QB out there. Past performance does not guarantee future results, or health.

Thats the biggest reason to wait on QB. There are so many QBs that can put up big numbers every week and you only need to start one. It would be different if you had to start more but in regular leagues you dont.