2008 Fantasy Strategy (1 Viewer)

This is a variation on an idea put forth in various forms already, and which I thought of while listening today to Doug Drinen on the Audible from last night. Among the past suggestions are one by Yudkin in 2005 to draft and start both Priest Holmes, a PFR blog post by Doug Drinen regarding drafting both Marion Barber and Julius Jones and starting them, and the discussion regarding Adrian Peterson and drafting and starting Chester Taylor. I'll call my idea Running Back By Committee, By Committee, or RB- BC Squared.

When I look at the average draft positions of running backs from the same team, I see a significant arbitrage opportunity where the whole is more valuable than the collective sum of its parts. Most notable to me is the Denver running back situation, where Selvin Young is RB31 and Ryan Torain is RB59. For those positions to actually pan out, Denver would have to have the worst rushing production in the league. I suspect that so many fantasy owners have been "Shanahaned" over the years that they collectively want nothing to do with figuring out when Selvin Young is going to get decent production and when he is not.

But my idea is a twist on the previous themes. In the Holmes/LJ and ADP/Taylor examples, you need to take the RB1 very early and try to get the handcuff as well. In the MBIII/Julius Jones example from last year (or say, MJD and Taylor), you need to draft both by round 6 to insure the committee. But, like the Denver situation, there are multiple situations in 2008 available to draft Running Back Teams while not picking up the 1st member til round 5 or later, and the 2nd member of the pair til after round 9. Here are some that stand out (using the ADP data available-1st number is position rank, second is overall):

Tennessee- Lendale White (28/56); Chris Johnson (41/123)

Denver- Selvin Young (31/66); Ryan Torain (49/146)

Cincinnati- Rudi Johnson (25/53); Kenny Watson (48/139)

Houston- Ahman Green (39/96); Chris Brown (42/130)

Whereas Doug Drinen's MBIII/Jones strategy involved drafting both pair from the same team in rounds 5-6, My strategy would involve drafting the first back from each of two of the above teams in rounds 5-7, and the second as necessary somewhere between rounds 8-11.

Thus, rather than relying on one pair, you can play matchups with RB teams, while still drafting best available player at QB/WR/TE in the first 4-5 rounds

This strategy is probably better if you have a start 2 RB/3WR league, so that the advantages you will have at the other positions will be stronger. Going by ADP, you could put together the following team:

QB McNabb or Hasselbeck

RB1 L White or S Young

RB2 C Johnson or R Torain

WR1 Randy Moss

WR2 Edwards or Fitzgerald

WR3 Burress, Holt or Marshall

TE Witten or Gates

You wouldn't be beholden to Shanahan's whims, you would benefit from the draft value resulting from everyone else shying away from them. In this example, you would platoon Tennessee and Denver based on running back matchup, but start both backs from the same team. Tennessee plays Detroit or Cincinnati, you start White/Johnson. Denver plays Oakland or Atlanta, you start Young/Torain. You don't care that Young had the most carries the week before but Shanny flipped a coin and gave Torain the first 10 carries of the game because Young didn't practice hard enough.

You have an advantage at virtually every position, and the platoon of the platoons lets you maximize points out of players who are collectively undervalued by uncertainty about who might produce.

JKL said:

This is a variation on an idea put forth in various forms already, and which I thought of while listening today to Doug Drinen on the Audible from last night. Among the past suggestions are one by Yudkin in 2005 to draft and start both Priest Holmes, a PFR blog post by Doug Drinen regarding drafting both Marion Barber and Julius Jones and starting them, and the discussion regarding Adrian Peterson and drafting and starting Chester Taylor. I'll call my idea Running Back By Committee, By Committee, or RB- BC Squared.When I look at the average draft positions of running backs from the same team, I see a significant arbitrage opportunity where the whole is more valuable than the collective sum of its parts. Most notable to me is the Denver running back situation, where Selvin Young is RB31 and Ryan Torain is RB59. For those positions to actually pan out, Denver would have to have the worst rushing production in the league. I suspect that so many fantasy owners have been "Shanahaned" over the years that they collectively want nothing to do with figuring out when Selvin Young is going to get decent production and when he is not.But my idea is a twist on the previous themes. In the Holmes/LJ and ADP/Taylor examples, you need to take the RB1 very early and try to get the handcuff as well. In the MBIII/Julius Jones example from last year (or say, MJD and Taylor), you need to draft both by round 6 to insure the committee. But, like the Denver situation, there are multiple situations in 2008 available to draft Running Back Teams while not picking up the 1st member til round 5 or later, and the 2nd member of the pair til after round 9. Here are some that stand out (using the ADP data available-1st number is position rank, second is overall):Tennessee- Lendale White (28/56); Chris Johnson (41/123)Denver- Selvin Young (31/66); Ryan Torain (49/146)Cincinnati- Rudi Johnson (25/53); Kenny Watson (48/139)Houston- Ahman Green (39/96); Chris Brown (42/130)Whereas Doug Drinen's MBIII/Jones strategy involved drafting both pair from the same team in rounds 5-6, My strategy would involve drafting the first back from each of two of the above teams in rounds 5-7, and the second as necessary somewhere between rounds 8-11. Thus, rather than relying on one pair, you can play matchups with RB teams, while still drafting best available player at QB/WR/TE in the first 4-5 roundsThis strategy is probably better if you have a start 2 RB/3WR league, so that the advantages you will have at the other positions will be stronger. Going by ADP, you could put together the following team:QB McNabb or HasselbeckRB1 L White or S YoungRB2 C Johnson or R TorainWR1 Randy MossWR2 Edwards or FitzgeraldWR3 Burress, Holt or MarshallTE Witten or GatesYou wouldn't be beholden to Shanahan's whims, you would benefit from the draft value resulting from everyone else shying away from them. In this example, you would platoon Tennessee and Denver based on running back matchup, but start both backs from the same team. Tennessee plays Detroit or Cincinnati, you start White/Johnson. Denver plays Oakland or Atlanta, you start Young/Torain. You don't care that Young had the most carries the week before but Shanny flipped a coin and gave Torain the first 10 carries of the game because Young didn't practice hard enough.You have an advantage at virtually every position, and the platoon of the platoons lets you maximize points out of players who are collectively undervalued by uncertainty about who might produce.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting theory. Are you assuming one player from each committee is a clear start over the other each week?My main concern would be that if White/Johnson, Young/Torrian, Green/Brown end up in 50/50 situations (or close to it), they could all be nearly worthless from a fantasy production standpoint.

I don't like it. You are still using 2 roster spots to get 1 teams RB's fantasy points. If I had the team in your example, I'd start Young and White at this point until it was obvious that Torrian or Johnson was going to get the majority of the carries. I think you gain more fantasy points that way.

Ten RB starter/ Den RB starter > Ten RB starter/ Ten RB backup

Ten RB starter/ Den RB starter > Den RB starter/ Den RB backup

I think at least 90% of the time, you know which RB is going to get a majority of the work, and should be able to field a better fantasy team based on that knowledge.

If there was a situation where there was a true goal line back, then I could see starting both RB's from the same team if you didn't have better options. Example would be Tiki Barber/Brandon Jacobs from 2 years ago.

fantasyplayer said:

That's an interesting theory. Are you assuming one player from each committee is a clear start over the other each week?My main concern would be that if White/Johnson, Young/Torrian, Green/Brown end up in 50/50 situations (or close to it), they could all be nearly worthless from a fantasy production standpoint.

Click to expand...

He's saying start one "set" of BOTH of the committee players each week. Essentially getting nearly 100% of ONE team's RB points for that week (at the RB position). But your opponents are getting 70-90% of TWO team's worth of RB production for that week.Personally, I think that would be a HUGE deficit to overcome with whatever advantage you get at other positions (because of late drafting at RB).Basically, I don't think it would work. Giving up way too much. In order to get equal total production out of the two RB slots, that one team you are getting points from has to almost double the points the other teams are getting on a weekly basis. Not to mention that in the case of a team like Denver, where if you've already got a couple of guys that are on the same plane talent-wise (Young, Torain), there's a decent shot that a third or fourth guy (Pittman, Andre Hall) comes in and grabs a sizable share of the pie. Same with some of the others.Also, it would be tough using that many roster spots on one position with this approach. Slots are gold in most of the leagues I am in, and you would need more than just those four guys to simply cover your bases.

i think any strategy is worth considering, but there are only 2 RB pairs i think would work with this strategy, and those 2 don't even fit the strategy.

last year, there were 2 RB pairs that put 2 backs in the top 24 (jax, min). this strategy would've worked phenomenally some weeks with minny last year, but that would've required 2 picks b/w rounds 3-5 (i think) and a rookie running back becoming the next jim brown. a jax pair would've required a 2nd round pick.

it seems like, if you want any upside at all, this strategy would require some earlier picks. otherwise, you end up with 2 RBs that won't finish in the top 24. a pretty severe disadvantage.

you'd also be banking on the weekly inconsistency of even the best WRs to win games for you. not to mention what happens if a stud WR gets hurt or just busts.

the major benefit of this would be consistency (the positive side of the no upside coin). you're pretty much guaranteed 150 total yards and a touchdown b/w you're 2 backs each week. i guess if you're starting 3 explosive WRs each week, you could win a fair share of games this way.

the real issue is that, with most of the cheap RB pairs, a clear back will emerge and you'd end up resorting to a more traditional strategy.

the other danger is a 3rd RB emerging that you miss out on, ruining your season. i know if someone tried this in my league, i'd blow my entire FA budget trying to get that guy from him.

if you really are considering this strategy, i think the carolina backfield might be ideal. this is going to be a mess to figure out all season, there is no TD vulture or better 3rd down option, and both would come relatively cheap.

I think the idea has some merit, but only really if youre really high on a Tom Brady in the first round and all other stud RBs are drafted, and you're low on MJD/Grant/Lewis. I guess you could get Brady/Top WRs/Top TE...You'd be relegated to taking a Stewart/D.Williams....maybe if you're lucky, and in a quirky league, FWP/Mendenhall? I don't know. Join a league and let us know, I'd really like to know.

Save for Lendale (who I think should be drafted higher and will have a good year), there's a very iffy hold on the starting job on these teams. I mean, would anyone be blindsided if Andre Hall is Denver's main RB in game 8? Or Darius Walker in Hou? Or Irons in Cincy? These things are definitely not a stretch.

To me, it's a bit risky. You could end up with an extremely poor RB situation.

interesting strategy. trying it out now in fantasy calculator.

Holy Schneikes said:

fantasyplayer said:

That's an interesting theory. Are you assuming one player from each committee is a clear start over the other each week?

My main concern would be that if White/Johnson, Young/Torrian, Green/Brown end up in 50/50 situations (or close to it), they could all be nearly worthless from a fantasy production standpoint.

Click to expand...

He's saying start one "set" of BOTH of the committee players each week. Essentially getting nearly 100% of ONE team's RB points for that week (at the RB position). But your opponents are getting 70-90% of TWO team's worth of RB production for that week.Personally, I think that would be a HUGE deficit to overcome with whatever advantage you get at other positions (because of late drafting at RB).

Basically, I don't think it would work. Giving up way too much. In order to get equal total production out of the two RB slots, that one team you are getting points from has to almost double the points the other teams are getting on a weekly basis. Not to mention that in the case of a team like Denver, where if you've already got a couple of guys that are on the same plane talent-wise (Young, Torain), there's a decent shot that a third or fourth guy (Pittman, Andre Hall) comes in and grabs a sizable share of the pie. Same with some of the others.

Also, it would be tough using that many roster spots on one position with this approach. Slots are gold in most of the leagues I am in, and you would need more than just those four guys to simply cover your bases.

Click to expand...

I'll reiterate. I don't think this strategy would be viable in a start 2 WR league. I think it is in a start 2 RB/3 WR league, and would be a better play in a PPR, start 3 WR league, so that the advantage you get at the other positions is increased.There are a couple of factors driving this idea:

1) Running Backs, particularly those outside of the top 3-4, are generally overvalued relative to WR's on the basis of position scarcity. This strategy embraces that scarcity and turns it on its ear, and takes the substantial windfall of points available at WR. Randy Moss outscored every back not named Tomlinson last year in a non-PPR league, and was the highest scoring RB/WR in PPR. He outscored the average RB1 last year by about 5 fantasy points non-PPR/ 7.5 PPR. And that's before I get to the points expected from another top 5 WR and an additional top 10-15 WR as the other starters.

2) This idea is also specific to 2008 and the value I see with certain team/pairs relative to where I see those teams ending up in running back production. The teams I highlighted were all near league average teams last year in total RB fantasy production. The questions are in how they split the pie. I certainly wouldn't do this with a bad rushing team.

3) The added layer of being able to platoon teams gives you an advantage that allows you to make up points over those with RB1's and RB2's they feel beholden to start regardless of matchups. I'm more comfortable playing matchups at RB based on the defense and overall quality of opponent than at WR3 versus WR4. What does the average RB2 score per game-10-11 points in a non-PPR? With this strategy, I'm getting 2 league-average running back situations, and trying to get them, more often than not, in favorable matchups, so I get above league-average running back team production. I'm basically taking 2 cheap options that might be expected to collectively produce 17 points as a RB1/RB2, and turn it into a 20+ point starting combo by playing against bottom 8 rush defenses when available, and avoiding top 8 rush defenses. Is the RBBC going to be outscored on average, yeah, but I think I can limit it to less than 10 points on average. But are my Moss/Fitzgerald/Burress/Witten run-n-shoot combo going to hammer the typical 3 WR/TE group, yeah, they are. And I think by more than 10 points against teams that are rolling out Chambers/Berrian at WR2/WR3.

4) There is upside here. If Chris Johnson suddenly starts consistently getting 20 touches a game to White's 8, then yeah, he becomes the starter, and the strategy changes. Then, you have a better than expected RB starter to go with the hands down most potent receiving corp in the game.

5) Oh, and finally, because I am able to get my pairs relatively late, say, a 5th, 6th, 9th and 11th with this strategy, I am able to add a quality WR4 and QB2 in the mid rounds so that I have depth to back up my key positions.

Or think of it this way:

WR1 Moss versus Team A RB1 -- advantage, usually Moss, slight overall to my team

WR2 Fitzgerald versus Team A WR1 -- advantage, slight to my team

WR3 Burress versus Team A WR2 -- advantage, moderate to my team

QB1 McNabb/Hasselbeck versus Team A QB1 -- win some, lose some, overall push

TE1 Witten versus Team A TE -- moderate to my team

All those 1-3 expected advantages add up though.

That leaves my RBBC versus the other teams RB2 and WR3. Even though I don't know his identity beforehand, I'm pretty sure my highest scoring running back each week is going to at least play your RB2 to a draw on average. That leaves your WR3 having to substantially outscore my second back to make up the difference I've built up at the other matchups.

pollardsvision said:

i think any strategy is worth considering, but there are only 2 RB pairs i think would work with this strategy, and those 2 don't even fit the strategy.

last year, there were 2 RB pairs that put 2 backs in the top 24 (jax, min). this strategy would've worked phenomenally some weeks with minny last year, but that would've required 2 picks b/w rounds 3-5 (i think) and a rookie running back becoming the next jim brown. a jax pair would've required a 2nd round pick.

it seems like, if you want any upside at all, this strategy would require some earlier picks. otherwise, you end up with 2 RBs that won't finish in the top 24. a pretty severe disadvantage.

you'd also be banking on the weekly inconsistency of even the best WRs to win games for you. not to mention what happens if a stud WR gets hurt or just busts.

the major benefit of this would be consistency (the positive side of the no upside coin). you're pretty much guaranteed 150 total yards and a touchdown b/w you're 2 backs each week. i guess if you're starting 3 explosive WRs each week, you could win a fair share of games this way.

the real issue is that, with most of the cheap RB pairs, a clear back will emerge and you'd end up resorting to a more traditional strategy. the other danger is a 3rd RB emerging that you miss out on, ruining your season. i know if someone tried this in my league, i'd blow my entire FA budget trying to get that guy from him.

if you really are considering this strategy, i think the carolina backfield might be ideal. this is going to be a mess to figure out all season, there is no TD vulture or better 3rd down option, and both would come relatively cheap.

Click to expand...

Is the danger that Andre Hall moves into the top 2 of the Denver rotation any greater than Sammy Morris taking carries away from Maroney, or Bradshaw getting a higher than expected share of work from Jacobs, or that LJ plays in less than 10 games? The difference is that those guys require early picks, while I've loaded up at WR/TE. Yeah, there is risk in everything. The Carolina backfield would require a 5th and 6th. IMO, the best matchups from DEN + TEN RB combo is >> than relying weekly on the CAR RB, though Stewart is the biggest upside play. You could go CAR RB, then HOU RB (Green and Brown), and still use a similar strategy, and plan on CAR RB being your primary starter, but having the flexibility to go to HOU RB if the matchups dictate it, and still having the ability to insert Stewart as the weekly RB1 if he turns out to be the next great rookie sensation.

I like it!!

Problem is, I'm not sure whether I like it because I think it's a good strategy, or because I just like trying off-the-wall things for the fun of it.

To answer one of your questions, I do think that Andre Hall or Anthony Alridge or Peyton Hillis or some guy who's not on a roster right now does have a better chance of messing with your plan than you think. And that's part of the reason the price on Young and Torain is so cheap. To put it another way, if Young and Torain had a clause written into their contracts that Shanahan wasn't allowed to carry any other RBs on the roster aside from those two (except in case of injury), their ADPs would be quite a bit higher.

Just for fun, I found teams that had similar RB1/RB2 ADP situations to Denver and Tennessee and Carolina and Houston, and I saw how those RBs ended up doing.

The first number listed is the ADP. The last number is the end-of-year total points rank.

More to say, but no time to talk right now. Hopefully I'll be back later...

Doug Drinen said:

I like it!!Problem is, I'm not sure whether I like it because I think it's a good strategy, or because I just like trying off-the-wall things for the fun of it.To answer one of your questions, I do think that Andre Hall or Anthony Alridge or Peyton Hillis or some guy who's not on a roster right now does have a better chance of messing with your plan than you think. And that's part of the reason the price on Young and Torain is so cheap. To put it another way, if Young and Torain had a clause written into their contracts that Shanahan wasn't allowed to carry any other RBs on the roster aside from those two (except in case of injury), their ADPs would be quite a bit higher.Just for fun, I found teams that had similar RB1/RB2 ADP situations to Denver and Tennessee and Carolina and Houston, and I saw how those RBs ended up doing.The first number listed is the ADP. The last number is the end-of-year total points rank.

Code:

den 2008 | Young	31	| Torain   49	|sfo 2005 | Barlow   30 34 | Gore	 50 38 |car 2001 | Biakabut 30 67 | Huntley  48 36 |chi 2001 | Allen	31 45 | Thomas   46 13 |rai 2004 | Wheatley 32 49 | Fargas   47 85 |chi 2003 | Thomas   29 24 | Peterson 48 99 |rai 2007 | Jordan   33 41 | Rhodes   47 91 |dal 2002 | Smith	28 26 | Hambrick 47 58 |gnb 2007 | Jackson  31 69 | Morency  42 79 |nyj 2006 | Barlow   31 46 | Houston  42 47 |tam 2004 | Garner   27 98 | Alstott  48 59 |ten 2008 | White	28	| Johnson  41	|car 2005 | Foster   28 24 | Davis	41 26 |atl 2007 | Norwood  28 43 | Dunn	 39 30 |nwe 2003 | Smith	27 39 | Faulk	42 34 |rai 2002 | Garner   27  9 | Wheatley 42 51 |min 2005 | Bennett  29 39 | Moore	43 28 |cle 2000 | Rhett	29 63 | Prentice 43 28 |nwe 2000 | Faulk	30 26 | Redmond  40 41 |cle 2004 | Suggs	26 33 | Green	39 40 |gnb 2007 | Jackson  31 69 | Morency  42 79 |nyj 2006 | Barlow   31 46 | Houston  42 47 |htx 2008 | Green	39	| Brown	42	|oti 2007 | White	40 15 | Brown	43 45 |htx 2002 | Allen	38 41 | Wells	44 44 |cle 2005 | Droughns 38 14 | Suggs	39 99 |tam 2003 | Alstott  36 82 | Pittman  41 23 |mia 2004 | Minor	36 50 | Gordon   40 99 |nwe 2001 | Redmond  43 81 | Smith	45  9 |sdg 2000 | Fazande  34 48 | Chancey  44 78 |rav 2001 | Allen	34 38 | Brookins 44 39 |crd 2003 | Smith	33 63 | Shipp	43 36 |gnb 2007 | Jackson  31 69 | Morency  42 79 |car 2008 | Stewart  27	| Williams 33	|mia 2005 | Brown	27 23 | Williams 34 27 |sfo 2001 | Hearst   26 12 | Barlow   32 30 |crd 2001 | Pittman  29 22 | Jones	33 42 |atl 2002 | Dunn	 29 19 | Duckett  32 42 |atl 2004 | Duckett  28 36 | Dunn	 30 15 |dal 2004 | George   29 41 | Jones	31 28 |mia 2000 | Smith	31 11 | Johnson  33 73 |sfo 2003 | Barlow   25 17 | Hearst   31 29 |den 2006 | Bell	 23 30 | Bell	 33 31 |chi 2005 | Benson   32 86 | Jones	33  9 |

More to say, but no time to talk right now. Hopefully I'll be back later...

Click to expand...

Good stuff, Doug. I'll just note that this strategy is specific to 2008 and what I am seeing, which is that I think RB2's are overvalued compared to the Top 14 or so Wideouts, I just think there are alot more safe high production plays at WR, and alot more committee possibilities at RB to employ the approach in 2008. I believe that running back usage patterns will be by and large more similar to 2007 than 1998-2005. Most of the Denver comps on the above list, and for that matter Houston, were fairly bad rushing teams the year before I am guessing. Though I am not sure how it will play out, my guess is that teams like Denver and Houston, by hook or by crook, will not be at the bottom of the league in total production. The question and gamble is who. In reviewing it, I think the Carolina strategy isn't a bad one, and my only supplement is to target the DEN or HOU combos (and maybe CIN depending on if Rudi falls far enough) as a cheaper team RB2 for the Carolina or Tennessee duo (the two that have the biggest upside to produce a feature back IMHO). I just did some mocks, and here are two teams built using the strategy:Team 1: Garrard/DelhommeCAR and DEN RB'sR. MossFitzgeraldColstonGatesTeam 2: BradyTEN and HOU RB'sWayneBurressMarshallCooleyI'm looking at it unconventionally, considering Moss as the equivalent of an RB1, so I'm viewing it like my QB, 3 WR's and TE will outscore another conventional teams QB, RB1, Top 2 WR's and TE by 5 points/week or more on average. Then my committee approach just needs to not get significantly outplayed by the other teams RB2/WR3. If it was 2002, and teams could routinely have pairings like Shaun Alexander/McAllister, then this is a less attractive strategy. But in 2008, when the other teams in my mocks have pairings like Maroney and Engram, or Bush and Vincent Jackson, or Jacobs and Reggie Brown, I'll take my chances.

. for later.

This is certainly interesting. However the main assumption I see in this strategy is that it is based upon what happened in 2007. Where WR scoring really exploded and RBs as a whole had a down year. If you think this is a trend that will continue.. there are some reasons to think that going back to the no chuck rule enforcement.. but I also think teams will return to the running game more in 2008.. anyhow interesting strategy.