Goff value in 1QB

[Dynasty19]

What would everyone say Goff’s value is in a 1QB league? What would you pay?

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

I voted early 2nd. He's got a good coach and still young. I don't know that he'll ever be elite, but he can be a Matt Ryan or Matthew Stafford type where he gets you decent but unexciting low-end fantasy QB1 finishes for the next few years.

[dynastyfanatic]

Seems like hes about an early 2nd in our league. That's what I would want to pay, not sure if they will take it though unless they have a specific person in mind for the pick.

[Goddard]

I'd buy for an early 2nd and sell for a late 1st.

[honcho55]

Voted mid, meant late. I’d take pick 12-14 or so

[auggiedoggies]

I can't imagine paying anything close to a 1st for Goff in a 1QB league. The position is simply too deep, and it's not like Goff actually lit the world on fire last year finishing as QB12. I'd pay a late 2nd at the absolute most.

[Johnny Canuck]

late 2nd at best. He's a bye week QB/fringe ww guy in a 1QB league where owners are smart and don't roster 3 QBs. So if every team rosters 2 QBs in a 12 team league, only 24 should be owned, and Goff is in that QB18-28 big tier that doesn't really separate themselves that much.

Also, Baker/LJax are going in the mid to late 2nd in rookie drafts, and I think I'd rather have either of those guys over Goff.

[honcho55]

I don’t think I’ve seen Goff near 28th anywhere, rankings or ADP. See him about the 10th consistently. Think I’m in the minority on how much that’s worth in 1QB though (all my successful teams seem like they are strong at QB)

I would not give him up for any rookie this year.

I dunno, I didn’t like him as a prospect much, didn’t like him as a rookie obviously. Got him as a throw in before the season last year and he’s just grown on me ever since.

[thomasscheeks]

I don't think I could ever give a 1st for a QB in a 1 QB league, so I voted early 2nd

[skip]

where owners are smart and don't roster 3 QBs. So if every team rosters 2 QBs in a 12 team league, only 24 should be owned

Unless you are in a league with small rosters, this is redraft mentality. In dynasty leagues with normal rosters (24-30 players) all starters and some backups will be rostered.

This whole devaluation of QBs in 1 QB leagues nonsense is really in need of correction on this forum.

Goff is worth a 2nd, not a 1st. Plenty of other better options at that price.

[Johnny Canuck]

where owners are smart and don't roster 3 QBs. So if every team rosters 2 QBs in a 12 team league, only 24 should be owned

Unless you are in a league with small rosters, this is redraft mentality. In dynasty leagues with normal rosters (24-30 players) all starters and some backups will be rostered.

This whole devaluation of QBs in 1 QB leagues nonsense is really in need of correction on this forum.

I play in dynasty leagues with 21 man rosters, to keep the waiver wire strong and roster space decisions difficult. That's likely the difference in view points. In a 30 man roster, I imagine going 3 deep at QB would be fine I suppose. I still prob wouldn't do it in a 25 man roster though.

Now normally I agree with your opinion @Skip, but I respectfully disagree about the devaluation of QB in a 1 QB league. I personally think that any/every position that is a start one should be devalued...and devalued to a fair degree.

Let's make up a fake league for argument's sake.

Now, if I played in a league that was start 3 QBs, 3 RBs, 1 WR, 3 TEs....do you think I'd be rostering a ton of WRs? no I certainly would not, even with a large roster. I'd be grabbing as many of the other positions as I could because I actually have to start players in those spots week in/week out. At WR, I'd likely have my 1A option, my depth starter/bye week guy, and maybe a high end stash.

Yes the top end talent at a start 1 position should be valued slightly higher than the rest of the position (as they normally are), but they should still be devalued when compared with other positions, and never be on pair with other positional players of similar rank. For example, Rodgers is the consensus number 1QB, there is no way in hell, he should ever be valued the same as the number 1 WR/RB....unless you where in a start one WR, one RB, then they'd be the same. But that's not the norm, the norm is you start multiple WRs and RBs, and as such, Rodgers will not hear his name called in a dynasty start up ADP until after 36 or so players have already been called.

The devaluation is esp true for players that are further down the ranks, and are likely to never start for your team, in a start 1 position. These players should be devalued....because they offer little to no value to your starting lineup. NTM in those positions, it shouldn't be hard to find streamers or ww pickups because most of the talent shouldn't be rostered. If you truly believe that QB or TE or any other 'start one' position shouldn't be devalued, then I hope you're rostering 4/5 of each.

QB is just too deep, and once you have a set and forget starter, or anyone that's close to it (any of the top 18 options), that third, forth, or fifth QB is just rotting away in a bench spot that could be used on a lotto ticket, or a spot starter.

Now that's just one argument for devaluation of a 1 start position...

The other argument you may be referring to, is that the top 12 (starters) in a given position should be expensive as they're the best in their respective position. Now I'd like to go there with you, but the stats don't really back this up. For example, last yr, a total of 3.3 points per game separated the 6th ranked Cam Newton - from the 18th/19th ranked Blake Bortles/Carson Palmer (on a ppg basis). Now do you think I really want to pay premium prices for Cam, when I could get Bortles for about half the cost (if not cheaper). Why would I pay out the nose, when I just make up those three points elsewhere for much cheaper.

That specific argument gets even more convoluted when you pull in consistency data, specifically using our previous example of Cam/Bortles, Bortles actually was actually more consistent on a per game basis, scoring greater than or equal to 20.9 pts a total of 9 times last season, whereas Cam only broke that threshold 8 times. Another reason not to value Cam substantially higher than his lower ranked colleague Bortles. And this was all using points per game data, if you simply use their fantasy totals ranks, Cam finished ranked 2nd among QBs, and Bortles ranked 13th...

We can break down more examples if you wish, but there's a reason why streaming these 'one start' positions can be extremely successful. If the top players in a start one position where valued higher (where you want them to be) based on function/production contributed to a fantasy team, no one would be able to stream effectively. Now there's def something nice to be able to set and forgot certain positions, QB especially, but there is no way in hell I'm going to pay a premium to have that luxury...I'd rather keep my high end RBs/WRs...anyways that's the end of this novel.

If you have a retort I'd be happy to read/consider it, always nice to talk shop with someone that has as much experience as yourself and maybe expand my own views.

[honcho55]

Great post. I like all your points. However: 3.3 points a game might sound trivial but it’s just not. That’s the difference between shady and Alex Collins. Mike Thomas and mike Wallace.

Also the idea that, looking at my team, Wilson goes down, suddenly Goff is valuable. 14 team league, there’s probably 30-35 qbs rostered. I’m not guaranteed to even have a startable guy, let alone a guy who can hang within 3.3 points from Wilson. So roster settings are huge, yeah

[skip]

The other argument you may be referring to, is that the top 12 (starters) in a given position should be expensive as they're the best in their respective position. Now I'd like to go there with you, but the stats don't really back this up. For example, last yr, a total of 3.3 points per game separated the 6th ranked Cam Newton - from the 18th/19th ranked Blake Bortles/Carson Palmer (on a ppg basis). Now do you think I really want to pay premium prices for Cam, when I could get Bortles for about half the cost (if not cheaper). Why would I pay out the nose, when I just make up those three points elsewhere for much cheaper.

I'm going to pull this out because you are exactly right and why it's just as well used to support my position. Take that same ppg difference of 3.3 ppg and start at your #12 ranked RB or WR and how far down the rankings you have to go. You mentioned at QB, that was #18.

At WR, the #12 was AJG...3.3 ppg drop was #33 Mohamed Sanu
At RB, the #12 RB was CMC...3.3 ppg drop was #26 CJA

So I can make the same argument...why pay for AJG or CMC when at a fraction of the cost I can get Sanu or CJA? Every position is going to see the same hyperbolic drop from the top player down the rankings.

We can break down more examples if you wish, but there's a reason why streaming these 'one start' positions can be extremely successful.

I'll just add a quick note on this as well. In my 29 years in the game, I've never once witnessed a "streaming" strategy work at QB with lower options as there was no method of predicting which would produce well on a given week.

[auggiedoggies]

The other argument you may be referring to, is that the top 12 (starters) in a given position should be expensive as they're the best in their respective position. Now I'd like to go there with you, but the stats don't really back this up. For example, last yr, a total of 3.3 points per game separated the 6th ranked Cam Newton - from the 18th/19th ranked Blake Bortles/Carson Palmer (on a ppg basis). Now do you think I really want to pay premium prices for Cam, when I could get Bortles for about half the cost (if not cheaper). Why would I pay out the nose, when I just make up those three points elsewhere for much cheaper.

I'm going to pull this out because you are exactly right and why it's just as well used to support my position. Take that same ppg difference of 3.3 ppg and start at your #12 ranked RB or WR and how far down the rankings you have to go. You mentioned at QB, that was #18.

At WR, the #12 was AJG...3.3 ppg drop was #33 Mohamed Sanu
At RB, the #12 RB was CMC...3.3 ppg drop was #26 CJA

So I can make the same argument...why pay for AJG or CMC when at a fraction of the cost I can get Sanu or CJA? Every position is going to see the same hyperbolic drop from the top player down the rankings.

We can break down more examples if you wish, but there's a reason why streaming these 'one start' positions can be extremely successful.

I'll just add a quick note on this as well. In my 29 years in the game, I've never once witnessed a "streaming" strategy work at QB with lower options as there was no method of predicting which would produce well on a given week.

Fair points, but the difference is that you often only have to start 1QB, as opposed to multiple RB/WRs. If you wait on QB, you're only taking a 3-4 point hit at one spot. If you were to wait at RB/WR, you're taking it at multiple starting spots.

[skip]

Fair points, but the difference is that you often only have to start 1QB, as opposed to multiple RB/WRs. If you wait on QB, you're only taking a 3-4 point hit at one spot. If you were to wait at RB/WR, you're taking it at multiple starting spots.

I don't see how you are figuring that? This is moving it a bit out of context of the question because you've now jumped over to startup drafting. If I take the 3.3 point advantage at QB at some point when you are taking it at RB or WR, how exactly does that impact all of my RBs and WRs? It only impacts one starter, just like your decision impacts one starter. If anything, given the large number of options still available to me at RB and WR with similar production, I'm likely better off with the QB.