Of late, positional value has been the name of the game in my research, analysis, and commentary on dynasty fantasy football. Talent evaluation and acquisition will always be first and foremost in an owner's dynasty toolbox, but positional value and understanding league settings are firmly in the silver medal position.
To kick things off, this article from @SteveGalloNFL last summer blew my mind. I have read it at least once a month since then and have it bookmarked. Like a good movie, you get a little more every viewing. The audience may know all the lines by heart, but the undertones and subtle messages continue to expand over the years. In short, it can change your view from that moment forward.
I have discussed quarterbacks, value-wise, from a similar angle as running backs at times. While I am not opposed to finding a sweet spot for an Andrew Luck in round three of a startup draft this summer, in general I highly encourage letting the first 8-10 quarterbacks go to your leaguemates. Now, that approach has reached a new level. By preferring the other positional values at basically every single ADP checkpoint in a startup and considering Steve's article (plus the outstanding work of J.J. Zachariason, @LateRoundQB), zero quarterback theory in dynasty (specifically start-one leagues) is coming into focus.
The Shawshank Redemption line 'if you've come this far, maybe you're willing to come a little farther' fits with any fantasy football philosophy. If a valuation philosophy is slanting one direction, let us see what happens if you go all the way. If passing on quarterback for the first six-to-eight rounds of a startup has legitimate traction, what happens at 10 rounds? 15 rounds?
I was discussing this very subject with Ryan McDowell (@RyanMc23) recently. His article series over at dynastyleaguefootball.com about his approach to team-building is outstanding by the way. One of my comments was that at every step of the way, I had upside running backs, wide receivers, and tight ends equal to or higher in terms of raw value on my draft board, plus the quarterback position has the most gradual decline. Why on earth would I take a quarterback that had four or five other similar options still available when every other team already had their starter plus a few teams had a backup?
Looking at it with a 1,000-foot perspective, the other 11 owners are in a no-win scenario as the draft progresses. They have their starters at a singular position like quarterback. If they take say Tom Brady or Ryan Tannehill or Johnny Manziel in the QB12-18 range, what have they gained? They already have a top option (hopefully they do considering the initial purchase price of a top-100 startup pick) and this second option will function as bust insurance, bye week ammo, or trade bait. The third reason is a weak argument if one has played in a start-one quarterback dynasty league for a few years. Outside of an absolute elite option, quarterbacks are available on the trade market for cheap. Plus, look at typical quarterback prospects available in rookies drafts, Blake Bortles is available in the third round this year many times. There is little supply-demand leverage by quarterback sellers in established dynasty leagues. The buyers have the advantage because multiple teams will have two good options and the buyer can shop around.
Digging into more detail, as the top-12 to 15 quarterbacks went off the board in this startup, I looked at the last few years of production. This is a 6-point passing touchdown league, which props up the position almost as much as one can in the start-one format.
Last year, unless an owner had Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, or Nick Foles, it was essentially a level playing field. Even valued dynasty names like Aaron Rodgers, Matthew Stafford, and Andrew Luck failed to provide much of a weekly advantage. We are talking about a 4.0 points-per-game difference from QB4 all the way to QB22. Within that range are heavily discounted names like Andy Dalton, Ben Roethlisberger, Josh McCown, Alex Smith, Ryan Fitzpatrick, and Jay Cutler. Add the availability of this giant nebulus tier to the consistent work of J.J. Zachariason and the groundwork of how little value quarterbacks provide in head-to-head matchups by Steve Gallo, and this dynasty plan is coming into focus.
Are we selecting quarterbacks highly because they typically score the most points? Because owners have a need to fill out their starting lineups? Because owners do not want their quarterback spot to be a legitimate decision each week? My guess would be a blend of all of these things.
Back to the draft and going all the way with this theory. Once the first few quarterbacks are off the board, why would I jump at the position when the value is not there? That would be succombing to the need to fill my week one lineup card. I take Brandin Cooks over Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick. I take Odell Beckham Jr and Davante Adams over Jay Cutler. Once all the other teams have a starter, the position goes dormant. From pick 90 to pick 157, only one quarterback, Johnny Manziel, is selected. I seriously thought about Manziel in round 12. After realizing the flat-tier nature across the board over the next 20-30 players, I traded down. Moving down a round and a half netted a 2015 second round rookie pick. The pick ended up being free capital as all of my non-Manziel target players were still on the board at my new draft position.
After Manziel goes off the board, I feel alive with a new sense of power. This reminded me of a startup I did in 2011 when quarterbacks were all the rage. Aaron Rodgers and (gasp) Michael Vick were regularly first round startup picks. nine more quarterbacks were off the board in the first 70 selections in that draft. I felt pressured, like I would miss out on the position completely, if I did not jump in when I picked in round seven. Matthew Stafford and Sam Bradford go off the board in the early seventh round. I was sunk I thought, I would apparently be taking zeros at the position weekly for years to come. The urge to reach on a Joe Flacco or even (another gasp) Eli Manning or Kevin Kolb was high. Somehow I stuck to my board and waited another few rounds. During that waiting period I drafted Jimmy Graham and C.J. Spiller. Finally, at QB18, I selected Cam Newton. At a minimum I would collect his rushing production, which in my research, would make him a mid-level QB2 on a weekly basis. In short, the selection worked out just fine.
This year, there is no Cam Newton per se. Newton was the number one NFL draft pick, a physical freak at the position, and has been a top-five stalwart since his rookie season. Like I mentioned above though, there is a giant tier of intriguing quarterback plays from Philip Rivers (still being punished for one down year) to Alex Smith (rushing ability a big perk) to Blake Bortles (top-three NFL draft pick with underrated mobility) to Sam Bradford (on QB1 pace in 2013 before injury). I did not even mention Jake Locker, EJ Manuel, Geno Smith, or Teddy Bridgewater. While only a few of them (or none) may whet your appetite as a weekly starter, the ability (and flexibility) to play matchups and be open to a committee is key. Sam Bradford starting in a dome against a non-NFC West opponent sounds pretty good (gets Minnesota and Dallas in that situation within the first three weeks). Teddy Bridewater against Atlanta and Washington in the first nine weeks is appealing. Alex Smith against Denver, New England, and Tennessee in the first month? I am interested. Geno Smith even gets Oakland, Chicago, and San Diego within the first six games.
Plus a month into the season, the fantasy community at-large will have identified the good matchups for opposing quarterbacks and the margin of error for the owners with stud quarterbacks in your league shrinks. Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers owners will plug them in every single week - good matchup or not. Even if Bradford, Smith, Bortles, Bridgewater, etc. do not develop into weekly plays (worst case), an owner will not be tied to starting a specific one as the season progresses. Being flexible to matchups and choosing between one's multiple options leads to closing the gap and leveling the positional playing field while likely wielding an advantage at the plural fantasy starting positions.