Do you prefer spending a high pick on a stud quarterback or going with a QBBC? Explain.
Matt Waldman: I can already tell that the underlying theme of my answers for this week's Faceoffs is "flexibility." The longer I play this game, the more flexible I'm becoming with my preferences towards strategy, pick type, etc. Still, I tend to focus on quarterbacks who I think have a shot at stud status who ranked between the studs and high-end QB2s. This is the position were I don't mind a low floor, but not necessarily a high ceiling. Perhaps it's because the distribution of points in QB rankings tends to be tight enough that playing the QBBC or forsaking top talent elsewhere for a top QB isn't as worthwhile for me as a fantasy owner. Having one clear starter gives me more room to manage a roster during the season without constantly watching the waiver wire for another QB who might present a better opportunity for my committee.
Chad Parsons: I will not spend a high pick on quarterback. The value simply does not add up. My first set of targets at the position is Cam Newton and Colin Kaepernick in the fifth or sixth round range. Their running ability creates a high ceiling on a weekly basis that can almost single-handedly win fantasy matchups. After that range, I am content to wait until the seventh or eighth round for Robert Griffin III, Russell Wilson, or Matthew Stafford. The final option, which I have used in more than one draft where multiple owners drafted their backup quarterback by the eighth round is a high-upside committee approach. My favorite options are Michael Vick and EJ Manuel. Both add the rushing element, which in my opinion is the quickest way to get into the QB1 mix, and will show their stripes early in the season. If neither one pans out, there will be less competition for the waiver wire flavor of the week as the other owners will be connected to the quarterbacks they drafted highly just a few weeks before.
Adam Harstad: It depends on what the rest of the draft is doing, but I typically prefer to get a really high-end QB where I can. I wouldn't take one in the first round, but if Rodgers or Brees are on the table in the mid-to-late 2nd round, and my top-tier targets at the other positions are gone, I'll gladly break the seal on the position. Quarterbacks are probably the safest and most predictable position from season-to-season, but they still offer tremendous difference-making potential. In the last seven years, at least one QB has finished in the top-12 of overall VBD every year, with an average of 2.7 a year. In standard scoring, the top three players in total VBD over the last two years are all quarterbacks (Rodgers, Brees, and Brady). Since joining New Orleans, Drew Brees has topped 50 VBD every year, and has averaged 103 a season. Since becoming a starter in Green Bay, Aaron Rodgers has topped 75 VBD every year, and has averaged 121 a season. These guys simply provide too large and too consistent of an advantage over their peers not to try to roster one where possible.
The arguments against taking a top QB is that the position is deep; if you wait at QB, you can still grab a guy like Tony Romo, who passed for 4900 yards last year. This argument misses the point; Drew Brees still outscored Tony Romo by 70 points last year in even the most unfavorable scoring systems (1 point per 25 yards passing, 4 points per passing TD). In non-PPR, Dez Bryant outscored Lance Moore and Stevie Johnson by just under 70 points last season; would you ever hear anyone suggest that you shouldn't draft Dez Bryant early because guys like Moore and Johnson will still be available late? 70 points was the difference between Ray Rice (last year's 6th best RB) and BenJarvus Green-Ellis (last year's 19th best RB). Would anyone pass on Ray Rice because they figured they could probably grab a BenJarvus Green-Ellis in the 8th round? Based on current ADP, the same pick that nets you Tony Romo could just as easily land you Moore, Johnson, or Green-Ellis, and it'd leave you at just as much of a disadvantage compared to your peers who addressed the position in the 2nd or 3rd round.
In leagues that gave 1 point per 20 passing yards and 6 points for passing TDs, the gaps just become even larger. In that scoring system, the difference between Brees and Romo was nearly 100 points last year, which was about the same as the difference between Demaryius Thomas and Donnie Avery in a non-PPR. In PPR leagues, it was the difference between an Atlanta receiver (269 points for White, 262 for Jones) and a Seattle receiver (168 points for Rice, 161 points for Tate). 100 points was the difference between Jimmy Graham and Scott Chandler in PPR leagues last year, or the difference between Jimmy Graham and Jeff Cumberland (29/359/3 receiving) in non-PPR. In leagues that give 6 points for passing TDs, Brees and Rodgers become even more slam-dunk picks in the second round, and even merit consideration at the end of the first.
Low-end QB1s have seen their numbers rise dramatically over the last decade, but it doesn't matter, because high-end QB1s have seen their numbers rise just as dramatically, if not more so. There are very few players with a floor as high as Brees' or Rodgers' (75+ VBD) who also have a ceiling as high as Brees' or Rodgers' (200+ VBD), and none of those other players are still available in the 2nd round.
Andy Hicks: Like Adam said, it depends on how the rest of the draft is going. If I'm in the 4th round and the last of my tier of 2nd level elite receivers is gone or the quality running backs are all drafted, then I may look to see if an elite quarterback is still available. If not, I'm happy to wait until about 10 are off the board and then go back to back.
Ultimately I would prefer to rely on 1 quarterback rather than playing by committee. Few things in fantasy football are worse than having 2 potential starting quarterbacks and you chose the one who throws for 190 yards and 1 TD, while the one you have on the bench lights it up with 350 yards, 4 touchdowns and 1 rushing TD. Going with an elite quarterback makes this less of an issue, but where do you draft them? With the depth of elite quarterbacks this year you can probably wait until round 5 or 6 and get an elite one or play the committee game once 10 are off the board. Either strategy can work well, but it's better to adapt to your draft, rather than definitely taking a QB by round 4. You can get into all kinds of trouble if you decide on which position to pick in which round.
Jeff Pasquino: I have to lawyer up and say that it depends, but I have to see how the league's draft (or auction) unfolds. If there is an early run on quarterbacks, I will be looking at the QB10-12 group and targeting drafting one of those guys, especially in a 4-point per passing TD league. If players are slipping and I see that a top notch guy is available in Rounds 6 or later, I might just grab him. Odds are that I will be taking one of the last 3 starters in a draft (QB10-12 off of the board) and considering a strong backup plan. There is a good drop-off in value after QB12, so I want to make sure I get a Top 12 guy - and that means he will be my weekly starter. I already know which quarterbacks pair up well with certain starters if I want to wait, or I may even go with a QB14 or QB15 option for what would appear to be a committee - but that is not my plan overall. I want my second quarterback to be someone I could feel comfortable starting if my primary guy gets injured, so The Cutlers, Tannehills and Bradfords are on my deeper list whereas Andy Dalton is towards the upper QB2 tier for me. Those deeper guys (or maybe even Michael Vick) will be my QB2 if I wind up with a Top 7-9 quarterback.
Will Grant: The only time I really think about taking a QB in the first three rounds is if I'm playing in a league that requires or allows you to flex two QBS and the scoring system justifies starting two each week. In leagues that only require you to start 1 QB instead of 2, there are simply just too many other options you want to have on your roster with those important first three picks. Yes a guy like Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees will outscore guys like Tony Romo and Russell Wilson almost every week, but given the fact that you only have to start one QB, it still makes more sense to draft a RB or WR because the drop off is so much greater between the top tier guys and the worst starting option each week.
Even more importantly, you can slack off on QB while pounding RB/WR and then when the 7th or 8th round comes along, you can draft two mid-tier QBS that are not off on the same week and just play the match-ups. While you probably won't be able to close the gap completely with the guys who drafted Rodgers and Brees early, you can still probably get close enough to where your stronger RB/WR positions will carry you through the season. While there is something to be said for the 'set it and forget it' mentality that you can take when you take a guy like Rodgers early, a little active management is a small price to pay for a stronger team at other positions.
Mark Wimer: I agree with Adam that it is well worth an early-round draft pick to get a shot at elite-level quarterback statistics. However, I am slightly more conservative than Adam in that I want to wait a little longer on quarterback and pay for a guy like Matt Ryan (or Peyton Manning, or Cam Newton) who may well end up leading the NFL in fantasy points at his position, but whom can be drafted two or more rounds later than Rodgers or Brees.
My reason for this approach is simple: in order for Rodgers and Brees to justify their lofty draft pick, they have to produce at the high end of their likely range of statistics. Ryan/Manning/Newton, however, could be squarely in the middle of the range I anticipate for them and still be worthy of a third/fourth round pick, and they MAY produce on a Rodgers/Brees level. Ryan/Manning/Newton provide much more possible upside from the position where they can be drafted, compared to Rodgers and Brees.
