QB Streaming
To stream, or not to stream: that is the question. Whether tis’ nobler in our dynasty minds to suffer the week to week decision of which “streamer” to start. Or to take the arms of the quarterback position’s best talent, at the expense of a much higher investment. To be beaten: to lose; no more. And by lose I mean…Ok, ok, I’m done. Let’s get on with it already!
As much as I’ve enjoyed writing these articles, I have still been reading the content from various other sources. I read in articles across various sites, forums, and also in general talk of fantasy football, that the thing to do with the most important position in NFL football is to…”stream?” I mean, really? Is that what this position has come down to? I’ve heard of people doing this in single quarterback leagues. But really, can you believe this strategy is being talked about in a 2QB league? Is this the best philosophy for our dynasty squads?
In this installment of Superflex 101, I want to dive into the art of streaming your quarterback position. In short, if at all possible, don’t do it! Don’t try it, don’t even think about it. You might be able to get cute and a bit lucky in a single quarterback league, but it’s just a terrible strategy for our coveted 2QB leagues that we love. If you sit on your hands and wait to draft your quarterback position until late in the draft, you may as well grab a branding iron at the same time and hang on for a couple minutes, because the scars that you will leave on the collective hands of your team may never go away.
Where did this idea derive from? Well, it’s been a combination of a few things. Wide receiver importance has seemingly trumped that of every other position, at least in the minds of the average owner. What that’s caused is essentially a race to the best talent available at the wide receiver position. But in doing so, are we giving up points? When we think we’re just keeping pace, are we giving up an advantage that we wouldn’t have if we took a different route than our competitors? It’s great to look at all those young toys on your team, but often times winning your matchups isn’t just about the 23-year-old, second-year wide receiver that might breakout and become a WR1.
Now I know I’m going against the norm in saying this, but I’m not sure it’s great strategy to skip the quarterback position in even a single quarterback league. Let’s look at the stats from this past season. For the purposes of record keeping, I’m looking at the data from week one thru week 16 only because I think it’s most relevant to fantasy football. I would also like to throw out any players that played in less than eight games (half the NFL season). Looking at the quarterback position, what that does is it gives us a range from Cam Newton to Matt Stafford. The average points per week in a four point per touchdown scoring system, would range from Newton’s 23.757 points, to Stafford’s 17.724 points. Newton provided slightly over a six point week-to-week advantage over Stafford, from QB1 to QB12 in total points scored. If we stretch that out from QB1 to QB24 for a 2QB league, the range is now 23.757 points to 13.562 points, over a ten point swing for just one player.
If you’re thinking about streaming, these are the numbers you’re up against. I don’t care what plus matchups you think your “streamers” have, you’re losing points in a big way. By streaming, you potentially lose the equivalent of a high end WR1 type talent in total weekly points lost. Even with a couple of decent QB2 type guys, in a 2QB league you’re still potentially giving up five plus points per player.
So what can we do to transition our team from a set of “streamers” to a solid foundation of quarterbacks? You’re going to want to analyze your assets. Let’s face it, nobody wants to trade their elite, proven assets at any position. But what high profile prospects can you shop around your league in an attempt to attract a high end quarterback? I’m not saying you have to get Andrew Luck, Newton, or Aaron Rodgers. A guy like Russell Wilson is a high-end option at a slightly more affordable price. He’s still probably going to cost you somewhere in the range of a 10-14 ranked overall player, but he is attainable at least. If you have a running back like David Johnson, contact the owner of Wilson and see what you might be able to add to lock down your high end QB1. You might be surprised that the out of control hype train that is the Northern Iowa alum, could possibly net you the services of an elite signal caller such as Wilson for very little additional investment. If you have a player like Johnson, and another player like Devante Parker, the appeal of those two youngsters combined might attract the attention of the top three quarterbacks I mentioned. Start the line of communication now, gauge interest, and get a deal done.
A couple years ago, I was completely sold on Cordarrelle Patterson. I jumped at every opportunity to draft him with a mid-first round rookie pick. I loved his athleticism, his electric playmaking ability, and the high ceiling he presented. His ADP rose to 15.5 overall in September 2014, nearly a first-round startup pick. But, that’s where I messed up. I let my love for my hometown playmaker cloud my vision over what I should have done. He nearly reached the ceiling that I set for him, and I didn’t sell for a safer high end asset. At the time I didn’t need a quarterback (I’ve always put a huge priority over the position and had Luck and Rodgers), but I should have been trying to attract a high end quarterback anyway. If I did, I would have sold Patterson for someone like Wilson, which would have completely changed my squad today. Granted, I wouldn’t have carried Luck, Rodgers, and Wilson the whole time, but the trade power would have netted me much more than Patterson’s current ADP of 218.67 could. For the record, I still love Patterson, and hope he gets a chance for a different team. I don’t think he plays the game serious enough, Norv Turner and Mike Zimmer don’t like it, so he gets shown the dog house. A trade or getting cut, might open his eyes. C-Patt is a pretty cheap talent that won’t be in Minnesota forever.
Conclusion
Don’t let this type of situation happen to you. Sure, you might end up trading the next Odell Beckham, Jr., Julio Jones, or DeAndre Hopkins. But matchups aren’t won based on the possibility of the prospects reaching their potential. They have to reach it in order for you to show a profit instead of a loss. My opinion is evaluate your assets, and figure out where your team stacks up amongst the top teams in the league. If you’re not in a position to win right now, then start building around the safest long term investment for your team. I believe that to be the quarterback position in a 2QB league. If you’re idea of lineup fun is predicting which “streamer” quarterbacks might put up respectable numbers based on “plus matchups”, now is the time to start shopping those largely unproven high profile prospects in exchange for proven elite quarterback compensation.
I look forward to any comments and questions with this installment of Superflex 101. On Monday nights I’m bowling, but most every other day I’m available for dynasty football discussion and general tomfoolery on Twitter @BenzyAB21.
What is a standard starting line-up in and league size in a 2-QB league? How would additional WR/Flex spots affect the value of QB? Would it swing it back closer to that of a single QB league if you are starting 4-5 WR each week?
Hey Brett,
Great questions! Most Superflex leagues that I’ve been in have the following starting lineup: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, QB/RB/WR/TE (Superflex spot). This type of league does heavily favor the QB position, mainly because the top QB’s are generally the highest point scorers, but more importantly, they are the most consistent from week to week.
My favorite league that I’m commissioner of is a Superflex league with TE premium scoring. The starting lineups consist of: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, QB/RB/WR/TE, WR/TE. This adds a ton of value on the back end to your WR’s and your TE’s. I still think your best strategy is to make QB your priority, but the extra PPR for the TE’s, and the additional WR/TE flex makes having deeper depth at WR and/or TE a priority. When you look at the scoring of your top players at each position, they are very close in total points scored on the entire seasons from position to position. But, your weekly floor/ceiling is more steady at the QB position. With the additional flex spot, guys like Pierre Garcon offer decent value at your WR4. But, if your best QB is say, Tyrod Taylor, you’re probably going to be chasing the QB position until it’s more stable for your team. That is why I would never skimp at the QB position.
Thanks for the additional information. Great series for those of us just getting into these formats.
I respectfully disagree. I think year over year, there’s value to be found outside of the projected top 12 QBs. In a startup salary cap league (admittedly, this is different than dynasty where keeping a player forever makes the top tier QBs more valuable IMO) I spent 12% of my cap to get Rivers, Bradford, Cousins, Hoyer, Osweiler which then allowed me to pick up (10 team league) Gronk, Julio, DT, AP and Jordy. Losing Jordy was mitigated by hitting on a few low value guys like Doug Martin & Jordan Reed and those other studs meant that Rivers + stream was good enough to take me to the promised land.
I get that there will be stories such as this to “prove” any point but perhaps a stronger argument in favor of (or against) taking a top 6 QB would be examining the average points per week you get out of QB1,2…24 dynasty startup drafted QBs (i.e. not simply the top rankings end of season) over 1,2…5 years.
