QB value - Established verses Rookies

[kris_kapsner]

With a lot of people saying that Luck and RG3 are both top 5 rookie picks this year, I'm curious to get some of your perspectives regarding QB value.

I'm in two dynasty leagues, a 12 team and a 16 team league. In both leagues QBs tend to fall in rookie drafts.

I guess my personal philosophy is to trade for the QBs that REALLY hit in the NFL. Then draft rookie RBs and WRs. I mean, once you've gotten a hold of a Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Peyton Manning...do you need to draft another one for a decade? Not until they get into their mid to late 30's and even then you have time to find one.

But they cost to much to buy? Well, would you rather trade a couple of 1st round picks and a nice prospect for Aaron Rodgers and know that you're set for the next decade with an elite guy, or would you like to draft a rookie QB and hope he develops over the next 3-5 years into a top 8 guy?

I just feel that once a QB becomes truly proven as a top producer, I'd rather over pay to get that guy than spend a top 5 rookie pick on a guy whom, even if he's successful in the NFL, may not be a starting fantasy caliber player. Whereas, if you get a solid player at RB or WR, even if they don't become elite, they'll be a solid RB2 or WR3 for your team. The starting requirements for most leagues make this a much better route to go.

And therefore...I don't see myself drafted Luck or RG3 in the top 5 in this year's draft. The price paid isn't worth the wait, the risk and the potential to most likely end up with a player outside the top half of starting players at his position. They have to become top 6-8 QBs for the long run in order to become just better than 50% of the starting QBs in my league. The other positions like RB/WR are much more likely to produce a player I can use.

[bobbytheo3]

In my league, youd have no shot if you offered "a couple of firsts and a nice prospect" for Rodgers. Our league values established stud QBs the way you do, so if you want one, you have to overpay on your overpay. Thus, taking the rookies becomes a lot more reasonable.

[cha]

In my league, youd have no shot if you offered "a couple of firsts and a nice prospect" for Rodgers. Our league values established stud QBs the way you do, so if you want one, you have to overpay on your overpay. Thus, taking the rookies becomes a lot more reasonable.

^This

I would not even want to guess what the price for Rodgers would be right now or even if there was a price that would actually pry him away. In my league you draft and pray.

[gond13]

I agree in part that a stud or proven QB is the safer option but i also think that the college game has changed so drastically in the past decade that rookies are not only ready and prepared to play immediately in the NFL but they are also making big impacts. There used to be the 3 year rule with most rookies but those days are over and as the college game continues to evolve it's only going to make rookies even more ready to make the leap to the NFL. So for me it's really hard to say which is the better option.

Also, as far as a stud like Rodgers, i think alot depends on the situation with the team. Is the team contending or rebuilding? In one of my leagues an owner has Rodgers and nobody else. He lost Best and Mendenhall. He traded for Ingram and hasn't received any production from him yet. He has an aging Roddy White as a receiver and that's about it. Would he be better served to give up Rodgers for Matt Ryan and a 1.03 and 1.05 or something similar?

[lukeb]

I agree in part that a stud or proven QB is the safer option but i also think that the college game has changed so drastically in the past decade that rookies are not only ready and prepared to play immediately in the NFL but they are also making big impacts. There used to be the 3 year rule with most rookies but those days are over and as the college game continues to evolve it's only going to make rookies even more ready to make the leap to the NFL. So for me it's really hard to say which is the better option.

Also, as far as a stud like Rodgers, i think alot depends on the situation with the team. Is the team contending or rebuilding? In one of my leagues an owner has Rodgers and nobody else. He lost Best and Mendenhall. He traded for Ingram and hasn't received any production from him yet. He has an aging Roddy White as a receiver and that's about it. Would he be better served to give up Rodgers for Matt Ryan and a 1.03 and 1.05 or something similar?

No, that'd be a horrible trade for Rodgers owner.

[kris_kapsner]

I agree in part that a stud or proven QB is the safer option but i also think that the college game has changed so drastically in the past decade that rookies are not only ready and prepared to play immediately in the NFL but they are also making big impacts. There used to be the 3 year rule with most rookies but those days are over and as the college game continues to evolve it's only going to make rookies even more ready to make the leap to the NFL. So for me it's really hard to say which is the better option.

Also, as far as a stud like Rodgers, i think alot depends on the situation with the team. Is the team contending or rebuilding? In one of my leagues an owner has Rodgers and nobody else. He lost Best and Mendenhall. He traded for Ingram and hasn't received any production from him yet. He has an aging Roddy White as a receiver and that's about it. Would he be better served to give up Rodgers for Matt Ryan and a 1.03 and 1.05 or something similar?

First, I'm not trying to make a case for trading away Aaron Rodgers if you own him. But, I have seen Aaron Rodgers change hands a couple of times in both my leagues. So, it's not out of the question. Rodgers may be a tougher QB to trade for because of his age and production. But, how about Brees or Brady? Ok, maybe Brady is a little older than you'd like. How about Romo, Eli, Matt Ryan, Rivers? These guys will come FAR cheaper than Rodgers. And, they are young to middle aged QBs who are established quality starting NFL QBs. In my leagues all of those QBs finished in the top 10 and I would expect that to continue.

I guess my point is that you can spend an early 1st on a QB and what you are expecting is that he'll become one of the 5 best players at his position in the entire world. If he doesn't become top 12 in the entire world, he's not even a worthy starter. Yet, a top 40 WR or RB in the world will hold some value due to most leagues starting multiple RBs and WRs for their teams. So, the chance of you "busting" on the QB pick is far greater in my opinion. And therefore, it's riskier to draft a QB high like Luck and RG3 are being touted as right now.

Let me ask you this. If Cam Newton hadn't blown up last year would you be as excited to draft a QB early? Just look back at some other highly touted rookies and look at how long it took them to break out. Stafford certainly took three years. Ryan took about the same. Bradford is still working on things, but his 3rd year is coming up. Eli Manning took until his 6th season for anyone to call him a decent fantasy QB. Things can take time for QBs. That timeline, combined with the incredibly high expectation of production compared to their peers makes QBs less interesting for me to look at in the draft.

[RobertBobson]

I agree with you to some extent, Kris, when you talk about relative positional scarcity, but I think where Luck and RG3 differ substantially from almost all of the quarterbacks you named above who took time to develop, is how valuable they are on the ground. RG3 is a world class physical talent, and if he'd trained differently could have easily been on the 2012 olympic team for track. Luck, while not in that caliber of running talent, is still an extremely gifted runner, his combine times, agility, and jumping ability basically being the mirrors of Cam. So, while it may take them years to develop value as passers, I think they both will have value, from day one, because of their ability to scramble. That Scrambling ability raises their floors, raises their ceilings, and makes it easier for them to contribute to a team immediately. People are so excited about these two, because they are both such strong dual threats.

You ask that if Cam hadn't had the success he had, would we be so excited about these two. No, maybe not. But one of these two is as strong, as tall and as fast as Cam, with a much better college passing record, and the other one is a faster, quicker runner than cam and has a better college passing record. Both these prospects are better college prospects than Cam... so it's completely logical that their value would be inflated.

[tra151]

i agree for the most part with you as well. i have never really even considered a qb in my rookie drafts. even falling in drafts, they still usually go higher than i would want to pick them. i think this year is a different story. I dont completely trust RG3, but i do recognize that he has world class speed, and will likely be able to rely on that quite a bit. i think he will find success quickly, but i think he does fit your arguement that he may only be a 10-12 type guy.

i thiink luck is a different story. as mentioned, luck is a big, extremely athletic guy. I dont think he gets enough credit for that. he also seems to already possess alot of the skills that are major reasons why qb's struggle early. he mves well in the pocket, knows how to get his team in to the right plays, and keeps his eyes downfield when hes on the move. he seems like a big rodgers. i think he wil have sucess sooner than later, and i dont agree with the general idea that rg3 will have the better start to his career. I think he will elevate the players around him in indy and likely pass the second tier qbs you mentioned rather quickly. You'll be left with a top five guy, with probably 12 years left. if i didnt already have rodgers, i would definitly consider him at 1.01. if i had 1.02, which i'm trying to get, i would tke him there.