Fantasy Football Discussion

[spike]

I think it's weird when people draft 2 QBs in a league that doesn't start 2 QBs.

Do you think it’s weird to draft 4 RBs to only start 2 RBs?

Of course not.

Then what’s your beef with drafting 2 QBs?

He was speaking to his own experience/league the entire time, but put it out there as a blanket statement. This posting style gets epilogue into trouble often.

[lennytheweedwhacker]

Spike ain’t lying

[epilogue]

Don't we all post about our own experience?

Anyway, whatever beef y'all have with me and my posting style, I really don't get this complaint. I feel like I expanded on my thoughts and feelings about this over multiple posts and responses.

[epilogue]

Spike ain’t lying

Very interesting that Spike decided not to post my response. Spike might not be lying but he's also disingenuous here.

[lennytheweedwhacker]

Spike ain’t lying

Very interesting that Spike decided not to post my response. Spike might not be lying but he's also disingenuous here.

I’m just trying to get you riled up and horny

[epilogue]

Spike ain’t lying

Very interesting that Spike decided not to post my response. Spike might not be lying but he's also disingenuous here.

I’m just trying to get you riled up and horny

Oh

[lennytheweedwhacker]

Goodnight

[wease]

I think it's weird when people draft 2 QBs in a league that doesn't start 2 QBs.

Do you think it’s weird to draft 4 RBs to only start 2 RBs?

Of course not.

Then what’s your beef with drafting 2 QBs?

In most leagues RBs are far more valuable. They score way more points. You start at least 2 and maybe as many as 4 depending on your league's Flex spots. Having a wealth of RBs is good strategy.

Streaming QBs is usually pretty easy (again depending on the league). Taking a second QB that you know you aren't going to start week one means you're missing out on depth and value at other, more valuable positions. To me it's a waste of a draft spot most of the time.

But, even if you only draft him for use one week of the season, you’re also keeping your competitors from having and using him.

[epilogue]

I think it's weird when people draft 2 QBs in a league that doesn't start 2 QBs.

Do you think it’s weird to draft 4 RBs to only start 2 RBs?

Of course not.

Then what’s your beef with drafting 2 QBs?

In most leagues RBs are far more valuable. They score way more points. You start at least 2 and maybe as many as 4 depending on your league's Flex spots. Having a wealth of RBs is good strategy.

Streaming QBs is usually pretty easy (again depending on the league). Taking a second QB that you know you aren't going to start week one means you're missing out on depth and value at other, more valuable positions. To me it's a waste of a draft spot most of the time.

But, even if you only draft him for use one week of the season, you’re also keeping your competitors from having and using him.

Sure, but you're also not keeping another, more valuable positions player from your competitors.

I just don't value the QB position in fantasy (unless it's a 2 QB league or there are special rules in play) unless they are a major duel threat like Allen or Lamar. And if I have one of the big dogs, I'm likely never sitting them, so I only need a guy to cover their bye. I can stream that week. I don't need to draft a second guy and take up valuable bench real estate for at least four weeks.

[wease]

I think it's weird when people draft 2 QBs in a league that doesn't start 2 QBs.

Do you think it’s weird to draft 4 RBs to only start 2 RBs?

Of course not.

Then what’s your beef with drafting 2 QBs?

In most leagues RBs are far more valuable. They score way more points. You start at least 2 and maybe as many as 4 depending on your league's Flex spots. Having a wealth of RBs is good strategy.

Streaming QBs is usually pretty easy (again depending on the league). Taking a second QB that you know you aren't going to start week one means you're missing out on depth and value at other, more valuable positions. To me it's a waste of a draft spot most of the time.

But, even if you only draft him for use one week of the season, you’re also keeping your competitors from having and using him.

Sure, but you're also not keeping another, more valuable positions player from your competitors.

I just don't value the QB position in fantasy (unless it's a 2 QB league or there are special rules in play) unless they are a major duel threat like Allen or Lamar. And if I have one of the big dogs, I'm likely never sitting them, so I only need a guy to cover their bye. I can stream that week. I don't need to draft a second guy and take up valuable bench real estate for at least four weeks.

I appreciate your style of gameplay and your point of view

[epilogue]

The one exception is to stash a guy on IR. I've done that in the past with a QB that I really like but I know won't play the first few weeks.

[epilogue]

But I've also played in multiple leagues for almost 20 years and I never fucking win anything. So...

I don't know shit.

[Mecca]

It’s all about how the board shakes out, baby. I’d rather take an upside WR/RB than a 2nd QB, but if there’s a stud sitting there and I already have a starting lineup, sure maybe it’s worth using the pick to keep others from drafting them. The only problem is that the gap between the 10th best QB and 20th is maybe 1 point per week on average?

[epilogue]

It’s all about how the board shakes out, baby. I’d rather take an upside WR/RB than a 2nd QB, but if there’s a stud sitting there and I already have a starting lineup, sure maybe it’s worth using the pick to keep others from drafting them. The only problem is that the gap between the 10th best QB and 20th is maybe 1 point per week on average?

This guy gets it

[Chris_H_2]

I think it's weird when people draft 2 QBs in a league that doesn't start 2 QBs.

Do you think it’s weird to draft 4 RBs to only start 2 RBs?

Of course not.

Then what’s your beef with drafting 2 QBs?

In most leagues RBs are far more valuable. They score way more points. You start at least 2 and maybe as many as 4 depending on your league's Flex spots. Having a wealth of RBs is good strategy.

Streaming QBs is usually pretty easy (again depending on the league). Taking a second QB that you know you aren't going to start week one means you're missing out on depth and value at other, more valuable positions. To me it's a waste of a draft spot most of the time.

But, even if you only draft him for use one week of the season, you’re also keeping your competitors from having and using him.

Sure, but you're also not keeping another, more valuable positions player from your competitors.

I just don't value the QB position in fantasy (unless it's a 2 QB league or there are special rules in play) unless they are a major duel threat like Allen or Lamar. And if I have one of the big dogs, I'm likely never sitting them, so I only need a guy to cover their bye. I can stream that week. I don't need to draft a second guy and take up valuable bench real estate for at least four weeks.

i treat 2nd QBs the way i treat defenses - i only pick one up on waivers (never draft them) for a specific matchup when i need them. and so if my starting QB is on a bye, i'll hit the waivers for the best available QB just for that specific week. of course, it's different if my starting QB goes down with an injury. but to your point, outside of the top 2-3, QBs just are not super valuable.

[epilogue]

I think it's weird when people draft 2 QBs in a league that doesn't start 2 QBs.

Do you think it’s weird to draft 4 RBs to only start 2 RBs?

Of course not.

Then what’s your beef with drafting 2 QBs?

In most leagues RBs are far more valuable. They score way more points. You start at least 2 and maybe as many as 4 depending on your league's Flex spots. Having a wealth of RBs is good strategy.

Streaming QBs is usually pretty easy (again depending on the league). Taking a second QB that you know you aren't going to start week one means you're missing out on depth and value at other, more valuable positions. To me it's a waste of a draft spot most of the time.

But, even if you only draft him for use one week of the season, you’re also keeping your competitors from having and using him.

Sure, but you're also not keeping another, more valuable positions player from your competitors.

I just don't value the QB position in fantasy (unless it's a 2 QB league or there are special rules in play) unless they are a major duel threat like Allen or Lamar. And if I have one of the big dogs, I'm likely never sitting them, so I only need a guy to cover their bye. I can stream that week. I don't need to draft a second guy and take up valuable bench real estate for at least four weeks.

i treat 2nd QBs the way i treat defenses - i only pick one up on waivers (never draft them) for a specific matchup when i need them. and so if my starting QB is on a bye, i'll hit the waivers for the best available QB just for that specific week. of course, it's different if my starting QB goes down with an injury. but to your point, outside of the top 2-3, QBs just are not super valuable.

[wease]

I think it's weird when people draft 2 QBs in a league that doesn't start 2 QBs.

Do you think it’s weird to draft 4 RBs to only start 2 RBs?

Of course not.

Then what’s your beef with drafting 2 QBs?

In most leagues RBs are far more valuable. They score way more points. You start at least 2 and maybe as many as 4 depending on your league's Flex spots. Having a wealth of RBs is good strategy.

Streaming QBs is usually pretty easy (again depending on the league). Taking a second QB that you know you aren't going to start week one means you're missing out on depth and value at other, more valuable positions. To me it's a waste of a draft spot most of the time.

But, even if you only draft him for use one week of the season, you’re also keeping your competitors from having and using him.

Sure, but you're also not keeping another, more valuable positions player from your competitors.

I just don't value the QB position in fantasy (unless it's a 2 QB league or there are special rules in play) unless they are a major duel threat like Allen or Lamar. And if I have one of the big dogs, I'm likely never sitting them, so I only need a guy to cover their bye. I can stream that week. I don't need to draft a second guy and take up valuable bench real estate for at least four weeks.

i treat 2nd QBs the way i treat defenses - i only pick one up on waivers (never draft them) for a specific matchup when i need them. and so if my starting QB is on a bye, i'll hit the waivers for the best available QB just for that specific week. of course, it's different if my starting QB goes down with an injury. but to your point, outside of the top 2-3, QBs just are not super valuable.

I don’t disagree but the same can be said of RBs, WRs and practically every position when each team is drafting 3-4 at each position. You may have a bit more star power at those positions but by the time that 11th team is drafting their 4th RB, all choices are pretty much equal.

[spike]

There’s a handful of QBs where taking just them makes sense, but that only squares away maybe 5-6 teams at best. The rest of the league is well within sound strategy to take at least a couple signal callers to see who shakes out best.

And saying QBs aren’t that valuable is yet another terrible take. I undervalued the position for years and it led to some long seasons of middling QBs. I absolutely prioritize the position on draft day now and it’s led to much more success.

[epilogue]

And my experience has always been the opposite. The seasons where I prioritize QB early have been far worse for me. I have much more success waiting on the onesie positions, typically.

It's weird how our own personal experiences influence how we play.

[Chris_H_2]

also lost in the discussion: not all fantasy leagues have the same scoring systems, particularly when it comes to QBs.