Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
How to extreme ZeroRB? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter lilmink
- Start date
Aunt Jemima
Footballguy
my question is why?? waiting can work but why wait that long? just to say you did it? what are your starting lineup requirements. Without more info my answer would be no, not viable if you want to win
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Only draft Inuit RB?
Not sure if that is viable.
Not sure if that is viable.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Anything is possible, but I think it's kinda silly. Maybe just take the best player available, regardless of position?
While the masses are all going "zero RB" maybe be the guy who stacks up on the best RBs you can get early and often has the best strategy?
Recency bias shellshock from RB-ageddon of 2015 has everyone off RBs and banging the drum for zero RB. I dunno if I'm buying it. The rare elite RBs can win leagues - drafting a balanced roster can win leagues. And just because they're an elite RB doesn't mean 2015 is going to happen again.
Here's the thing....10 picks without a RB....if you are intent on controlling your picks to that degree, you're forcing the draft. You need to let the draft come to you. Being inflexible to follow some dogma will only cost you points and lead to missed opportunity.
IMO, it's great to have a plan, but you can't be that rigid. Recognize when a great value falls to you, even if it's (gasp!) a running back. (I feel like I said a dirty word).
I love having two stud RBs in the 1st 5 rounds. And IMO with everyone and their brother doing "zero RB" (what we called "WR-heavy 10+ years ago) there are even better values falling at RB since everyone's now convinced they're worthless.
Recency bias + fantasy experts touting zero RB has everyone on tilt lately. Most years about 1/2 of the stud RBs pan out, and WRs can be busts too. Hell, I think Antonio Brown is one of the riskiest players in the draft. Roethlisburger getting older/hurt more often, shaky OL, and no backup QB in PIT worth a damn, there's quite a few factors that make Brown every bit as risky as taking D.Johnson or L.Miller in the 1st round. A couple of years I took stud WRs 1-2, and they were terrible. Jordy Nelson, Dez Bryant, Alshon Jefferys last year (had Nelson/Jeffries - whee!) - and when they went down, I was stuck with a bust WR duo and below average RBs. None of my lottery ticket upside backs hit and it was a loooong season.
Anyway, that's my rant for the day - if you want to try to win a bet in a free or cheap league & try "extreme zero RB", have at it. But in a $ league I think it'd be nutty. Your starting RBs will be guys like Powell, Vereen, Tevin Coleman, James Starks, maybe Ivory slips or Sproles? Whichever 3-4 of those guys you end up with late, you'll seemingly have a huge roster disadvantage vs teams that draft balanced rosters with equal stud RB/WR. I dunno - I've ready people say zero RB is about minimizing risk, but I feel like it's "drafting scared".
And 10 rounds - ok, 2 QB, 6 WR, 2 TE? What do you expect to draft? You're drafting a pretty deep bench early assuming a normal starting lineup. Why wouldn't you draft a RB before your 4th-5th-6th WRs or 2nd TE?
If you do draft like this, please revisit and post the team - would love to see the results.
While the masses are all going "zero RB" maybe be the guy who stacks up on the best RBs you can get early and often has the best strategy?
Recency bias shellshock from RB-ageddon of 2015 has everyone off RBs and banging the drum for zero RB. I dunno if I'm buying it. The rare elite RBs can win leagues - drafting a balanced roster can win leagues. And just because they're an elite RB doesn't mean 2015 is going to happen again.
Here's the thing....10 picks without a RB....if you are intent on controlling your picks to that degree, you're forcing the draft. You need to let the draft come to you. Being inflexible to follow some dogma will only cost you points and lead to missed opportunity.
IMO, it's great to have a plan, but you can't be that rigid. Recognize when a great value falls to you, even if it's (gasp!) a running back. (I feel like I said a dirty word).
I love having two stud RBs in the 1st 5 rounds. And IMO with everyone and their brother doing "zero RB" (what we called "WR-heavy 10+ years ago) there are even better values falling at RB since everyone's now convinced they're worthless.
Recency bias + fantasy experts touting zero RB has everyone on tilt lately. Most years about 1/2 of the stud RBs pan out, and WRs can be busts too. Hell, I think Antonio Brown is one of the riskiest players in the draft. Roethlisburger getting older/hurt more often, shaky OL, and no backup QB in PIT worth a damn, there's quite a few factors that make Brown every bit as risky as taking D.Johnson or L.Miller in the 1st round. A couple of years I took stud WRs 1-2, and they were terrible. Jordy Nelson, Dez Bryant, Alshon Jefferys last year (had Nelson/Jeffries - whee!) - and when they went down, I was stuck with a bust WR duo and below average RBs. None of my lottery ticket upside backs hit and it was a loooong season.
Anyway, that's my rant for the day - if you want to try to win a bet in a free or cheap league & try "extreme zero RB", have at it. But in a $ league I think it'd be nutty. Your starting RBs will be guys like Powell, Vereen, Tevin Coleman, James Starks, maybe Ivory slips or Sproles? Whichever 3-4 of those guys you end up with late, you'll seemingly have a huge roster disadvantage vs teams that draft balanced rosters with equal stud RB/WR. I dunno - I've ready people say zero RB is about minimizing risk, but I feel like it's "drafting scared".
And 10 rounds - ok, 2 QB, 6 WR, 2 TE? What do you expect to draft? You're drafting a pretty deep bench early assuming a normal starting lineup. Why wouldn't you draft a RB before your 4th-5th-6th WRs or 2nd TE?
If you do draft like this, please revisit and post the team - would love to see the results.
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Might be a good strategy in a dynasty league.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
ZERORB works if you A) have a year like last year where RBs went down faster than hookers on payday and B) you actually hit on 1 or 2 of those backup "diamonds in the rough". I'm not opposed to a "SINGLERB" strategy where you get your (your lineups not neccessarily a true)RB1 with a nice value pick and then punting your RB2 slot until the 10th........but punting the entire position for the first 10 rounds is (IMO) risky.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s
Footballguy
One reason Zero RB is considered by many superior to a heavy RB strategy is that when RBs fail (injury or performance), a new RB takes their place. This was evident last year with Hightower, Williams, West/Ware, Langford, Rawls, White, David Johnson, Chris Johnson, Starks, etc. It was true the year before with CJ Anderson, Hill, Forsett, Tre Mason, etc. When a RB gets hurt, his points are often (not always, but often) replaced and that player is many times even available on WW. When a WR gets hurt, the next in line WR isn't often available since most teams #2 and sometimes #3 WRs are already owned. Besides, there isn't often a WR that steps in and provides similar production to the WR that was hurt. There were no new high quality starting WRs filling in the roles of Jordy, Dez, Alshon, Keenan Allen, Edelman, Sammy, DeSean Jackson or Martavis Bryant. A high end WR gets hurt and it's likely that the role is simply lost like tears in the rain. If a RB goes down, it is likely you can just plug in the next guy and keep rolling. There are exceptions. Keenan Allen replaced Steve Smith fairly well. Houston never was able to replace Foster. Those are more the exceptions though.
Last year when you took Al and Jordy early and then were stuck with average RBs. That's not zero RB. If you had gone zero RB, you would have had more WRs to replace Jordy and Alshon with. Cooks, Evans, Keenan, Marshall, Sammy, AR15, Edelman, Maclin, Decker, Cooper, Sanders, Martavis, Jarvis, John Brown, Larry Fitzgerald, etc. Those were all guys going between rounds 3 and 8. You would have had a shot at adding 3 or 4 of those guys above if you had gone zero RB and could have replaced Alshon and Jordy without much problem. Ofcourse there were other bust WRs in that range like Agoholor, Adams, Andre, Vincent Jackson. That's part of the point of Zero RB. We aren't very good at determining who will have a good year and who won't. Even in the early rounds, we are only about 50/50. So the idea that you can draft 2 RBs and 2 WRs in the first four rounds and feel good that you got those spots covered is a fallacy. If we have 3 WR spots to fill and we start the draft with 6 WRs, then it is much more likely that we found some combination of high quality WRs to start on a weekly basis.
Zero RB, in particular, one taken to this extreme is viable because so many leagues have gone PPR, and there has been an increase in the number of flex spots. NFL10 year trends have seen (for both PPR and standard) the fantasy points for the top 24 RBs decrease while the top 24 WRs increase. That is true on both a season cumulative score and PPG average so it reflects both usage and not just injury rates. Last year was the year the WRs almost pulled even with the RBs in standard. In PPR, the WRs passed the RBs awhile ago. In a PPR league, the ideal play is to start as many WRs as you can. So if you can start 5 WRs in a PPR league, there is nothing wrong with starting out with 7-8 WRs to make sure you that when byes, injuries and busts happen, you are always able to have WRs to fill your lineup.
Oddly the strategy works well if other teams are going Zero RB because it pushes RBs farther down the draft. If you have a league where half the league is going zero RB, then half the league aren't taking RBs which means half the RBs that normally get drafted all falling. This means the choices at RB aren't bad for the people that waited. The team in trouble is the lone wolf who decided to buck the trend and go heavy RB because of the value. They are going to be stuck picking WR at the end of a massive run while good value picks will fall to the Zero WR guys.
massraider
Footballguy
When everyone is doing it, or at least 4 or 5 owners, it gets thin quick.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Absolutely, which is all the more reason you need to be doing it. It's a huge run you don't want to get stuck on the wrong end of.
massraider
Footballguy
I'm not debating the merits of going WR-WR-WR, but in rounds 4-5-6, when 5+ teams are going 0-WR, there is value at RB, and people are taking WRs that are pretty much the same as guys they can get in three rounds.
By the way, it's thinking like yours that made 0-WR a viable strategy.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
In PPR, a zero WR strategy is insane. Why would you not draft the position that scores the most points and typically requires the most spots in your lineup?
massraider
Footballguy
Yeah, guy, that's why I just freaking said I wasn't debating the merits of going 0-RB.
I am discussing the merits of going WR in the middle rounds because that is your strategy. If many owners are doing it, and chances are, many are, then the value is oftent imes not there.
From what I have seen from redrafts, and MFL10s, my plan, in the abstract, would be to try and go WR the first three rounds, and then play it by ear. Sometimes there are good WRs in the 4th/5th, sometimes it's fished out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thunderlips
Footballguy
I akin that to the old RB/RB theory back in the day. Buying into the "because everyone else is doing it" idea just pushes the premier players in the other positions back to the guys who started the runs.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
It was the right move back in the day because RBs were such a dominant position. For example, in 2006 PPR was very rare. LT more than doubled the points of the highest WR. Chester Taylor was RB 15. Only 3 WRs outscored Taylor that year. People went RB heavy early because RBs scored an insane amount of points. In 2003, Jamal Lewis ran for over 2000 yards and 14 TDs. He was only the RB4 for the year. That's not true anymore. PPR is more common and WRs score more points than RBs in PPR. Even in standard, the gap has been closing over the last 10 years.
PIK95
Footballguy
It may work, but I wouldn't wait too long. I usually will target just the back ends of rbbc, and make sure I have four wr's, a TE, and a quarterback or two before I go RB. Of course if there is an insane value on a RB in round six I would move in him.
Last edited by a moderator:
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
I don't know if waiting for a double digit round to grab an RB is viable---but I do think that based on your leagues roster requirements--going 6-7 rounds with no RB might work. If you play in a ppr league where the roster requirements are 1qb-2rb-3wr-1te-1 RB/WR/te ..etc---where essentially you'll want to start 4 wr's per week--I think loading up on them makes sense. It also could be a good way of playing "defense" against the other teams in the league buy hoarding up the most and best wr's. Lastly--it also could be a viable way of cornering a market when it comes to trade bait. With that being said--I do think that waiting for 10 rounds would probably leave you with RB's that could start the season as essentially worthless. I think if you could maybe try to get 2-3 RB's in the first 10 rounds--you'll be much better. Guys like legarrette Blount, rashad Jennings, deangelo williams should all start the season doing pretty well. If you spend some later round picks on high upside backup RBs that will become fantasy studs should an injury arise--I think it could work. If you do go this route--I would be interested in seeing how your team ends up looking.
abbottjamesr
Footballguy
Below are the RB's with ADP's over 120. If you took 7 of these guys you might be ok. By the end of the season some of these will certainly be RB2 worthy. I like the bolded ones the best. Blount and Powell should have enough work load to be Day 1 starters. Coleman, Sproles, Michael, White, Morris should have some work early and are good handcuffs also. Booker, Ware, Johnson, Marshall, McKinnon are all solid hand cuffs.
LeGarrette Blount
Bilal Powell
Tevin Coleman
Darren Sproles
Christine Michael
Devontae Booker
Shane Vereen
James Starks
James White
Kenneth Dixon
DeAndre Washington
Jerick McKinnon
C.J. Prosise
Spencer Ware
Javorius Allen
Jordan Howard
Charcandrick West
Chris Johnson
Alfred Morris
Terrance West
Chris Thompson
Paul Perkins
Darren McFadden
Tim Hightower
Cameron Artis-Payne
Kenyan Drake
Josh Ferguson
Ronnie Hillman
Keith Marshall
Marcel Reece
Tyler Gaffney
Reggie Bush
Shaun Draughn
Alfred Blue
Wendell Smallwood
C.J. Spiller
Benny Cunningham
Dexter McCluster
LeGarrette Blount
Bilal Powell
Tevin Coleman
Darren Sproles
Christine Michael
Devontae Booker
Shane Vereen
James Starks
James White
Kenneth Dixon
DeAndre Washington
Jerick McKinnon
C.J. Prosise
Spencer Ware
Javorius Allen
Jordan Howard
Charcandrick West
Chris Johnson
Alfred Morris
Terrance West
Chris Thompson
Paul Perkins
Darren McFadden
Tim Hightower
Cameron Artis-Payne
Kenyan Drake
Josh Ferguson
Ronnie Hillman
Keith Marshall
Marcel Reece
Tyler Gaffney
Reggie Bush
Shaun Draughn
Alfred Blue
Wendell Smallwood
C.J. Spiller
Benny Cunningham
Dexter McCluster
VaTerp
Footballguy
Do several mock drafts with this strategy and see how comfortable you are with the rosters you end up with.
Personally, I would never do this and don't see it as a viable strategy in my leagues. I think you are much more likely to be frustrated by weekly lineup decisions, leaving WR points on the bench, and struggling to put up decent starters at the RB position then you are for it to work in your favor.
But almost anything can happen and maybe you strike gold with late round RBs or the waiver wire. Or are able to work out a trade in season. The question I would have though is why arbitrarily decide to not draft any RBs until the double digit rounds? I can certainly see going WR heavy but are there no RBs going rounds 4-9ish that you like?
Thunderlips
Footballguy
I'd add Wendell Smallwood to that list....and IMO, he might end up being the steal. He was targeted by Pederson in the draft. He's a good pass catcher. He's behind Matthews on the depth chart...and (IMO the most important) he hasn't played in the preseason yet so he's kind of flying under the conventional radar. He's supposed to play this week....and if he performs well, he'll shoot up the rankings. I play in a league with a lot of PHI fans.....and I'm of kind of disgruntled that our draft is Sun....because by then we'll have more of an idea of how he'll play.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
It's also good to know your league. From talking with friends in my league, they all are talking up going heavier on WR early, but my guess is they won't be true zero RB, won't have the stomach for it and will move off WR and onto other positions after rounds 2 and 3. So I think my plan is get get an elite WR in round 1, get a RB that slips in round 2 and then hammer WRs hard for the next few rounds.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I think zero WR is viable at the ends of the drafts. I am at the end of the rounds in a couple drafts. One is a 14 team where I have the 1.14. If people are going bonkers on WRs (most of the time I see 9 go before me in my mocks, yeah I am going RB heavy. It's not how I have been drafting the last few years, but instead of forcing WR/WR with a combo like Nelson/Allen, I would rather grab two of Miller/AP/Zeke/Bell/Freeman. A few mocks I have done, I have gotten a combo like Miller/Freeman then at the next corner gotten L.Murray/CJ Anderson. Somebody like Maclin with my 4th, and then start in on the WRs for the next 3-4 rounds. Personally, I like that a lot more than the opposite. I will go WR/WR if guys like ARob, Dez, Allen are sitting there to grab two of, but that doesn't seem to ever happen now because it seems like everybody is onto the zero Rb thing.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
I am just going to take the best player available on my list while filling my starting line up. As pointed out by Karma, the draft strategy really depends on what position you are drafting and how the league is drafting. I do not like to enter drafts with a pre-planned strategy. Too many things change as the draft unfolds.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Actually I was deep at WR - had 4 good ones and 3 got hurt. And a couple of breakout WR who did not. lol. And a couple who had QBs go down.
I also had decent backups and handcuff RB lottery tickets, but the point is they're all football players and there's really no such thing as a "safe pick".
I do understand the point of taking lesser RBs and upside players and allegedly minimizing risk while maximizing upside. I've read several of the articles about "zero RB" - and when applied to 2015, the arguments look awesome. Talk of how Davonte Freeman won a lot of leagues with zero RB guys grabbing him in the 7th. Except that is a miracle - a lottery ticket. You could just as easily go zero RB, and stack up on the RB targets and whiff every time. RBs getting hurt is a possibility, not a guarantee - and while you can make a smart pick like Powell, knowing Forte's knees/age, Forte may well shock everyone by staying healthy. And the non zero RB players should also be targeting upside backs like Powell, making it even harder to get enough of those guys to field a competitive team or truly "hit" on one with a breakout.
A lot of what I've read from folks relates to 2015 - a matter of looking back to a small sample size and claiming that as evidence or proof of success. I'm not completely buying it.
Nor am I touting "stud RB" - not at all. I'm perfectly ok going 3 straight WR then Jordon Reed if that's where the value in my draft is, for my scoring system and roster composition in a given league.
but if 9 teams are eschewing RBs, allowing a guy like Gurley, Freeman or Elliott to fell to the mid-late 2nd, and you took a top WR at the 3-4-5-6 spot, there's nothing wrong with taking the value RB. And I think it would be a bit silly to let that player fall to the 1-2-3 teams while you grab a 3rd or 4th or 5th tier WR
Im not saying zero RB can't work - many strategies can work. But when everyone zigs, sometimes it's the guy who zags that gets the best value. Ironically, this is what zero RB guys say all the time about why they're taking WR. Except very few people go "stud RB" any more. The goal is to take the players who will score the most points. Yes, you can minimize risk by applying a strategy where your RBs are of lesser importance, and where you stack up on lottery tickets. But not every year is 2015. And if you are sitting at the end of the 1st and a Freeman or Eliott fall to you and you blindly grab the 16th best WR, then you're letting that value fall to someone else. If you're that worried about it, use a late pick to handcuff (in this example, Alfred Morris or Coleman) - then you're also taking a "breakout" target away from the zero RB crowd.
And even with a RB-heavy strategy (I ended up going D.Johnson/Freeman in my PPR draft at the 1.04 spot) that doesn't mean you can't still stack up on the opportunity backs that zero RB guys are targeting too. And there are also upside WRs - I'm really happy with my WRs in that league with Watkins, Decker, Moncrief, Lockett, Snead.
All I'm saying is to be flexible - you never know what will happen in a draft. I've had success the past with going WR-TE-WR-WR-QB, and I've had success with RB-RB-RB-WR-WR-WR And I've had success with RB-WR-RB-WR-RB. And I've experienced failure with all of those strategies too. And with more passing means more potential breakout WRs too.
Diifferent years bring different players, coaches, schemes, OLs. Predicting anything with exact accuracy is incredibly difficult so we do the best we can with the tools that we have. And sometimes we get lucky. And you can get lucky with zero RB or unlucky with zero RB.
its all just philosophy anyway, no one here is 100% right or 100% wrong, so I appreciate the respectful discussion.
I do see the upside of zero RB, I just also recognize that there's a downside and risk there.
And it seems like it was a much better theory when only a couple guys in a league did it. If say, 9 teams of 12 employ the strategy, isn't that just getting sucked into a massive receiver run? Are you really taking the most valuable player at your pick, or are you ignoring value in favor of philosophy? And if everyone is doing it then everyone will also be fighting for the handcuffs and rbbc backs, because those are the breakout targets. And that would seem to give the people who choose to do VBD or "anything but zero RB" an advantage, in part because it makes the picks of the zero RB crowd much more predictable. In my 12-team PPR IDP league the 12 team went zero RB (McCoy in the 4.01, no other RB until the 8th) and team #11 sniped the best RB 1 pick before him several times. Because team 11 knew that was team 12's need. Team 12 was pretty frustrated.
Maybe im just the old guy stuck in his ways. the years I've had a rigid philosophy/draft plans have always been my worst. The years I've let the draft come to me have been my best. I guess time will tell.
One last thought: if 2016 returns to normal injury rates for RBs & the top 3-4 "stud" RBs do manage to stay healthy, they are going to pay even greater dividends due to the relative weakness at the position of the zero RB guys, while simultaneously reducing the value of some of those lottery ticket handcuffs.
I'm interested to see how things play out. I have another draft on the 5th, and I have absolutely no idea what strategy I'll employ - once I know my position in the draft and see who falls to me it'll become apparent.
Good luck in your drafts.
Last edited by a moderator:
pantherclub
Footballguy
In an odd way thats one of the beauties of waiting on a rb, a bulk of the time when this happens you are starting behind the 8ball and finish high on the waiver priority and then you can snag the back up to the inevitable starter that goes out in the first couple of weeks.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Then again, they all might get hurt too, or simply not break out. Draughn, for example, is already hurt.
RB is a risky position for the scrub RBs too.
In theory I do agree that this can work though - just playing devil's advocate.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
This is exactly my philosophy. Perfectly stated. Every draft has a pulse - if you ignore that pulse to adhere to some rigid philosophy/strategy you're going to miss on a lot of value.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Don't worry - some fantasy expert will recommend him as a sleeper on Friday. lol
This seems to happen to me with all my best late round targets. Some guy on Roto or CBS will put out a "10 late sleepers you must grab for your PPR draft!" and it'll be 8/10 guys I'd identified as value picks that no one was talking about before. Sonova!
Ilov80s
Footballguy
I know people here have mentioned Zero RB in relation to last year. The Zero RB article that started the trend is from 2012 or 13 and was based on data from the seasons before that. Also, even in standard, the per game points scored by the top 24 RBs has steadily been declining the last 10 years while the points per game scored by the top 24 WRs has been steadily increasing. It is a clear trend and not new to last year and not just due to some outlier year of injuries. I can show you the data if you want. I posted about it in the "Trends" thread.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I've seen the data - it's been posted by many people in many places. And I don't disagree - as mentioned, I was employing some form of this philosophy as long ago as 2004-2005 when everyone dogmatically went RB-RB-RB.
There's no arguing that rules changes in the NFL have made it more of a passing league. More teams using 3 WR sets as well. It's one of the reasons QB Freefall became a popular strategy and remains so to this day - because more passing in the league means more viable FFB QBs.
That said, there are exceptions - there are teams that will employ a run-first philosophy, and coaches who will use a "bellcow" feature back. And there are exceptional RBs who come along who will get 250+ carries, with GL and receiving. There aren't as many of them, but there's no doubt there will be a few.
If you ask the Cowboys coaching staff what an ideal ratio would be, I'd be willing to bet they'd say "60-40 run/pass". But that's hard to do when your defense sucks and you get into shootouts, so yeah - Dez & Romo become more valuable in FFB when that happens.
And while the trend of passing in the NFL isn't going anywhere, I am not necessarily in agreement that it means "zero RB" is THE strategy to employ over building a balanced roster with BPA. I think those are mutually exclusive.
For one, the trend effects every team, which means more passing for everyone. To me that means diminishing the value of WRs because more of them will perform. So those few "feature backs" are even more rare - so much so that having one can and will be a winning strategy for many FFB teams this year. If you have a 25 touch RB, or (gasp!) 2 of them, chances are the team that drafted them is going to have a huge weekly advantage at RB over their competition and with effective drafting might not have as big a deficit at WR.. Can David Johnson or Elliott or Charles or Lamar Miller be that guy that gives you Priest Holmes or Marshall Faulk-esque numbers? Certainly possible - all of them have the tools, the coaching and the talent to do so. All they need is a little health.
And they's where my comments about 2015 come from - that's the recency bias, and where I think 2016 is going a little too far the other way against RBs based on 1 fluky season that saw RBs treated like closers in fantasy baseball. And many of the zero RB articles I've read love to point to 2015 as definitive proof of that being THE WAY to draft now.
In my humble opinion, while it is totally possible to dominate using this strategy by stacking great receivers, diminishing the value of RBs and thus mitigating risk and getting really lucky by accurately predicting which of the scrubs will ascend to RB1 status ala Freeman 2015, you have to acknowledge the risk that it is equally likely that teams who employ this will have a frustrating season, miss on the lottery ticket late RBs, be too thin to sustain more than 1 injury to any position.
I've been there and it's not fun.
Don't disagree about the trends, but do disagree that it's validation of "zero RB" philosophy. Fun debate though!
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Nice post HSG.
I don't think anyone should be expecting Priest Holmes or Marshall Faulk numbers unless **** Vermeil is resurrected though.
eta - I guess **** Vermeil is still around, so there is some hope.
I don't think anyone should be expecting Priest Holmes or Marshall Faulk numbers unless **** Vermeil is resurrected though.
eta - I guess **** Vermeil is still around, so there is some hope.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
It's funny, BC I'm thinking the opposite this year. I think the wr early and often philosophy has shifted things back to the RBS for contrarians like myself.
There are tons of great Wrs this year but only 5-10 truly good Rb options and then the rest are total question marks.
Mid like to come out of the first 5 rounds with 3 Rb and 2 Wrs, taking Rb with my first RD pick.
There are tons of great Wrs this year but only 5-10 truly good Rb options and then the rest are total question marks.
Mid like to come out of the first 5 rounds with 3 Rb and 2 Wrs, taking Rb with my first RD pick.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
I am not a diehard Zero RB guy. I think scoring and especially line-up requirements drive the strategy. In all formats a workhorse 3 down RB that catches passes and gets GL work is the most valuable commodity. That's why before suspension, many people were taking Bell #1 overall in just about every format. It's just very difficult to figure out who safely fits this category.
Bell is suspended 3 games (coming off a serious knee injury and has had a lot of injuries in his years in the NFL).
Miller looks like he should fit this profile but we have never seen him handle a major workload. Minimal competition, he will have a shot to do it.
DJ looks to have the skills, but also flashed in a short period of games and does have above average competition
AP is getting old and isn't involved in the passing game
Zeke has an opportunity but has never played an NFL game, suffered an injury setback and has above average competition
Gurley hasn't yet proven he is part of the passing attack
Charles has been able to post workhorse like numbers without always receiving workhorse touches, but he is recovering from an acl tear and may be eased back with the success West and Ware had in 2015.
Freeman, Lacy, McCoy and Ingram actually profile as the top candidates in that they have all done it over in the past, are in their prime and are in a pretty stable situation. CJ has done it for stretches and doesn't have much competition. Maybe he can stay healthy and benefit from what Kubiak has done with RBs in the past. These guys seem to represent the best value. Depending on draft slot, a drafter might be able to land a high end WR and two of these RBs or two high end WRs and one of these RBs.
As for someone posting a Faulk or Priest like year. It would be fun, but it's not likely. I looked at the last 14 years to see how many RBs have scored more than 300 standard points. I found 23. 17 happened between 2001 and 2007. Just 6 between 2008 and 2015. The median score of those 23 top seasons was 329. Chris Johnson's 2009 is the only RB since 2008 to score above the 329 median. I realize some of those are arbitrary cutoffs, but it just seems like the days of a RB scoring like a QB are gone.
Bell is suspended 3 games (coming off a serious knee injury and has had a lot of injuries in his years in the NFL).
Miller looks like he should fit this profile but we have never seen him handle a major workload. Minimal competition, he will have a shot to do it.
DJ looks to have the skills, but also flashed in a short period of games and does have above average competition
AP is getting old and isn't involved in the passing game
Zeke has an opportunity but has never played an NFL game, suffered an injury setback and has above average competition
Gurley hasn't yet proven he is part of the passing attack
Charles has been able to post workhorse like numbers without always receiving workhorse touches, but he is recovering from an acl tear and may be eased back with the success West and Ware had in 2015.
Freeman, Lacy, McCoy and Ingram actually profile as the top candidates in that they have all done it over in the past, are in their prime and are in a pretty stable situation. CJ has done it for stretches and doesn't have much competition. Maybe he can stay healthy and benefit from what Kubiak has done with RBs in the past. These guys seem to represent the best value. Depending on draft slot, a drafter might be able to land a high end WR and two of these RBs or two high end WRs and one of these RBs.
As for someone posting a Faulk or Priest like year. It would be fun, but it's not likely. I looked at the last 14 years to see how many RBs have scored more than 300 standard points. I found 23. 17 happened between 2001 and 2007. Just 6 between 2008 and 2015. The median score of those 23 top seasons was 329. Chris Johnson's 2009 is the only RB since 2008 to score above the 329 median. I realize some of those are arbitrary cutoffs, but it just seems like the days of a RB scoring like a QB are gone.
TartanLion
Footballguy
On the dominator and mocks, when drafting late in round 1, I'm kind of loving what RB-RB can do. I keep taking Miller, then going with Charles at the top of the second. Late in the third you can usually find one of Hilton/Watkins/Allen/Cooks/Thomas, occasionally even maybe two of them and hope to grab another top of the fourth ( maybe Maclin here as well ). Alternatively, you can find a Hyde/Murray/Rawls in the 4th to take your RBs over the edge, then go heavy on the likes of Floyd/Decker/Moncrief/Decker/Lockett in the middle rounds to bolster the WR corps and hope to hut real pay dirt on one of them.
I like some of the talent in middle rounds in both WR and RB this year so it feels good to be flexible, keep an open mind with tactics and react to how your draft is playing out. Obviously, that is always a good idea to a degree anyway, but even more so this year.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Completely agree.
And even if I were deliberately applying a zero RB philosophy, if an Ingram or Freeman slides to the 3rd, you'd be nuts to pass them up for a WR when you can get a WR a round later who projects to be a 10-14 point drop-off. The drop-off from Ingram to the next best RB you'll get 20 picks later is far more substantial.
All based on projection of course, but you have to use something to guide these decisions, and my Ouija board hasn't ever been very accurate.
