Is The Fantasy Game Changing? (1 Viewer)

With seemingly more teams having success with RBBC's, do you think this has effected fantasy football? Are RB values changing? Last year Chicago, New England, Indy, Jax, Philly, Wash, New Orleans, NY Jets and Dallas (this isin't inclusive) all used forms of RBBC. What's the impact to fantasy football as far as you're concerned?

Here's my take. Forms of RBBC have been around forever. 16 games schedules and extended playoffs are forcing this. RBBC will around ongoing as well.

Teams that have no feature RB are forced to use a 2 back system. Teams like Dallas and the Jets had no choice.

Teams that are in transition are using 2 back systems. Last year Chicago, New England and Indy were fazing guys while transitiong in new draft picks. Each of these teams will look mor3e like 1 back teams this year. Jax is going through a faze as Taylor ages.

Washington and a few others are dealing with injuries were forced to go away from feature backs.

A few coaches feel a 2 back system works best. Andy Reid of Philly is a coach like that. They have a great weapon in Westbrook but they use 2 backs to run the ball.

Finally, having several teams use a RBBC really leaves guys LT, Jackson and LJ in higher demand than ever. Having a guy like that can take your team a long way and allow you to draft more effectively in rounds 1-4. Being forced to setlle for a RBBC situatiuon might leave you scrambling to catch up with other owners in your league.

its no different, the only thing that changes are the teams the use RBBC and the backs that are affected

Didn't David Dodds or someone do a study three years ago which showed no real difference over time?

That there has always been RBBC.

Vote is Other.

The move to more RBBC is myth more than fact. We were in a unique situation last year where you had some top rookies going to teams with aging vets, some existing teams already like that, and some teams with no feature RB on their roster. It's the simple cycle of aging vets being replaced by inexperienced youngsters. Let's examine last year's RBBC and this year's moves:

-NE - Dillon & Maroney - Dillon is now gone leaving Maroney to take over.

-Chicago & NYJ - Jets had no feature RB, Chicago had 2. 1 has now been traded to the Jets taking care of these teams.

-Indy - Addai wasn't ready, nor were they sure he could shoulder the whole load. Now Rhodes is gone and Addai is the feature back.

-Wash - Portis went down to injury, simple enough.

-Denver - Bell & Bell weren't very good. Now you have Henry there who might be more of a feature back. That is still undetermined.

-Houston - no RB on the roster worthy of carrying the load last year due to Dom Davis's injury. They've now signed Ahman Green.

-Dallas - Parcells used the 2 RB approach. Who's to say the new coach will though?

NYG - They've always been using the thunder & lightning approach with Tiki. Will Jacobs take the role this year or more of the same?

Jax - Fred Taylor is getting old and couldn't shoulder the whole load. Does MJD take over completely this year?

Many of the teams using RBBC are more out of neccesity than design. Guys get injured, older guys are phased out, while new guys are phased in. It's a natural cycle. It's rare when a rookie is given the reins completely from the start. This year many of the guys for teams above will be asked to step up and carry a bigger portion of the load. Some will be able to handle it, some won't.

With the internet making the playing field more even, having the RB position harder to figure out helps counter that to some degree. Everyone has the same information available to them with a few keystrokes. A lot of the skill has been removed from FF (not all of it). Fantasy baseball is a lot more of a challenge than FF because the minors are harder to guage than the NFL rookies, plus football players don't slump for the most part.

Step 1: Check your assumptions.

If you check out the trend lines since 1978 (first 16-game season) carries for both the #1 RB and the #10 RB are on the rise. Obviously, LJ set the record this year for most carries by a RB, but the #10 RB (by number of carries) also had more than 300 carries. The first time the #10 RB ever had 300+ carries was in 1996 (Murrell, 301); since 2000, it has happened 4 times.

We are in an era of feature backs, not RBBC.

CalBear said:

Step 1: Check your assumptions.If you check out the trend lines since 1978 (first 16-game season) carries for both the #1 RB and the #10 RB are on the rise. Obviously, LJ set the record this year for most carries by a RB, but the #10 RB (by number of carries) also had more than 300 carries. The first time the #10 RB ever had 300+ carries was in 1996 (Murrell, 301); since 2000, it has happened 4 times. We are in an era of feature backs, not RBBC.

Click to expand...

We talk about this about 4 times a year, mainly around this time when people get worried about RBBC.In practice, RBBC is decreasing, not on the rise.

Keys Myaths said:

CalBear said:

Step 1: Check your assumptions.If you check out the trend lines since 1978 (first 16-game season) carries for both the #1 RB and the #10 RB are on the rise. Obviously, LJ set the record this year for most carries by a RB, but the #10 RB (by number of carries) also had more than 300 carries. The first time the #10 RB ever had 300+ carries was in 1996 (Murrell, 301); since 2000, it has happened 4 times. We are in an era of feature backs, not RBBC.

Click to expand...

We talk about this about 4 times a year, mainly around this time when people get worried about RBBC.In practice, RBBC is decreasing, not on the rise.

Click to expand...

I did some preliminary digging on this topic. For the past 11 years, 30-39 RBs had 160 touches each season - no more than 39, no fewer than 30. So the RBBC going up or down seems to be a myth.The reasoning behind why 30-39 backs get that many touches is a separate issue. Is it due to injuries (see Betts/Portis)? RBBC (Bush/Deuce)? That's the question.Overall, the 30-39 stat was very telling to me.

CalBear said:

Step 1: Check your assumptions.If you check out the trend lines since 1978 (first 16-game season) carries for both the #1 RB and the #10 RB are on the rise. Obviously, LJ set the record this year for most carries by a RB, but the #10 RB (by number of carries) also had more than 300 carries. The first time the #10 RB ever had 300+ carries was in 1996 (Murrell, 301); since 2000, it has happened 4 times. We are in an era of feature backs, not RBBC.

Click to expand...

I agree totally. I think some people feel we are in a RBBC and that's why I decided to do this poll. Thanks for posting these stats. Very revealing.

JohnnyU said:

With the internet making the playing field more even, having the RB position harder to figure out helps counter that to some degree. Everyone has the same information available to them with a few keystrokes. A lot of the skill has been removed from FF (not all of it). Fantasy baseball is a lot more of a challenge than FF because the minors are harder to guage than the NFL rookies, plus football players don't slump for the most part.

Click to expand...

Good observation JohnnyU. You are right that more info is easily available and that means if you want to be better than most you better figure out something to give you an edge. Your comment about skill had me thinking. I think that in the info age gotta have it now we are in, RBBC (the myth), allows for those easily swayed by headlines to get fooled into thinking it's reality. Those that look a little closer find something else. Someone posted earlier that we hear about RBBC 4 times a year. It's a myth that won't die. But when and if we ever get to the point that RBBC becomes dominate then the value of guys like LT will become even greater.

On the flipside, acquiring a RBBC that is likely to soon be split apart has significant value - Jones/Benson, THenry/Lendale, etc. RBBC leaves room to flex some skill.

Yes: Things are changing, but it's not "ruining" fantasy football.

CalBear said:

Step 1: Check your assumptions.If you check out the trend lines since 1978 (first 16-game season) carries for both the #1 RB and the #10 RB are on the rise. Obviously, LJ set the record this year for most carries by a RB, but the #10 RB (by number of carries) also had more than 300 carries. The first time the #10 RB ever had 300+ carries was in 1996 (Murrell, 301); since 2000, it has happened 4 times. We are in an era of feature backs, not RBBC.

Click to expand...

I agree with your numbers, but not your analysis. It's not so much that there are more RBBC are less, it's that teams are running more of their offense through the RB position, and that in general, the offensive pie is larger than in the past. Guys like Faulk, Alexander, Holmes, Tomlinson, and so forth do not have analogues in the past. These guys were and are breaking all sorts of RB records, including yards, carries, receptions, and TDs.What's not different is this: teams want to get their best players on the field and keep them on the field as much as possible. My theory? Modern medicine, athletic conditioning, and protective padding enable some running backs to shoulder a workload that was simply unheard of in the past. Couple this with offenses that get the ball to the running back in more and more ways, and you get a larger role for the position. An RB1 in this era can do a lot better stats-wise than an RB1 from another era, even if their total share of the RB position stats goes down.

300 carry guys will always be valuable. Period/

blackdot here, mostly because I've got some ideas on how to test this out at a future date.

Mister CIA said:

On the flipside, acquiring a RBBC that is likely to soon be split apart has significant value - Jones/Benson, THenry/Lendale, etc. RBBC leaves room to flex some skill.

Click to expand...

This is a great strategy for dynasty leagues. Finding some value later in the draft. However, if does come with some risk. The Jones/Benson example is one that was high in risk in hoping that the RBBC would end soon.

Chase Stuart said:

blackdot here, mostly because I've got some ideas on how to test this out at a future date.

Click to expand...

Looking forward to seeing your thoughts.