oldschool Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 7 minutes ago, Starkiller said: Yeah, I’ll take my chances… You only get to start 1 QB. There’s no point in hoarding them. Yeah, everyone wants one of the top guys because everyone wants a top guy at every position. But having 3 top QBs is a bad investment. And getting good young players is just as important at every position. It being a dynasty league doesn’t make QB magically more valuable than RB. QBs are really valuable in a superflex league. But this isn’t a superflex league… I will enjoy watching you mismanage your team because you think this is a typical redraft league. Don't waste those top 3 picks year after year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abenjami Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 4 minutes ago, oldschool said: I will enjoy watching you mismanage your team because you think this is a typical redraft league. Don't waste those top 3 picks year after year. He hasn't cut Andy Dalton yet... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 As for the Darnold trade, I think some of you are fooling yourselves on the value of late 2nd rounders in this format. Most of the guys being taken now are not going to amount to anything. Its a supply and demand issue at this point. The rookie pool is further reduced by the fact only QB/WR/TE/RB are draftable position wise. Once you get past the first 15-18 picks, there isn't much difference value wise. @Starkiller is making the same mistake on QB value others are on 2nd round value that doesn't really apply in a dynasty rookie draft. The 2nd round in this format is closer to the 7th-10th round in traditional formats. The idea Darnold was some huge value at moving back 3 picks is laughable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 1 minute ago, abenjami said: He hasn't cut Andy Dalton yet... And I don’t plan to. He is Chicago’s starting QB for now. I’ll cut him when they bench him for Fields… But the real question is how much will you give me for him? @oldschool just said guys like that aren’t valuable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiscotitansfan Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 10 hours ago, abenjami said: The problem generally isn't your starter, it's that you are completely fucked if your starter gets hurt because every other starting QB is already rostered. Exactly... The "problem" (it's obviously not a problem) is roster size, every other reason stems from that. 1 hour ago, oldschool said: If you don't see why QB's are more important due to the dynasty format then you won't last long here. It's always funny when a FNG comes in and starts running their mouth before they even get the lay of the land. Again, Dynasty by itself has nothing to do with it besides everyone already scooped up players they have no intention of ever starting and that same player will stay on the back end of rosters for years. Hell, a convincing argument for having a top player at other positions being more important (especially WR where they usually stay elite for half a decade) is that you have a set it and forget it starting lineup, you're not gonna have many QBs just to play matchups like you would veterans in skill positions, and then can stash many more rookies and 2nd year players waiting to develop who you can then flip much easier than a QB. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abenjami Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 4 minutes ago, Starkiller said: And I don’t plan to. He is Chicago’s starting QB for now. I’ll cut him when they bench him for Fields… But the real question is how much will you give me for him? @oldschool just said guys like that aren’t valuable. I wouldn't give you anything for him because I'm already stocked at QB with Wilson and Dak. But you have 3 much better QB's in Tannehill, Stafford and Kyle Allen. So why not just cut Dalton now if starting QB's aren't very valuable in this league? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 12 minutes ago, abenjami said: I wouldn't give you anything for him because I'm already stocked at QB with Wilson and Dak. But you have 3 much better QB's in Tannehill, Stafford and Kyle Allen. So why not just cut Dalton now if starting QB's aren't very valuable in this league? Starting QBs are valuable in every league this size. It’s not as if I said they are less valuable here. As for Kyle Allen… woof… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 30 minutes ago, wiscotitansfan said: Exactly... The "problem" (it's obviously not a problem) is roster size, every other reason stems from that. Again, Dynasty by itself has nothing to do with it besides everyone already scooped up players they have no intention of ever starting and that same player will stay on the back end of rosters for years. Hell, a convincing argument for having a top player at other positions being more important (especially WR where they usually stay elite for half a decade) is that you have a set it and forget it starting lineup, you're not gonna have many QBs just to play matchups like you would veterans in skill positions, and then can stash many more rookies and 2nd year players waiting to develop who you can then flip much easier than a QB. The dynasty format absolutely plays a huge part since if you draft a top 5 QB, especially a young one, you are set for 5+ years or longer at the position. The huge rosters further compound things and place greater value on QBs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiscotitansfan Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 18 minutes ago, oldschool said: The dynasty format absolutely plays a huge part since if you draft a top 5 QB, especially a young one, you are set for 5+ years or longer at the position. The huge rosters further compound things and place greater value on QBs. That's the exact same with every position besides RB. The issue (it's not an issue) is everyone hoarding 3+ QBs. No one is hoarding a dozen-plus WRs on their non-IR which would probably be close to the equivalent to players at the position.... If we had less spots, the 3rd/4th string QB would be the first person dropped That being said - I wanted Mac Jones, so fuck you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 1 hour ago, wiscotitansfan said: That's the exact same with every position besides RB. The issue (it's not an issue) is everyone hoarding 3+ QBs. No one is hoarding a dozen-plus WRs on their non-IR which would probably be close to the equivalent to players at the position.... If we had less spots, the 3rd/4th string QB would be the first person dropped That being said - I wanted Mac Jones, so fuck you! It is different though since there are only 12-15 viable QB starters whereas there are many more RBs and Wrs to choose from. that being said the huge roster is an issue for more than just QB hoarding, its just not as pronounced for other position groups. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abenjami Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 Even with the huge roster sizes, you can ALWAYS pick up a RB/WR/TE in any given week who will get touches. Obviously we're not talking about the same quality of player you'd get in a standard redraft league but it's definitely much easier to fill in for injuries and bye weeks at these positions, not to mention they score less points on an average weekly basis than QB. It's a completely different picture at the QB position. If your QB goes down or has his bye week, you're screwed if you don't have at least a serviceable backup already on your roster. Right now the only free agent QB who is actually a starter is Fitzy and he'll likely be snagged up in free agency before the season begins. It's impossible to consistently win games with a bottom tier QB who scores 10-15 fantasy points. You're just spotting your opponent 10-15 points right off the bat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiscotitansfan Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 17 minutes ago, oldschool said: It is different though since there are only 12-15 viable QB starters whereas there are many more RBs and Wrs to choose from. that being said the huge roster is an issue for more than just QB hoarding, its just not as pronounced for other position groups. I'm gonna drop it after this but that's also like saying there are many more than 24-30 viable RBs (need to start a minimum of 2) where scarcity isn't a huge issue. You're acting like the drop off from elite players to middling guys at every other position is chump change compared to QB. I've gotten far in the playoffs for many years playing matchups with QBs. The best QB I've ever had in this league is Cam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiscotitansfan Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 5 minutes ago, abenjami said: It's a completely different picture at the QB position. If your QB goes down or has his bye week, you're screwed if you don't have at least a serviceable backup already on your roster No, you're not... You pick up a QB who's starting this week that IS available and you move on and adjust just like with every single other major team-crippling injury. I've had no problem picking up guys the caliber of Foles or whoever is either replacing the injured player or just a spot start shitty QB (and still winning) the past couple years picking up slack to play matchups and shit like that No one in the entire history of this league hasn't been able to find a starting QB as spot start, just like what you'd be doing at RB but in that case likely a guy with even less impact on the actual gameplan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiscotitansfan Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 And if you lose your QB for a long period of time you can trade for a relatively viable player for dirt cheap compared to what you’d get for other positions in that scenario losing your QB doesn’t put your entire season on ice like you’re trying to say Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abenjami Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 Of course you can always trade for a relatively viable player but the point is that trade will cost you more than a standard redraft league. Who would you rather have in this league right now? Russell Wilson or Trevor Lawrence? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.