QB Value 14-Team Sflex

[pokerplayer1000]

Just curious if you would give a bump in value to QBs in a 14 team SFlex?

How early would you take a QB? top pick? top 5, end of 1st?

I personally think it would be a big advantage to having 3 starting QBs in a 14 teamer. Thoughts?

[millworkguy]

Just curious if you would give a bump in value to QBs in a 14 team SFlex?

How early would you take a QB? top pick? top 5, end of 1st?

I personally think it would be a big advantage to having 3 starting QBs in a 14 teamer. Thoughts?

1) yes
2) start-up or rookie: both-> no yes yes
3) of course

[moishetreats]

Just curious if you would give a bump in value to QBs in a 14 team SFlex?

How early would you take a QB? top pick? top 5, end of 1st?

I personally think it would be a big advantage to having 3 starting QBs in a 14 teamer. Thoughts?

1) yes
2) start-up or rookie: both-> no yes yes
3) of course

I agree with everything except the "no". In a start-up, the first few picks and most of the first two rounds should be QBs. In a rookie draft, in general, taking a QB 1st (and 2nd) would not be crazy. This year alone might be an exception.

[pokerplayer1000]

It just seems to me that despite what most people say on this forum about when to take them, when involved in those leagues people cant help themselves but to go after the shiny RB or WR.

[pierson242]

It just seems to me that despite what most people say on this forum about when to take them, when involved in those leagues people cant help themselves but to go after the shiny RB or WR.

I would still take Gurley Zeke Nuk and OBJ over any QB for sure. Bell and a few others are 50/50. But heres why, look at any ADP and youll see that if you pick top 4 are your next two picks in the 2nd 3rd there is very good Qbs left and the drop to them from who you would've taken isn't as far as it is for WR or RB. Also Wrs and RBs win you championships. While QB offer solid dependable points each week they aernt the guys blowing up to win games its usually QBs.

[moishetreats]

It just seems to me that despite what most people say on this forum about when to take them, when involved in those leagues people cant help themselves but to go after the shiny RB or WR.

I would still take Gurley Zeke Nuk and OBJ over any QB for sure. Bell and a few others are 50/50. But heres why, look at any ADP and youll see that if you pick top 4 are your next two picks in the 2nd 3rd there is very good Qbs left and the drop to them from who you would've taken isn't as far as it is for WR or RB. Also Wrs and RBs win you championships. While QB offer solid dependable points each week they aernt the guys blowing up to win games its usually QBs.

IMO, both of these are entirely the wrong approach.

Look, elite QBs will dominate, and elite RBs will dominate. Here's the rub: if you need to replace or the other in-season, it is FAR easier to find serviceable numbers out of lesser or even waiver-wire RBs than QBs. And it's not close.

In addition, the list of start-able RBs is faaaaaar longer than the list of start-able QBs.

Starting line-up scarcity, depth scarcity, cost to acquire a replacement in-season (and this doesn't even mention length of career!!!) -- these all favor the QBs massively. And scoring value is a wash. Finally, finding RBs in rookie drafts is far more reliable than finding QBs in rookie drafts.

Put it all together, and I can't see how drafting RBs ahead of the elite QBs makes any sense at all.

[Goddard]

Let the other owners go after the RB or WR in a startup and laugh at them when they have one startable QB on their roster and you have 2-3 good ones.

[moishetreats]

Let the other owners go after the RB or WR in a startup and laugh at them when they have one startable QB on their roster and you have 2-3 good ones.

Or 4-5 good ones! They'll have to come paying then.

[pokerplayer1000]

I agree 100%. Primarily many of the leagues I play in are 10 man 2 QB leagues, and in those leagues EVERY SINGLE year due to injuries/players losing jobs/bye weeks, teams struggle to field 2 QBs every week. In some cases teams will chalk up a lose or two, but often you can find trades, etc so I assume this would be more the case in a 14 team, sflex

[BigBawseRoss]

Let the other owners go after the RB or WR in a startup and laugh at them when they have one startable QB on their roster and you have 2-3 good ones.

Or 4-5 good ones! They'll have to come paying then.

horrible strategy that always backfires. the whole league sees you are hoarding to try to gouge an onwer in a trade and nobody will approach you trying to give what you are hoping to get

[BigBawseRoss]

get 2 you feel good about and a 3rd with upside or at least a job lol. like bradford teddy mccarron someone like that later on is a good idea

[pierson242]

It just seems to me that despite what most people say on this forum about when to take them, when involved in those leagues people cant help themselves but to go after the shiny RB or WR.

I would still take Gurley Zeke Nuk and OBJ over any QB for sure. Bell and a few others are 50/50. But heres why, look at any ADP and youll see that if you pick top 4 are your next two picks in the 2nd 3rd there is very good Qbs left and the drop to them from who you would've taken isn't as far as it is for WR or RB. Also Wrs and RBs win you championships. While QB offer solid dependable points each week they aernt the guys blowing up to win games its usually QBs.

IMO, both of these are entirely the wrong approach.

Look, elite QBs will dominate, and elite RBs will dominate. Here's the rub: if you need to replace or the other in-season, it is FAR easier to find serviceable numbers out of lesser or even waiver-wire RBs than QBs. And it's not close.

In addition, the list of start-able RBs is faaaaaar longer than the list of start-able QBs.

Starting line-up scarcity, depth scarcity, cost to acquire a replacement in-season (and this doesn't even mention length of career!!!) -- these all favor the QBs massively. And scoring value is a wash. Finally, finding RBs in rookie drafts is far more reliable than finding QBs in rookie drafts.

Put it all together, and I can't see how drafting RBs ahead of the elite QBs makes any sense at all.

Who won you a ship this year? Gurley or Rodgers. I never said ignore QBs i like to tak the Goffs, Daks, and in a recent draft Luck in the 2/3 turn while also have taken Gurley or Zeke round 1.

[moishetreats]

Let the other owners go after the RB or WR in a startup and laugh at them when they have one startable QB on their roster and you have 2-3 good ones.

Or 4-5 good ones! They'll have to come paying then.

horrible strategy that always backfires. the whole league sees you are hoarding to try to gouge an onwer in a trade and nobody will approach you trying to give what you are hoping to get

Always is a big word. Had you written "It's a high-risk strategy that has a real chance of backfiring and leaving you without a complete team or having to undersell your QBs," then I would have agreed with your suggestion and modified my comment -- because that would be correct. "Always", though? I have myriad examples of cases where this strategy has proven to be nothing short of gold.

Who won you a ship this year? Gurley or Rodgers. I never said ignore QBs i like to tak the Goffs, Daks, and in a recent draft Luck in the 2/3 turn while also have taken Gurley or Zeke round 1.

Um, wow. Picking one RB and one QB from 2017 isn't enough to prove a point. Let me ask you this: who do think is more likely to have elite production over the next 5 years -- Rodgers or DJ? Who do you think is more likely to have elite production over the next 8-10 years -- Wilson (based on how most see Wilson; obviously, people differ) or Gurley? Who do you think is more likely to have top-level production over the next 15 years -- Wentz or Zeke?

Difference-making QBs can win you a league -- especially in SF/2QB formats -- as much as difference-making RBs. And the former tend to be more reliable for predictable production and have many more years ahead of them.

Put it this way: in my Dynasty league in sig (Team 1), I essentially traded D. Freeman for 1.02. Forget whether or not you like that deal; it's about fair value (there were other parts to the trade, too, but that's the centerpiece). There would be almost no good QBs that I could get for 1.02. You couldn't get Rodgers, Wilson, Wentz, Goff, Prescott, Luck -- none of them. Obviously, you can't get Zeke or Gurley or DJ, either. But, I would happily go to war with Rodgers and Freeman against your top-3 RB and whatever QB is left on the turn -- not just this year, but for the next handful.

All this being said, it is exactly this kind of thread that makes me LOVE 2QB and SF leagues -- thank y'all for the different insights and approaches. It really is amazing how many more ways there are to construct a team and win (or lose!!!) in these leagues over 1QB leagues!!

[pierson242]

Or 4-5 good ones! They'll have to come paying then.

horrible strategy that always backfires. the whole league sees you are hoarding to try to gouge an onwer in a trade and nobody will approach you trying to give what you are hoping to get

Always is a big word. Had you written "It's a high-risk strategy that has a real chance of backfiring and leaving you without a complete team or having to undersell your QBs," then I would have agreed with your suggestion and modified my comment -- because that would be correct. "Always", though? I have myriad examples of cases where this strategy has proven to be nothing short of gold.

Who won you a ship this year? Gurley or Rodgers. I never said ignore QBs i like to tak the Goffs, Daks, and in a recent draft Luck in the 2/3 turn while also have taken Gurley or Zeke round 1.

Um, wow. Picking one RB and one QB from 2017 isn't enough to prove a point. Let me ask you this: who do think is more likely to have elite production over the next 5 years -- Rodgers or DJ? Who do you think is more likely to have elite production over the next 8-10 years -- Wilson (based on how most see Wilson; obviously, people differ) or Gurley? Who do you think is more likely to have top-level production over the next 15 years -- Wentz or Zeke?

Difference-making QBs can win you a league -- especially in SF/2QB formats -- as much as difference-making RBs. And the former tend to be more reliable for predictable production and have many more years ahead of them.

Put it this way: in my Dynasty league in sig (Team 1), I essentially traded D. Freeman for 1.02. Forget whether or not you like that deal; it's about fair value (there were other parts to the trade, too, but that's the centerpiece). There would be almost no good QBs that I could get for 1.02. You couldn't get Rodgers, Wilson, Wentz, Goff, Prescott, Luck -- none of them. Obviously, you can't get Zeke or Gurley or DJ, either. But, I would happily go to war with Rodgers and Freeman against your top-3 RB and whatever QB is left on the turn -- not just this year, but for the next handful.

All this being said, it is exactly this kind of thread that makes me LOVE 2QB and SF leagues -- thank y'all for the different insights and approaches. It really is amazing how many more ways there are to construct a team and win (or lose!!!) in these leagues over 1QB leagues!!

Just because you don't agree doesn't make it wrong, ive won many championships this way. Theres more than one way to skin a cat

[pierson242]

horrible strategy that always backfires. the whole league sees you are hoarding to try to gouge an onwer in a trade and nobody will approach you trying to give what you are hoping to get

Always is a big word. Had you written "It's a high-risk strategy that has a real chance of backfiring and leaving you without a complete team or having to undersell your QBs," then I would have agreed with your suggestion and modified my comment -- because that would be correct. "Always", though? I have myriad examples of cases where this strategy has proven to be nothing short of gold.

Who won you a ship this year? Gurley or Rodgers. I never said ignore QBs i like to tak the Goffs, Daks, and in a recent draft Luck in the 2/3 turn while also have taken Gurley or Zeke round 1.

Um, wow. Picking one RB and one QB from 2017 isn't enough to prove a point. Let me ask you this: who do think is more likely to have elite production over the next 5 years -- Rodgers or DJ? Who do you think is more likely to have elite production over the next 8-10 years -- Wilson (based on how most see Wilson; obviously, people differ) or Gurley? Who do you think is more likely to have top-level production over the next 15 years -- Wentz or Zeke?

Difference-making QBs can win you a league -- especially in SF/2QB formats -- as much as difference-making RBs. And the former tend to be more reliable for predictable production and have many more years ahead of them.

Put it this way: in my Dynasty league in sig (Team 1), I essentially traded D. Freeman for 1.02. Forget whether or not you like that deal; it's about fair value (there were other parts to the trade, too, but that's the centerpiece). There would be almost no good QBs that I could get for 1.02. You couldn't get Rodgers, Wilson, Wentz, Goff, Prescott, Luck -- none of them. Obviously, you can't get Zeke or Gurley or DJ, either. But, I would happily go to war with Rodgers and Freeman against your top-3 RB and whatever QB is left on the turn -- not just this year, but for the next handful.

All this being said, it is exactly this kind of thread that makes me LOVE 2QB and SF leagues -- thank y'all for the different insights and approaches. It really is amazing how many more ways there are to construct a team and win (or lose!!!) in these leagues over 1QB leagues!!

Just because you don't agree doesn't make it wrong, ive won many championships this way. Thats whats fun if we all built the same way it would be boring. Always remembe, theres more than one way to skin a cat