A Calendar week 17 competition in 2011 between the Lions and Packers volition forever be remembered every bit Matt Flynn Twenty-four hours. The backup quarterback threw for 480 yards and six touchdowns – something that'southward been done only three times in NFL history – which led to a $26 meg contract with the Seahawks in the subsequent offseason.

Only what oft goes unnoticed in that game is the fact that Matthew Stafford, a third-year quarterback who had yet to live up to his first-overall draft cost, threw for 520 yards. As a result, a quarterback who had struggled with injury and inaccuracy through his freshman and sophomore years in the league found himself with over 5,000 yards passing on the yr.

Prior to the start of Stafford'south third flavour, the 5,000-g mark had been hit past only 2 quarterbacks in NFL history. You'd think the Detroit quarterback's v,038-yard entrada would be a big deal. Only it wasn't. He was ane of iii quarterbacks to reach the celebrated number that season, with a fourth, Eli Manning, just 67 yards backside.

To say the 2011 flavor was celebrated would exist an understatement. Nosotros had never seen such a disparity between these elite quarterbacks in fantasy football versus the rest of the field. Throwing 700 times in a single season or tossing 45 touchdowns to only 6 interceptions was only done in Madden.

In 2011, it was real life.

Explaining why this happened would be by and large speculation (personally, I recall a lot of information technology had to exercise with the nearly-lockout), but ane thing was sure: it changed the style people viewed quarterbacks in fantasy football game.

At that point in time – the end of the 2011 season – I hadn't done a lick of fantasy football writing. Drafting a quarterback late was a regular role of my fake football strategy, and the approach, to my naïve self, was such an obvious 1.

Fantasy football is a numbers-driven game that deals with really basic market-like principles. To me, it was clear that you devalue the quarterback and tight end positions in the game – you're but starting 1 of them each week, they get drafted later than running backs and broad receivers, and as a outcome, they're easily attainable off the waiver wire when you need them.

Only later on 2011, that type of logic was thrown out the window. Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees became full-blown first-circular fantasy typhoon selections, while Matthew Stafford and Cam Newton crept into Round 2.

I no longer causeless people saw what I saw with the quarterback position in fantasy football game. So I wrote a volume, and appropriately named it The Tardily Circular Quarterback.

The truth is, owners overstate change in real football as it equates to the fake game. While these elite quarterbacks are posting absurd numbers, so is almost every other signal-caller in professional football. Allow's get-go there.

The Unchanging Game of Fantasy Football

The NFL is going to evolve. It's going to change. But practice you know what won't? Fantasy football.

Before y'all start talking about your home ii-quarterback league, or the one where you get 14 points per touchdown pass, realize that the majority of leagues are still starting one quarterback, and those quarterbacks are still getting four points per touchdown pass. And because of this very fact, the late-round quarterback strategy has well-nigh cypher exceptions.

Most people see this, only still believe histrion projections can trump the notion. In other words, seasons like Peyton Manning's 2013 tin can alter the way you approach the strategy.

Thinking in hindsight is easy though. At that place'southward a reason Peyton Manning was selected towards the end of the third round in drafts final yr. It'south considering we didn't predict a superhuman season. Creating a strategy in hindsight can go you into a lot trouble.

Fantasy football game is a supply and demand-driven game. Forget fantasy points and scoring for a second and focus on roster construction. You're starting double – sometimes triple – the amount of running backs and wide receivers as you are quarterbacks and tight ends. You need players at those positions more. There's a reason average draft position information, each year, bear witness those two positions existence selected repeatedly at the outset of drafts. It's not considering they're fun or easy to predict – information technology'due south because they're necessary.

While quarterback is the single-most important position on a football game field, it'due south not in fantasy. This supply and demand manner of thinking shows just that – there'due south a ripple consequence that spreads to then many areas of fantasy football because the demand for the quarterback position is then inherently small.

One of those things is toll. Considering the demand for quarterbacks is so small, information technology allows usable players at the position to drop in fantasy drafts. In fact, since 2006, the 12th quarterback, on average, has left the lath in the middle of the eighth round. In a 12-team league, that'south the last hypothetical squad starter. The 24th receiver – remember, your 12-squad league is starting at to the lowest degree two of them – has typically been selected at the beginning of the 6th, while the 24th running dorsum gets drafted in the middle of the 5th.

Your draft isn't necessarily going to get that way. But a lot of you lot are also probably going to enlarge what happens in your draft.

I often become the question, "But what if anybody goes quarterback early – do you yet await?" My answer is a resounding yeah, every bit you should utilize your early picks for positions that are in higher demand. If six people go quarterback in the outset round, all they're doing is forgoing the opportunity of having a tiptop-tier running dorsum or receiver. More on that later though.

I also hear, "But what if everyone drafts their quarterbacks late?" That, to me, is the more interesting question, and one that leads to an answer so important that I felt the need to bold it. The key to the late-round quarterback strategy is not to simply draft a quarterback tardily, only to be flexible and understand value.

The reason the late-round quarterback strategy is a thing is because it's based on what happens in nigh every single draft. When you have an outlier, things can change. But that'due south the case with annihilation you do. Just recall that this isn't a game a chicken – this is a game of value.

Value Based Drafting Can Be Misleading

Back in the fantasy football stone age (which, you know, was like a trivial over a decade ago), Joe Bryant – an awesome man and respected industry leader – coined the idea of Value Based Drafting, or VBD. The principle of the strategy is pretty straightforward: "The value of a player is determined not by the number of points he scores, but by how much he outscores his peers at his detail position."

This is accepted knowledge in fantasy football at this signal – y'all don't compare how Aaron Rodgers performs against Adrian Peterson. You evaluate how he plays versus how Ben Roethlisberger, a quarterback, plays.

The foundation of VBD is one that everyone should embrace – you compare point differentials within positions, not beyond positions.

Nonetheless, there are full general issues that I have with VBD. Not only with how we all utilise the organization, but how we're rather hypocritical with the concepts Bryant pushed forward so many years ago.

With Value Based Drafting, you make projections at the start of a flavor, and judge the value of a thespian based on how well his projections look versus a "baseline" player. The baseline player itself shifts depending on league structure, and that tin can sometimes be a difficult thing to truly comprehend, peculiarly given natural injury tendencies at particular positions.

But aside from the baseline result, VBD irks me a bit because of 3 things. First, it assumes your projections are right – there'south no variance congenital into it. If I'm incorrect on who I project to be a first-rounder, and I don't weigh in the potential hazard, I'grand screwed.

Second, VBD deals with yearly projections. Now, there'due south nil wrong with cumulative, year-long statistics, because they can certainly give y'all a proficient picture about a player. But they don't always tell you the entire story. If a guy gets 50 per centum of his season-long product in one game, does that really help you? Chris Johnson owners know exactly what I'g talking about.

Lastly, traditional VBD – and this has been amended since – doesn't factor in market value. And during a time when we have average draft position data everywhere, that's pretty important, particularly when, every bit I noted before, y'all tin get baseline quarterbacks far later than running backs and wide receivers.

But aside from my skepticism, what I've found interesting is how fantasy owners have adopted this idea simply for fantasy points scored. In other words, the high-level notion of comparing within and not across positions is merely being analyzed in terms of projections or how many points a thespian is going to score.

What most bust rates?

Though I'1000 non typically a fan of season-long data, I recently did a written report analyzing bust rates of both running backs and wide receivers in fantasy football game. Bust rates, in essence, measure how well a position performs given preseason expectations. Without getting into too much detail (I'll talk more about it subsequently), the general notion of the ii articles was the same: early-circular running backs and broad receivers do bosom at a loftier charge per unit, only they bust exponentially more than as yous approach the sixth round and beyond of your 12-team typhoon.

To put this another style, if nosotros were to approach bust rates like we do standard Value Based Drafting, we'd find more value in running backs and receivers than nosotros would otherwise. After all, the reason folks are shying away from backs and receivers isn't so much VBD related as it is bust rate related. Rather than simply looking at how those positions bust at the kickoff of drafts and moving on, nosotros really should look at how these bust rates compare within the position to see how valuable those players actually are.

Simply similar I said, fantasy owners, unintentionally, can exist hypocritical. I certainly am at times, too. We tin can't – and shouldn't – view things 1 style and non use that same process with another attribute of the game.

This, too, occurs with how you approach the game from a weekly perspective. Yous do play information technology from a weekly perspective…correct? Well then why are you lot using flavor-long projections to justify your stance?

Weekly Production and Predictability Matters

Last season, Andy Dalton finished as fantasy football's 5th-all-time quarterback. At season's end, he was better than Matthew Stafford, Philip Rivers, Colin Kaepernick, Russell Wilson and Tony Romo. He scored about iv points fewer than Andrew Luck, and was just nine points off of Cam Newton.

To me, Andy Dalton wasn't even shut to the 5th-best quarterback in fantasy final twelvemonth.

Dalton finished as a weekly meridian-12 quarterback last season just six times, excluding Calendar week 17 since it's worthless to fantasy football. While that number seems a petty arbitrary – and it kind of is – a ranking in the height-12 at the position represents a QB1 in a 12-team league. Eight quarterbacks had more weekly height-12 weeks than Dalton did, and an boosted five had merely as many.

Dalton made a living off of monster weeks. Of his superlative-12 performances (usable weeks), he finished second three times, third once and 5th one time. The last "usable" week saw him cease 11th.

This is no verbal science, don't go me wrong. A player could consistently finish as the 13th-ranked quarterback and come out looking poor in terms of usable weeks. But in general, looking at fantasy football from this perspective can give you lot a glimpse of how a thespian actually performed because, in the finish, fantasy football game is a weekly game.

If you'd like to read more on this particular subject, accept a await at Rich Hribar'south work over at XN Sports, reviewing the position in 2013 from this angle.

Replaceability

This notion of looking at weekly usable weeks versus season-long statistics can drastically change the fashion you view lineup slots in fantasy football. This is by and large because you begin to see how replaceable positions truly are.

A 12-team league starts 12 quarterbacks each week. In 2013, 44 different quarterbacks had at least one pinnacle-12 calendar week, excluding Week 17 (remember, these are chosen "usable" weeks). And no, that'south not a typo – 44 different guys hitting the mark. In terms of elevation-6 performances, or "aristocracy" weeks, at that place were 33 with at least i.

Information technology doesn't merely stop there. Take a expect at the tables beneath.

 

The numbers higher up shouldn't hateful a ton yet considering nosotros're looking in a vacuum. We all the same need to compare them to other positions. But what'due south pretty surprising, without the context, is how many freaking quarterbacks matter in fantasy football. That, and how shut each quarterback performed to one some other.

Keep in heed, too, that the data higher up includes the nearly historic flavor in quarterback history. Fifty-fifty still, Peyton Manning had just one more than usable week than Matthew Stafford (10), and two more than than Andrew Luck (nine). And, for giggles, he had but four more than Alex Smith (7).

Manning was so valuable though because ix of his 11 usable weeks equated to aristocracy ones. That was 2 more Nick Foles, who finished in second with seven.

However, Peyton's 2013 campaign is a true outlier. If you look at Drew Brees, who consistently finishes every bit a pinnacle-two fantasy quarterback twelvemonth afterwards year, y'all can start to sympathise why the quarterback position is replaceable.

Last season, 11 of Brees' 16 relevant fantasy football weeks equated to a top-12 finish. That, as y'all can see, was equally good as Peyton Manning. Awesome. Keen. Great. Drew Brees was a consistency monster.

Just Drew Brees also finished with five elite performances, the same number as Andy Dalton and Cam Newton. That was ane more than than what we saw from Alex Smith (at that place's his name over again), also.

4 of those 5 games resulted in the top rank at quarterback in a given week. That's pretty impressive, no dubiety. Those iv games averaged out to be 32.34 fantasy points, with each game ranging from 31.68 to 33.eighteen points.

But look at Andy Dalton, sitting in that location with his orange pilus and new contract, waving his paw saying, "But I did that too!" Later all, a thespian ranking 5th in cumulative points had to have had some monster weeks, correct?

Dalton's superlative four games saw an average of 30.06 points, just three fewer than Drew Brees. Yep, y'all're reading that correctly – Drew Brees' best games last twelvemonth were barely improve than Andy Dalton'due south all-time.

The difference is that Drew Brees consistently will break the pinnacle 12. While Andy Dalton was a "blast or bust" player, Drew Brees was a "blast or skillful" role player.

And while you may remember Andy Dalton's weeks weren't anticipated, we'll become to that later.

In full general though, I think this is the problem and misconception with early-circular quarterbacks. They mostly put upwardly unbelievable cumulative statistics because they're consistent from calendar week to calendar week. But their ability to post truly aristocracy performances isn't every bit good every bit you may remember.

And while Peyton Manning's 2013 season is definitely the statement in favor of going quarterback early on – his elite performances were truly unmatched at the position – let's remember that it was the best quarterback season of all time. And let's besides not forget that no ane saw it coming, as Manning was a tertiary- or quaternary-circular choice inbound the season.

You're probably now wondering how this compares to running backs and broad receivers, as these are the positions yous'd be opting for instead of an early on-round passer. I'll ignore tight ends simply to keep things concise, simply if yous're interested in a pro-late-round tight finish statement, give Episode 37 of Living the Stream a listen.

The chart below depicts usable and aristocracy performances in 2013 at running back and wide receiver. Keep in heed that a usable week at these positions equates to superlative 24, while an elite one is height 12. Why? Well, considering you're starting at to the lowest degree ii (normally more) in a 12-team league, driving upward the number used each week.

 
 
 

This is a lot of data to accept in, then before we get into the details, information technology'southward probably best to see the numbers in a more visual form.

The graph above shows united states the number of usable weeks from each position on the x-axis, with the number of players hitting a detail mark on the y-axis. What I want your eyes to starting time focus on is the left side of the graph, where nosotros're not looking at the elite players similar Jamaal Charles, Josh Gordon or Peyton Manning.

What yous find in the three lines is that the drib-off from i group of quarterbacks to the next is nigh completely linear until you hit roughly the 8 usable week tally. Because so many running backs and wide receivers go at to the lowest degree one or ii usable weeks, yous'll discover a sharper driblet towards the left side of the graph, as it slowly simply surely levels off as you arroyo the elite guys.

This is important. The consistent slope of the quarterback line shows that at that place'south little advantage from ane tier of quarterbacks to the side by side. Equally you motion from grouping to group, you lot're not gaining much.

This isn't the case at running back, and this is even more exaggerated at wide receiver. Why? Considering lots and lots of running backs and receivers are relevant in a week or ii during the fantasy season, but only a scattering of them can consistently perform week in and week out.

If you lot do some unproblematic math with the tables in a higher place, you see just that. The quarterback position starts with 44 of them obtaining at least 1 usable week, and that moves to 37 when you move to ii – a decrease of seven. From two to iii usable weeks you're dropping by six, and this is consistent all the way down. The drib off is virtually perfectly linear.

That's not the case for running backs and wideouts, and, once again, that's essential. It shows u.s. that there's a clear separation between the higher-end players versus the bottom-end ones, whereas at quarterback, the dip is consistent. At that place'south no drastic gap in tiers.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the idea of replaceability. Information technology'southward far easier to replace quarterback production from a week to week standpoint than information technology is running back and wide receiver, despite many running backs and wide receivers being worthwhile in one or two weeks during the season.

The aforementioned type of conclusions tin can exist drawn from the elite graph from 2013 equally well.

In that location are now two questions a agnostic should be request. The first is, "Well, don't we know who those aristocracy quarterbacks are going to be, while running backs and wide receivers bust at a higher rate?"

Skilful question, early on-circular quarterbacker. We'll go into this in the next section.

The other question relates dorsum to the Andy Dalton and Drew Brees case above. "Hindsight is easy, only how was I supposed to know to first Andy Dalton during his blow upward weeks?"

That answer, my friends, lies in position predictability.

Predictability

Nosotros know that quarterbacks are more replaceable than wide receivers and running backs, but the thespian doing the replacing doesn't actually matter if yous tin't predict how he'south going to perform in a given week.

Allow me run through an case. It's Week 7, and you've got Ben Roethlisberger equally your starting quarterback. Yous're non super into starting him that week because his matchup sucks, and you lot run across Ryan Tannehill chilling in free agency with an upcoming game confronting the league's worst laissez passer defence. Instead of playing your typical quarterback starter, Ben Roethlisberger, you drop a guy who's collecting dust on your bench, and plug Ryan Tannehill into your lineup.

Does he perform well? That's the promise. Will he perform well? The odds aren't as bad every bit you'd call up.

If you've visited this site to listen to the Living the Stream podcast, you understand what the concept of streaming is all about. For those unfamiliar, streaming is a fantasy strategy where you play your quarterback (tight end or defense, likewise) based on matchup, not just because "he's your starter".

In other words, you're not locked into starting the same passer each week of a fantasy season (another reason why season-long projections are misleading), and in order to maximize the signal output at the position, you lot play the quarterback with the near attractive matchup entering the week, whether he'southward on your demote or off the waiver wire.

Kickoff and foremost, before I keep, your goal entering a fantasy draft shouldn't necessarily exist to stream. I look for players with upside late, and hope that player becomes a summit-five passer on his own. Just equally a fall-back plan, streaming is mighty, mighty constructive.

You can stream quarterbacks, tight ends and defenses because they're "onesie" positions – each team in your lineup is starting just one of them in a given week. As a event, the positions are in lower demand, giving you more usable avails in complimentary agency. If it'due south a league with deeper rosters, you lot could almost consider the streaming arroyo as a platoon one, where you ain a couple of middling quarterbacks and play them by matchup each week.

I know how terrible this sounds to someone who's never fifty-fifty thought of this approach. Crazy, erratic and miserable, right? Not exactly.

A year-and-a-half ago, Pro Football Focus' Pat Thorman put together an unbelievably telling article about roster maximization in fantasy football. In it, he compared three groups of quarterbacks using 2012 information – QB1-10, QB11-20 and QB21-30 – and showed the grouping of quarterbacks' production versus elevation half and bottom one-half defenses.

Co-ordinate to Thorman's study, superlative-10 quarterbacks scored an boilerplate of 19.8 fantasy points per game against tiptop half defenses, and 21.half-dozen points confronting bottom half ones. The group's average points per game was 20.vii.

The next group of passers – quarterbacks ranked 11th through 20th – saw an average of 16.2 points per game, regardless of the defense that was faced. But much of this boilerplate had to do with a low score against pinnacle-half defenses. This heart group of passers scored 13.1 points per game against the good defenses in the league, only nineteen.0 against lesser half ones. That nineteen.0 score was but one.7 points away from the average points per game you'd discover from a meridian-10 quarterback in 2012.

The final tier of quarterbacks saw a 14.6 points per game boilerplate, but confronting lesser half defenses, the average jumped to 16.4.

This high-level look shows you something that'south very of import: consistency at the quarterback position – at an individual level – doesn't actually matter.

How effective tin streaming your quarterback – a backup programme – be in fantasy football? Permit's look no further than my lovely Living the Stream co-host himself, Denny Carter, and his series on 4for4.com last season.

In a fantastic group of articles, Carter documented his quarterback streaming picks each week. And these guys weren't players like Ben Roethlisberger and Russell Wilson – Carter used quarterbacks like Josh McCown and Carson Palmer.

In the end, his Frankenstein of a quarterback concluded upwardly scoring an average of 17.7 points per calendar week. In total, Denny created the equivalent of a QB5 through playing the waiver wire.

Denny's a smart guy who understands fantasy football just equally much equally anyone in the industry. So while you may credit his streaming success to his incredible understanding of the game, similar Thorman'south findings in a higher place, Denny'due south experience is powerful.

This is probably a good time, too, to betoken out that elite quarterbacks don't always cease every bit elite quarterbacks. Call back that Aaron Rodgers guy final year? Yeah, he missed seven games due to injury – running backs aren't the only ones who bust for health reasons, folks.

How nigh Tom Brady a season ago? He was being selected equally the fourth quarterback at choice 38, co-ordinate to MyFantasyLeague.com. He finished as fantasy's 14th-ranked passer, reaching the weekly top 12 at the position fewer times than Alex Smith (Think him?).

In 2012, Matthew Stafford was a 2nd-circular pick. He finished equally the 11th-best quarterback, backside rookies Russell Wilson, Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III.

Considering only three or four passers are beingness drafted then early, let's not pretend that a perceived elite quarterback at the beginning of a fantasy season is going to finish as an elite quarterback at the end of one. It doesn't happen automatically, equally many people make it seem.

And the principal reason people see lower bust rates at quarterback is because finishing 13th or 14th at the position looks, at a quick glance, as nothing major. Sure, you invested an early-circular choice, simply it'south not as though he disrepair that much, right?

Well, considering how replaceable the position is – I hope you realize this by at present – a 13th-ranked quarterback actually isn't doing much for your fantasy team. Denny used waiver wire pickups and compiled a fifth-ranked quarterback! Why would yous experience good about getting Tom Brady early on last year?

The reason Denny was able to stream and then finer is because the quarterback position is the virtually predictable of any of the big four in fantasy football (quarterback, running back, wide receiver and tight end). Y'all can click that link and come across some math behind information technology, merely if you'd rather only read something based on logic, here goes.

Quarterbacks throw a lot of passes. All of them too, not just the elite ones anymore. In fact, thirty of the 32 teams in the NFL last year dropped back to laissez passer 500 or more than times. That's 31.25 drib backs per game.

With more volume comes more opportunity. And with more opportunity comes a larger sample size to describe from. In plough, the position becomes like shooting fish in a barrel to predict each week before games are played.

If you lot reference the commodity, y'all'll find that running backs are the second-well-nigh predictable position. That'south because near backs take foreseeable per-game volume numbers, and they're not directly reliant upon quarterback play.

Wide receivers are, which is a huge reason we see variance at the position. Fifty-fifty as y'all look at the usable and elite calendar week charts above, you lot see that at that place are a lot of useful wideouts during a fantasy football regular season. The trouble is that the majority of those weeks only aren't anticipated, which is why elite wide receivers matter a lot in fantasy football game, despite them sometimes not looking slap-up from a value over replacement analysis perspective.

Naturally, tight ends are the least anticipated considering they're simply non running routes at the same charge per unit wide receivers are.

This is why streaming can work. And given the depth at the quarterback position, and the fact that and so many teams are throwing a loftier number of times each calendar week, it's non an overly difficult task to pinpoint quarterbacks – waiver wire ones – each week who are facing piece of cake defensive matchups.

But again, the goal to drafting a quarterback late isn't necessarily to stream. All the same, the position is more predictable than any other, and if your late-round passer doesn't pan out as a weekly starter, you'll be but fine.

There's E'er a Price

I've argued with every sort of fantasy owner most the tardily-circular quarterback strategy. And every single ane who would accept the early-round signal-calling approach to their grave tells me the same matter: You just can't match the production of an aristocracy quarterback if you don't go i.

Well, that's not exactly the point. Sure, you tin get a elevation-notch passer early, striking on a couple of running backs and wide receivers and take a team that's quite literally impossible to finish. But that's usually not how it works. At least, that's non a sustainable, long-term way of winning.

Procedure over results, people. Y'all snagging Josh Gordon in Round 8 concluding year has null to do with you lot being able to pinpoint elite late-round talent. How do I know this? Well, because there are enough of reasons another team could've had Gordon instead of you, and for every Josh Gordon, there are well-nigh a dozen Kenny Britts.

I'm fully enlightened that the gamble of my quarterback performing similar Drew Brees this yr is slim. Simply my chances to outscore the wide receivers and running backs on the team with Drew Brees is great.

We can't forget that fantasy football isn't just almost the players you draft, only the players you lot don't draft every bit well. When it'south your turn to make a choice in the second circular, and you opt to get Drew Brees, you're missing out on high-end running backs and receivers. And while yous're avoiding those positions because of their perceived bust rates, I'll remind you lot once more – the bust rates of these positions early in your draft are far more than favorable than what you'll find even in Round v.

This is opportunity cost – the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen.

Opportunity Cost

Let's pretend that it's the 2nd circular, and you select Aaron Rodgers. Your reasoning is that he's far and away the all-time quarterback projected, and volition requite you a weekly edge equally a result. (Conspicuously, given the stance on week-to-calendar week numbers trumping flavour-long ones above, I'd make fun of this person in a draft room.)

Piddling does this owner realize that he decreased his odds in obtaining a WR1 or an RB1 dramatically. If you call up, I referenced the bust rate articles that I wrote over at numberFire to a higher place. Now I'k going to dig into those a bit more as it pertains to opportunity cost.

According to FantasyFootballCalculator.com, we're seeing running backs ranked seventh through 12th leave the lath in Circular two. Conveniently, in my bust rate article, I broke downward this running back demographic.

Over the past five years, running backs with an average draft position of RB7 to RB12 – according to MyFantasyLeague.com data – accept finished as RB1s (top-12 running backs) 46.67% of the fourth dimension in PPR leagues. That seems pretty terrible, but backs ranked 13th to 18th – third-circular runners – have a 30% rate of hitting RB1 territory.

In other words, if y'all're but selection outside of Rodgers was to go with a running back, your selection of the Packers' quarterback decreases your chances of obtaining an RB1 in the following round by about 17%.

Mind you, the RB7-12 grouping versus the RB13-eighteen one has a similar striking rate, in general, if you were to consider a "hit" as a running back ranked first through 24th. But what the bosom rate data shows is that, despite folks antisocial on early on-round running back choices, getting one in the 2d round however yields much, much more upside. And, as we saw in the replacability charts above, having that running back upside is huge.

The issue is that running dorsum isn't the just position you're losing out on. Broad receivers are going a tad earlier than usual this flavour due to the perceived take a chance in drafting early-round running backs (or the Recency Bias fantasy owners are using due to last flavor'due south poor showing from backs), but three or four top-half dozen wide receivers will traditionally fall into the second circular of a fantasy draft.

Acme vi wide receivers are brilliant in terms of consistency. Co-ordinate to the wide receiver bust rate report, 73.33% of height-6 wide receivers finish equally top-12 ones at season's end. Their median rank is six, which is five spots alee of what you'd see from an aristocracy running dorsum. When yous shift to WR7 to WR12, this median rank drops to 17.v. And when you lot motion to WR13 to WR18, information technology drops even further to 24.

And again, remember the weekly usability and elite graphs in the section prior to this one? You lot know, the 1 that showed a drastic, sharp decline in worthwhile weeks from broad receivers prior to getting to the elite ones? Yep, that reward is gone if you forgo the position early.

Aristocracy wide receivers affair, and getting a quarterback early often times means that y'all won't be getting one of these players, at least according to average draft position information (and coincidental leagues).

And even if you exercise decide to get with a wide receiver outset and a quarterback 2d, now your acme running back has, as noted, just a xxx% chance of actually finishing as a acme-12 dorsum if yous get i in the tertiary. And that only will get worse from your RB2 spot, even if you were to draft one in Circular 4.

It's incredibly true that early-round quarterbacks don't bust as much as these other positions do, and to many, that'south 1 of the advantages in getting them. Amidst quarterbacks ranked first to third over the last five years, lxxx% accept finished every bit a high-end QB1 (pinnacle-six quarterback). The QB4 to QB6 range sees a dramatic dip to 33.33%, which only strengthens the point of height-notch consistency at the quarterback position.

But as I showed with the replaceability and predictability section above, quarterback consistency at an individual level actually doesn't thing. The game'southward played on a weekly ground, not a yearly one. Information technology's not as though y'all tin can't change the histrion being started in your quarterback spot each week.

What'southward more important, however, is the general cost of a quarterback in the game of fantasy football game.

This is where things come full circle.

I talked about supply and demand earlier in the article, noting the quarterbacks will drop in drafts considering the demand for the position is small. As a result, the position is quite price-effective.

And with more quarterbacks being usable in fantasy football due to the high volume of passes each team is throwing, the notion of "final starter selected" is becoming more and more irrelevant.

Think of information technology this mode. The 12th quarterback beingness selected in fantasy drafts correct now is Tony Romo, and it'due south happening at the end of the 8th round. That, according to FantasyFootballCalculator.com, is vi rounds after Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers are existence drafted (Manning is a late-first rounder).

Typically you'd look at that and say, "Woah, that'south a lot of equity to be had considering the running backs and wide receivers at that point in a draft are literal dart throws." No, seriously – the chance of you hitting on a dorsum or wide receiver that late is incredibly, incredibly small. That'due south all in the bust charge per unit charts linked above.

The funny thing though is that the 8th-round territory is probably still early to accept a quarterback in today'southward NFL. Given the replaceability of the position, the fact that streaming is more than-than-viable and that finding elite talent at wide receiver and running back is difficult, there's really little reason to get a guy similar Tony Romo in the eighth.

The truth is – and hopefully you concluded this as well from the graphs shown in this article – there's not a whole lot of variation betwixt middle-round quarterbacks (Rounds half-dozen to 10) and late-round ones (Round 11 to 14). The biggest difference between the two types – aside from opportunity cost – is the tendency to go full-diddled, top-notch passers. But even and then, the lovely Denny Carter showed that doesn't even affair.

Shouldn't anybody exist doing this?

It'due south Not an Exact Science

The general event with whatsoever strategy is the fact that it's not perfect. Plenty of teams are going to win in 2014 with Peyton Manning on their roster, while others who select Ben Roethlisberger in Round 12 are going to wish they had never played fantasy football in the first place.

The important thing to remember is that a fantasy football game draft isn't what wins fantasy football. Information technology's a office of it – a big office of it – but there'southward enough of other aspects to the game that are merely as of import. The reason we focus on the draft so much, quite frankly, is because we have so much time to focus on the typhoon.

But in-season decisions, waiver wire adds and trading are all part of the equation equally well. This is just a piece to the puzzle.

Confidently, I say that drafting your quarterback late is the best strategy in fantasy football. And the best role is that it still doesn't necessarily interfere with some other fantasy notions out there, similar Shawn Siegele's Zero RB method. In fact, Shawn's findings match up with the bust rate written report I performed – if y'all're not going to go running dorsum early on, you might as well not get running back at all.

Nosotros're seeing the masses take the fact that quarterbacks are inherently devalued in fantasy, equally leagues shift to superflex and two-quarterback leagues. I'thou all for that – information technology shows truthful progression in a game that's been unchanged for some time.

But until that'due south the norm, I'one thousand going to continue to exploit the system. And I'm going to continue to win.