A Superflex Life, Volume II: Mythbusters
The funny thing is, you convinced your league to pivot to superflex, but how many of them will actually shift their thinking from 1QB to superflex?
Here’s my bet: one team owner (at the most, depending on your approach) will build this superflex roster without implementing those age-old 1QB tropes about late-round QB, and “running backs win championships.” Old habits die hard.
Let’s dispel a few myths before we try to build a superflex roster.
Myth #1: “I can start a non-QB at superflex and be just fine, so I don’t need to reach for quarterbacks.”
Technically, yes, you can start a non-QB at superflex. That is allowed. And technically, I can eat a Dairy Queen Blizzard for every meal, every day. There’s no rule stopping me, only a few pesky laws of physics as fitting through the door becomes more challenging. But just because it’s allowed, is it a wise thing to do? In my case, I’m not ready to embrace the new nickname “SuperFatDude” anytime soon.
As for the fade-QB plan, this is a multi-layered myth, and those who rationalize it have to take some liberties in their calculations. For one thing, you aren’t putting your best running back at the superflex position. People tend to pencil in their best running back at the superflex position, and the truth is you have to go deep into your bench for your superflex starter.
Let’s call this a QB-RB-RB-WR-WR-TE-FLEX-FLEX-SUPERFLEX lineup. Before you fill your superflex spot with an RB, first you fill your devoted RB spots and your two normal flex spots. In this shallow lineup setting, you’re putting your fifth-best RB at superflex. We’ll get to that. But first, let’s properly qualify the statement: you would be starting your RB5, WR5 or TE4 instead of a QB at the superflex position. Still sound viable?
If so, let’s get to the next layer of this myth. We’re talking dynasty now, where a hole in your roster stays that way for the foreseeable future unless you plug it through trading. There is no startup draft/auction to bail you out. All 32 starting NFL quarterbacks will be on rosters, as well as soon-to-be starters (Justin Herbert, Jordan Love) and high-level backups (Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota). Committing to a non-QB at superflex in the startup is a long-term commitment, so here’s hoping your one QB stays healthy.
Even if he does stay healthy, you’re still in for one guaranteed loss every year, as your QB1 goes on bye and you have no one to fill in. You can’t even submit a legal lineup! And again, there is no help on waivers because all of the NFL starters are rostered. So let’s plan on at least two quarterbacks.
Now we get to the core of this myth: the idea that a WR5, RB5 or TE4 is a better start than a QB. And this one is easy. Did you know that in 2019, the only QB to play more than ten games and average fewer than 13 fantasy points per game was Taysom Hill? Besides him – and his gimmicky role that doesn’t actually belong in the QB conversation – 29 other QBs played at least 11 games, and every single one of them scored at least 13 PPG. Only Kyle Allen (13.82) failed to eclipse 14 PPG, and only Allen, Mitchell Trubisky (14.19) and Jacoby Brissett (14.85) came up short of 15 fantasy points per game. That’s the floor for a QB.
As for the other positions, the RBs were close to the same production; 23 of them played at least 11 games and averaged at least 13 PPG. And the WRs matched the QBs with 29 players at or above 11 games played and 13 PPG. Here’s the problem though: you would have to have FIVE of the 23 RBs or 29 WRs who scored at least 13 points per game to justify benching QB29 Allen. And take out Allen, and you had 28 QBs hit the 11 game/14 point per game threshold; the number of RBs dropped to 20, the number of WRs dropped to 24. You needed five of the top 20 RBs or top 24 WRs to consider benching QB28 Trubisky or QB27 Brissett.
Here’s where it gets real damning: 16 points per game. Philip Rivers, the QB20, missed it by .03 points per game. One more passing yard per game (or one more completed pass of 16 yards) would have pushed him over the hump. But, alas, he failed me. He doesn’t get to be a part of my calculations. So on to QB19, Jimmy Garoppolo, who averaged 16.27 points per game, outscoring all but the top nine RBs on a per-game basis. He outscored RB10 Mark Ingram and RB11 Nick Chubb. And he outscored all but the top eight WRs, including Allen Robinson, Tyreek Hill, Kenny Golladay and many more. In other words, you would have needed five of the top nine RBs or the top eight WRs in order to score more points per game than you would have with QB19 Jimmy Garoppolo at your superflex position.
The fun with numbers could continue from there, and maybe I will further browbeat you with them in a future edition of “A SuperFlex Life.” But for now, I think you get the point. Start a QB at superflex.
Myth #2: “QBs all score the same. The other positions have a higher Value Over Replacement, so they’re more important. I can target them early, and wait on QB.”
There is actually some truth to this one… at least on the surface. The difference between QB2 Deshaun Watson and QB6 Russell Wilson was about two points per game in 2019. Watson was about four points per game better than QB9 Kyler Murray, and not quite five points per game better than QB12 Daniel Jones. You should absolutely be able to make up those five points at another position, especially when you are starting two RBs/WRs, plus flex spots.
In terms of Value Over Replacement Players (VORP), yes, in a given season there is very little difference among QBs. Truth be told, it is about the same at both RB and WR, but that is at the top end, and we start two of each in this hypothetical, so we can just concede the point. But…
Over time this stuff evens out… and then some. Remember those stats we just looked at, about how QBs score more than RBs? Yeah, they also sustain it better.
We’re even going to handicap this one for the RBs, and compare the top 100 RBs to the top 40 QBs; more than twice as many opportunities for the RBs to prove their sustainability. Spoiler alert: 100 RBs aren’t nearly as consistent as 40 QBs. Are you ready for this?
Of the top 40 QBs from each of the last four years, 19 of them finished inside the top 40 all four years, so just under half of the top 40 QBs have been top 40 four straight years. Of the top 100 RBs, 24 of them finished in the top 100 all four years. Less than a quarter of the top 100 RBs were able to finish inside the top 100 all four years!
And if we’re being honest, top 40 QBs/top 100 RBs isn’t a real high bar; the bigger question is “how did they produce?” Being the 40th-best QB for four straight years isn’t much of an accomplishment. No argument here.
But here’s the thing: of those 19 QBs who finished top 40 four straight years, 14 of them averaged at least 215 fantasy points per season, which is good enough to be a QB2 and, thus, startable in superflex. Every week. For four straight years.
Of those 24 RBs who finished inside the top 100 all four years, just four of them averaged 215 points per season! More of them (five, to be specific) averaged fewer than 100 points per season than the four who averaged 215 – which, by the way, is low-end RB2 production. Four RBs averaged RB2 production for four straight seasons.
Translation: RBs don’t last, but QBs do. It’s the biblical parable of building your house on sand (RBs) vs. building your house on stone (QBs). The foundation of your dynasty team can be built on sand, with instability that leads to an immediate rebuild, or it can be built on stone, with the stability to sustain itself while you make aesthetic improvements.
So while QBs all score similarly, they continue to score similarly for several years. There is value in that stability, as you continue the constant pursuit of RB production. It is an annual proposition, you will have to find new RBs virtually every season. Make life easier on yourself and invest in QBs who will stabilize your roster while you search for more RBs.
Myth #3: “I don’t want more than two QBs; their points would be wasted on my bench.”
This one puts me on full tilt. A receiver catches three long touchdown passes while he’s on your bench behind three rubber-stamp starters, and the flukey monster game wasn’t “wasted on your bench,” but a fourth straight 20-point game from your QB3 is wasteful? Just because you knew he was going to score 20+ points? I’ll comprehend quantum physics before that logic ever makes sense to me.
Yes, it would be great to get all of our points off the bench and into our lineups. But you know what it tells me if you don’t have any points on your bench? YOU DON’T HAVE ANY DEPTH!!! If you don’t have that third QB on your bench, scoring 20 points each week, what happens when one of your top two QBs go on bye? Or when one of them gets hurt? As mentioned before, you won’t find a bye week fill-in on waivers; every QB with a chance to get on the field is already rostered.
One thing to keep in mind with the bye weeks alone: just because your top two QBs don’t have the same bye this season, doesn’t mean they won’t have the same bye next season. The QBs STILL won’t be available next season, and if you only have two, and they happen to have the same bye, you won’t be able to submit a valid lineup. You’re taking a zero at the QB position, which is still the highest-scoring position in all of fantasy football. That’s a 20-point deficit before the games even begin. Back up your QBs.
There are several other reasons to start off with QB depth, but we’re getting to that edition of “A Superflex Life” very soon… and oh, are you going to enjoy that one! We’re almost ready for the “QB-Heavy” discussion, now that we’ve cleansed the palette of those pesky incorrections so many of us (myself included!) take into our maiden voyage into superflex.
