What's new
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.

4 Reasons "zero RB theory" fails in reality - Agree or Disagree? (2 Viewers)

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
This was clearly the season of the "zero RB" among fantasy managers - experts beat that drum all preseason, and I read every article. 

First, I don't believe it's all that revolutionary - I've seen people employ this strategy for decades, and only recently did the experts catch on, one notably wrote an article about it and seems to get credit for inventing something that had already been invented. Sort of the same thing happened with "QB Freefall" a number of years ago - just like "zero RB", a vast number of sharp FFB-ers were employing this before someone articulated it. 

That said, here's a few observations: 

1. Rare commodities are more, not less valuable. 

Just because there are only 3-4 RBs worth drafting in the 1st round, that does't mean RBs aren't valuable in FFB. In fact, the David Johnson/Zeke Elliott/LaMar Miller type RBs are so rare, that IMO it was ridiculous to not see them touted as the no-brainer 1-2-3 picks in the 2016 draft, with Antonio Brown maybe being 1.01 for PPR.  

2. zero RB creates season-long WSIS headaches

The idea is that by marginalizing RB value, and stacking up on scrubs, it doesn't matter who you run out at RB every week because you've built a WR-TE-QB-oriented team. Nice in theory, utter fiction in practice. Because it does matter. Whether you're choosing top tier, middle tier or bottom tier RBs, you'll always have managerial questions - zero RB amplifies those substantially. Take a look at the assistant coach forum and note all the zero RB guys asking WSIS every week. It's telling. Having no confidence in your starting RBs sucks - and if you're facing the Miller/Johnson/Elliott team, even moreso. Because experienced FFB-ers know that it's about beating your opponent position by position. Your QB needs to outscore your opponent's QB, your WRs need to beat your opponent's WRs, your RBs - oh, wait, your RBs suck because you went "zero RB".  That's where I think the biggest flaw resides. It is possible to get value WRs after taking a RB or 2 in the first 5 rounds. I concede that it's also possible to find value RBs in the later rounds, but there are only so many Wares to be had, and if the majority of your league has bought into Zero RB, then they are all competing to grab that guy in your leagues. Which will likely result in someone reaching for them by a round or 2 because 1/2 way into the draft they get panicky about who their RBs will be. Desperation is never a good draft strategy IMO. 

3. Trade value

In both my leagues, several trades have already been made that sent RB2s to other teams in exchange for WR1s. In all 3 deals, the team getting the RB went "Zero RB" so they had WRs to spare, but in all three instances, the teams getting the RB got the worst side of the deal value-wise. Because RBs are still more rare than WRs, and that rarity creates value. Supply & demand has not changed.  While that's a very small sample size, I've also been active on the Assistant Coach forum, and have seen several of these type of deals go down or put up for evaluation. When told "the RB side is getting the better deal" it's almost always met with, "yes, but I'm hurting at RB". 

4. Crapping in one hand and wishing in the other to see which fills up first

A crude title to be sure, and while it's still early and I understand that a component of "zero RB" is to stock up on lottery ticket RBs (Coleman/Freeman is the example most frequently touted) the fact is that you are basically doing what the header indicates. You've drafted a team stacked at WR, QB, TE and then filled out your roster with crappy RBBC guys, and handcuff-type backs. So you're going to spend the season hoping for an injury to a starting RB. Which, the odds say, will happen. But here's the rub: they may not happen to the starters on the team that you grabbed the handcuffs for.  There are some signs, some indicators for this that can help you to predict - the older backs (AP, Forte), the oft injured guys (AFoster, Charles) - but there are no guarantees that any of the guys you think will break down will break down. AP stayed healthy and productive all year last season. Predicting injury is the folly of FFB managers - it could be someone perfectly healthy. A good example of getting hosed this way might be employing "zero RB" and taking Keenen Allen with your 2nd round pick. Nothing in Allen's track record to indicate a torn ACL on non-contact in week 1. Meanwhile 326 year old Danny Woodhead looks just fine. 

I'm not saying you can't win with this strategy - obviously it's possible. But IMO the premise is flawed. You aren't minimizing the importance of RBs to your roster, you're just putting yourself at a disadvantage at one position hoping to build such an advantage at others that it negates the loss. "Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul" might be the best analogy there.

You're also seemingly creating weekly roster management nightmares, trying to choose between a giant ##### and a turd sandwich at RB, and you've created a team with a disadvantageous trade position (e.g. weak at the rarest commodity) unless and until a starting RB gets hurt - in which case you have about a 2/32 chance that it's one of your handcuffs that benefits.  

IMO, the risks far outweigh the rewards. All due respect to those brave enough to employ this strategy - I wish you luck. VBD is no safer than any other strategy, but at least you build a more balanced team, with depth at critical and rare positions.  And it seems slightly less reliant on dumb luck (e.g. having a lotto ticket RB strike).  The fact is that you can still grab lottery ticket RBs with VBD. 

Would love to hear counterpoints from the "zero RB" advocates - maybe I'm missing something. This isn't intended as a sermon - I'm totally open to having my mind changed. I've just not seen anything convincing that doesn't involve "I got super lucky with Freeman in the 8th round last year" or "I won my league because so-and-so went down and I had the backup:" - to me those aren't things you can plan for, yet that's what many of the "zero RB" articles point to as proof of success. 

For bonus points, for those who employed this strategy, are you happy with your teams? If so, did you truly employ zero RB, or did you take 1-2 RBs in the first 6 rounds as more of a hybrid style?  If you truly did "zero RB", would you do it again next year? 

Looking forward to hearing your responses. 

 
I went Lamar Miller in the first and didn't pick my next RB until C.J. Spiller in the next to last round.  I'm now running with Miller/Vereen/Cadaret and have D.J. Foster and Dion Lewis.

With Miller at the RB1 and A.J. Green/Cooper/Hilton/Diggs/Brown/Lockett and Olson/Bennett at the TE means that I have a better than average chance of winning all of the position slots except RB2 every week...... but I hate it.  

 
You can't apply all strategies to all formats.

"Zero RB" draft strategy is specifically for PPR leagues where the Top WR are in fact more valuable than the Top RB - just look at last year's scoring.

There is a big difference between home leagues with trading (and probably no ppr) versus the FBGPC and the high stakes leagues where Zero RB are more successful. 

 
There is a big difference between home leagues with trading (and probably no ppr) versus the FBGPC and the high stakes leagues where Zero RB are more successful. 
I'd like to see evidence of that. 

Also would be nice to see something besides 2015, the "RB Armageddon" year. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great post and a good topic for discussion, particularly mid-season when things have shaken out a bit more. A little early to draw any definitive conclusions yet. There's always 2 sides to each coin. It's true, you could have felt that no RB's in the first few rounds was a bit too much and picked say Johnson early, then followed up with Evans/Cooks and you'd be feeling pretty great right now. You could also have started out Gurley/Allen/Watkins and be feeling a bit sick. Alternatively, you could have began with Brown/Evans/Cooks and picked up Langford/Hyde/Forte or one of those and be feeling great too.

I realize none of these scenarios are true "zero" RB, more using them to illiustrate any strategy can work well if you simply pick the right players who actually produce and stay healthy. Bottom line, you go where the value is when it's your pick. Going zero anything whether it's zero RB or zero WR or whatever, needs far too much luck and things to fall your way to be continuously viable as a strategy.

 
2 RBs ran for 100 yards or more last week.

4 RBs ran for 90 yards or more last week

11 WRs gained more than 100 yards this week.

18 WRs gained more than 90 yards this week.

Now, I've never agreed with the "zero RB" theory as a whole, I think it goes too far to the extreme. But if you went WR-WR-WR this year and then drafted RBs in rounds 4-6, you could've gotten guys like CJA, Forte, the Murrays, Langford, etc. (all of whom outscored AP and Gurley combined in week 1)

If you pair 3 top WRs with two of those RBs, you're gonna be tough to beat in PPR.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2 Running Backs ran for 100 yards or more last week.

11 Wide Receivers gained more than 100 yards this week.

Now, I've never agreed with the "zero RB" theory as a whole, I think it goes to far to the extreme. But if you went WR-WR-WR this year and then drafted RBs in rounds 4-6, you could've gotten guys like CJA, Forte, the Murrays, Langford, etc. (all of whom outscored AP and Gurley combined in week 1)

If you pair 3 top WRs with two of those RBs, you're gonna be tough to beat in PPR.
That was my point. Anyone can do well if they pick the right players, and not some forced positional strategy that has no bearing on value or common sense.

 
Now, I've never agreed with the "zero RB" theory as a whole, I think it goes to far to the extreme. But if you went WR-WR-WR this year and then drafted RBs in rounds 4-6, you could've gotten guys like CJA, Forte, the Murrays, Langford, etc. (all of whom outscored AP and Gurley combined in week 1)
Not to diminish your point, but CJAnderson/LMurray were universally 3rd rounders in all my mocks & real drafts.  

Gurley was just a bad pick as a 1st rounder based on everything I expected from the Rams. Many argued "talent over team" to justify his 1st round valuation - I was in total disagreement there. But those are sometimes the risks that win you seasons. Probably not for the Gurley owners this year, but you never know. It is only week 1. 

 
1. Zero-RB has been popular for a while, as you state. It's only recently that "popular" experts have picked up on it. Like anything, it's not a one-size fits all solution. It was a response to RBs being overdrafted in most leagues.  Now that WRs have become more popular in all formats (and as the NFL goes more and more pass happy) there's a correction and Zero-RB is not as effective a strategy.

2. Zero-RB is not PPR specific.

3. The real gem of Zero-RB is recognizing that RBs are a lot more target-driven than WRs. Injured top WRs are usually replaced by WRBCs while top RBs are much less often replaced by RBBCs. This is because of the nature of the passing/rushing game. It's much easier to find players like David Johnson, Deangelo Williams, and Thomas Rawls than it is... I can't even think of a player from 2015

 
Hot Sauce Guy-

Thanks for taking the time to provide your thoughts.  You've clearly thought hard about this and your post was a pleasure to read - articulate, thoughtful, well-reasoned.

That said, I disagree with your premise and here's why: I disagree with ANY draft strategy that isn't flexible enough to roll with the unfolding decisions off your fellow drafters.  Basically, you gotta zig when they zag.  In this case, Zero RB is a strategy to be employed when everyone ((or NEARLY everyone) goes WR early.  If all/most are employing the Sero RB strategy then you gotta go the other way when you see those guys falling to you (Anderson, Martin, Ingram, Forte are guys I liked pre-draft that often fell too far in my drafts).  Anyway, my philosophy is to try to start runs rather than end them.  Zero RB is what you call the strategy your employed AFTER yo see how the draft unfolded, but not one I would recommend employing with total disregard for what others are doing. 

 
Great post and a good topic for discussion, particularly mid-season when things have shaken out a bit more.
I'm definitely interested in seeing how this pans out mid-season. 

Another point I forgot to include with the "RB lottery tickets" point is how frequently a star RB goes down, and a RBBC replaces him (like Hydra).  Instead of a lottery ticket, you end up with 1/2 a lottery ticket. 

 
The best draft strategy is to identify trends as they happen and be adaptable. Don't lock yourself into any pre-determined pattern at all. If playing with long-time friends, you can sometimes even predict how they will draft - big advantage there. If I wound up waiting to draft an RB, it's usually just because the ones I wanted were taken right ahead of me.

 
This was clearly the season of the "zero RB" among fantasy managers - experts beat that drum all preseason, and I read every article. 

First, I don't believe it's all that revolutionary - I've seen people employ this strategy for decades, and only recently did the experts catch on, one notably wrote an article about it and seems to get credit for inventing something that had already been invented. Sort of the same thing happened with "QB Freefall" a number of years ago - just like "zero RB", a vast number of sharp FFB-ers were employing this before someone articulated it. 
Interesting point, isn't Zero RB basically the original concept of Upside Down drafting that's been around forever?

Although I guess you could argue that Upside Down drafting this year would have dictated taking RB's early while everyone else focused on WR's.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy-

Thanks for taking the time to provide your thoughts.  You've clearly thought hard about this and your post was a pleasure to read - articulate, thoughtful, well-reasoned.

That said, I disagree with your premise and here's why: I disagree with ANY draft strategy that isn't flexible enough to roll with the unfolding decisions off your fellow drafters.  Basically, you gotta zig when they zag.  In this case, Zero RB is a strategy to be employed when everyone ((or NEARLY everyone) goes WR early.  If all/most are employing the Sero RB strategy then you gotta go the other way when you see those guys falling to you (Anderson, Martin, Ingram, Forte are guys I liked pre-draft that often fell too far in my drafts).  Anyway, my philosophy is to try to start runs rather than end them.  Zero RB is what you call the strategy your employed AFTER yo see how the draft unfolded, but not one I would recommend employing with total disregard for what others are doing. 
Actually I'm in complete agreement with this. I'm a die hard VBD guy - I try to let the draft come to me. I didn't plan on having Brees in any league, but when he was there in the 5th and the next best QB was Rivers, I opted to grab a QB. I love having that flexibility. And if a top RB fell that far I would have pounced on him. 

 
I'll also add that I think most leagues should move towards an auction-format (and away from PPR to other scoring methods). 

Creates a lot more subtlety as every players is available and you can be specific with your dollars. More strategies are available. You can go "2 RB" and use all your dollars on two top RBs. You can go all mid-range players with upside.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RBs with the opportunity to receive touches emerge throughout the year. Ware went undrafted three days before the hype train rolled in - free RB1. Freeman last year - drafted late, cut when Coleman looked beastly Week 1.

Last year the guy I played in the finals steamrolled through the last month with David Johnson (drafted but dropped) and Hightower (WW); I countered with DWil (WW) and the three WRs I drafted (AB, Green, A-Rob) in the first 5 rounds. I also had Tate, Michael Floyd, T Benjamin - all but TB drafted.

In PPR I find I cannot count on picking up WRs off the WW who are reliable. QBs and RBs emerge off the wire every year.

 
Gathering from the responses, I think the OP doesn't understand what zero-RB really is.  Going WR-WR-WR in and of itself is not zero-RB.  Upside-down, maybe.

 
I'll also add that I think most leagues should move towards an auction-format (and away from PPR to other scoring methods). 

Creates a lot more subtlety as every players is available and you can be specific with your dollars. More strategies are available. You can go "2 RB" and use all your dollars on two top RBs. You can go all mid-range players with upside.  
If only, would love that. Got sick of serpentine years and years ago, especially dynasty formats that use an initial serp draft.

 
RBs with the opportunity to receive touches emerge throughout the year. Ware went undrafted three days before the hype train rolled in - free RB1. Freeman last year - drafted late, cut when Coleman looked beastly Week 1.

Last year the guy I played in the finals steamrolled through the last month with David Johnson (drafted but dropped) and Hightower (WW); I countered with DWil (WW) and the three WRs I drafted (AB, Green, A-Rob) in the first 5 rounds. I also had Tate, Michael Floyd, T Benjamin - all but TB drafted.

In PPR I find I cannot count on picking up WRs off the WW who are reliable. QBs and RBs emerge off the wire every year.
See, that's the thing - no one disputes this.

But can you actually plan for this? 

Thats where I see "zero RB" as fiction. The folks touting it used a ton of recency bias for 2015, and totally neglected the fact that you could draft with any style and still have capitalized on the David Johnson & Tim Hightowers of the world.

And just because those RBs emerge every year, that's no guarantee that you will be able to get one of them.

FA bids and/or waiver priority have a lot to do with that. Also folks stockiing up on lottery ticket RBs or simply protecting early round investments with handcuffs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gathering from the responses, I think the OP doesn't understand what zero-RB really is.  Going WR-WR-WR in and of itself is not zero-RB.  Upside-down, maybe.
Why would you make that projection on me based on responses? 

I absolutely understand "zero RB" - I have no control over how people respond.

:confused:

 
It seems to be lost in this conversation but zero RB, I can only assume, is a plan to take zero running backs in the first 3 or more rounds? I just want to make sure because it doesn't seem like that is the discussion. If we are all discussing different things this is going to be a difficult conversation.

 
I don't think it's correct to say that any draft strategy fails. I've seen people win leagues in all sorts of different ways. I'm not a big Zero-RB guy, but I don't think it's a bad strategy if it works with your league settings or if the draft is taking you that way.

 
It seems to be lost in this conversation but zero RB, I can only assume, is a plan to take zero running backs in the first 3 or more rounds? I just want to make sure because it doesn't seem like that is the discussion. If we are all discussing different things this is going to be a difficult conversation.
Zero RB is not taking any RB's in the first 6-7 rounds of a draft.    What you are describing is more like upside down drafting.   They are not the same thing.

 
To start this conversation you have to take specific names out. It skews the perception of the concept. You also, have to use the concept in a relatively pure fashion, just so that you don't end discussing vague ideas that aren't that far apart.

If I take an extreme view of zero RB what you're hoping for is to have a high upside, low floor start to your draft. You should end up with a roughly a top 5 QB and TE. And you should have a top 12, top 24 and top 36 WR. These are all probably underestimated but let's just go with it. This means in theory your starters are just as good or better than everyone else you face at every position except RB. Because of RBBC and especially 3rd down/receiving backs there are more options for possible point getters later on. However, it also means that the true work horse backs are very limited. There's maybe 10 or 11 high volume backs going right now? That means that the Zero RB team really only has to face 1 position where they are clearly beaten. A stud that has a 1500 yard (rushing and receiving) gets an average of 94 yards per game. You can find guys that will get 50 yards combined a game, late in the draft or even on the waiver. So, you're only giving up 4.5 points to one of the elite tier guys but should be on par or better for the rest of your team. 

 
To start this conversation you have to take specific names out. It skews the perception of the concept. You also, have to use the concept in a relatively pure fashion, just so that you don't end discussing vague ideas that aren't that far apart.
That would be fair, if the talking head FFB experts weren't so keen on naming specific players from 2015 as proof of the theory. 

It is also quite relevant to name the 3-4 true "workhorse" backs in the NFL, since the theory accurately states that the number of workhorse backs is diminishing. 

Specific to the context of valuation, naming those 3-4 workhorse backs shouldn't skew anything. 

If I take an extreme view of zero RB what you're hoping for is to have a high upside, low floor start to your draft. You should end up with a roughly a top 5 QB and TE. And you should have a top 12, top 24 and top 36 WR. These are all probably underestimated but let's just go with it. This means in theory your starters are just as good or better than everyone else you face at every position except RB. Because of RBBC and especially 3rd down/receiving backs there are more options for possible point getters later on. However, it also means that the true work horse backs are very limited. There's maybe 10 or 11 high volume backs going right now? That means that the Zero RB team really only has to face 1 position where they are clearly beaten. A stud that has a 1500 yard (rushing and receiving) gets an average of 94 yards per game. You can find guys that will get 50 yards combined a game, late in the draft or even on the waiver. So, you're only giving up 4.5 points to one of the elite tier guys but should be on par or better for the rest of your team. 
I appreciate your post, however I'm not sure it's accurate to suggest that you can so easily replace the points with such predictable drop-off from a high round RB with a RBBC guy, PPR or not. 

Because of the nature of these specialized RBs, some might be pure receivers, some might get GL carries - the variance is seemingly far wider than the "zero RB" proponents seem to give credit for. E.g. Not all scrub RBs are made the same.

i think Riddick & Woodhead's rushing (and Riddick's 2 TDs) were not the norm, but I would consider those two the extreme best case scenario for zero RB drafters. On the other side of that coin, how many RBBC guys wound up with less than "acceptable" point totals?

many of those players, due to their specialized roles, may also have dramatic fluctuation due to game-flow impacting or bolstering their opportunities. 

Any way you slice it, it seems like going "zero RB" turns your RB position into a weekly crapshoot.  That's where I think reality and theory don't meet - in theory, you're correct. You "should" be able to stick any of the lesser RBBC backs in the lineup and not lose a ton.  But in practice, it's just not that simple. And if you have 3-4-5 of those guys to choose from every week, it would be damn near impossible to make the right choices every week. and those small amounts of points can often be the difference between a W & a L.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2 RBs ran for 100 yards or more last week.

4 RBs ran for 90 yards or more last week

11 WRs gained more than 100 yards this week.

18 WRs gained more than 90 yards this week.

Now, I've never agreed with the "zero RB" theory as a whole, I think it goes too far to the extreme. But if you went WR-WR-WR this year and then drafted RBs in rounds 4-6, you could've gotten guys like CJA, Forte, the Murrays, Langford, etc. (all of whom outscored AP and Gurley combined in week 1)

If you pair 3 top WRs with two of those RBs, you're gonna be tough to beat in PPR.
I think you just proved how valuable rbs are not the other way around. 

 
See, that's the thing - no one disputes this.

But can you actually plan for this? 

Thats where I see "zero RB" as fiction. The folks touting it used a ton of recency bias for 2015, and totally neglected the fact that you could draft with any style and still have capitalized on the David Johnson & Tim Hightowers of the world.

And just because those RBs emerge every year, that's no guarantee that you will be able to get one of them.

FA bids and/or waiver priority have a lot to do with that. Also folks sticking up on lottery ticket RBs.
This is the crux of the zero-rb argument for me. Variance of top RBs vs top WRs. Mid-late round RBs always materialize. Mid-late round WRs? Not so much. With zero rb, you have a much higher chance of having the David Johnson or Tim Hightower (notice we are naming RBs here) AS WELL AS stacked WRs. 

For PPR in 2016, and assuming a somewhat standard strategy distribution (and maybe even if most of the draft was zero rb), it was a huge mistake to not use zero-rb.

*EDIT* I will add that I am a firm believer in TEs and QBs not mattering. Every redraft I participated in this season I finished the draft with TE, QB, DEF, K..in that order. Still ended up with Stafford/Eli types with James/Ebron/Green at TE. Zero reason to draft Gronk or Reed this season when these types are on the waiver wire every week.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a good strategy to consider but obviously not the only one, and most important is to understand the theory and use that knowledge accordingly.

it became popular because Shawn happened to win a boatload with it, then publicized it, so there's certainly a lot of hindsight bias.  I haven't looked that hard for the research, but I would like to see an empirical study suggesting that it really is more effective than any other model. It seemed unlikely to me.

 
The reason for going upside down or Zero-RB is primarily that I want variance in mid-late round picks and not in my the first few rounds.  There have been several threads the past few years documenting the accuracy/consistency and injury rates between RBs and other positions.  If you are in a position to grab an uber talented bell cow guy, then by all means, do it and go zero RB2.  Once you get off that top tier, it is a crap shoot, and your almost as likely to get the same upside at RB in the 6-7th round as you are the 2nd or 3rd.  Something that cannot be said of the WR position.  I would much rather have a small set-it-and-forget-it WR corp and WSIS headaches at the RB spot than the other way around.  Always like to look at how Waldman mocks to try and stay ahead of the curve in terms of drafting strategy.

 
This is the crux of the zero-rb argument for me. Variance of top RBs vs top WRs. Mid-late round RBs always materialize. Mid-late round WRs? Not so much. With zero rb, you have a much higher chance of having the David Johnson or Tim Hightower (notice we are naming RBs here) AS WELL AS stacked WRs. 

For PPR in 2016, and assuming a somewhat standard strategy distribution (and maybe even if most of the draft was zero rb), it was a huge mistake to not use zero-rb
But there is no  guarantee that your team will be the beneficiary of that lottery ticket running back. 

 You might just be the guy with three top wide receivers and dog crap at your running back spots week to week 

For every  Manager the drafted Mark Ingram's back up, you have another manager who drafted Adrian Peterson's back up. Same theory, same strategy, vastly different returns and results.

 To me, this is the best evidence of why zero running back is great in theory, but highly unlikely to work out in practice. 

 As I mentioned above, various factors will play into whether or not you get that break out running back. The amount of free agent dollars you're prepared to bid on them, your position on the waiver order, or whether or not you were the one lucky enough to draft the guy where the starter went down ahead of him. 

 Simply put, if you're drafting strong running backs and wide receivers as a balanced approach, it would seem you have a far greater chance of success as compared to drafting no running backs, and hoping that some set of those variables will coincide to gift you with a breakout player. 

 An awful lot of things have to break right for you to get the next David Johnson or Tim Hightower.  Far too many variables to be treated with any degree of predictability in my opinion 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fair point about the reality of the theory, which is your whole bloody point! :D  I just wanted to get the general theory out there. 

As for the weekly fluctuations, it's some what of a non factor because every player is going to fluctuate. That's why I gave the stud 94 yards a game and the scrub 50. But we are also talking about some of the latest round guys with Riddick. If you look at ADP, you can see that you could've still picked up decent RBs along the way from round 6 on. Just a guess but most of those RBs that played put up 5 or more points. 

 
It's a good strategy to consider but obviously not the only one, and most important is to understand the theory and use that knowledge accordingly.

it became popular because Shawn happened to win a boatload with it, then publicized it, so there's certainly a lot of hindsight bias.  I haven't looked that hard for the research, but I would like to see an empirical study suggesting that it really is more effective than any other model. It seemed unlikely to me.
It's just an extension of upside down which has been around for 15+ years for those who were paying attention.  How far you extend it depends on the market innefficiencies that are taking place in your draft.  Like anything else, if you take a cookie cutter approach, you are going to get pigeon holed.  The key is to keep your strategy fluid.

 
But there is no  guarantee that your team will be the beneficiary of that lottery ticket running back. 

 You might just be the guy with three top wide receivers and dog crap but you're running back spots week to week 

For every  Manager the drafted Mark Ingram's back up, you have another manager who drafted Adrian Peterson's back up. Same Siri, same strategy, vastly different returns and results.

 To me, this is the best evidence of why zero running back is great in theory, but highly unlikely to work out in practice. 

 As I mentioned above, various factors will play into whether or not you get that break out running back. The amount of free agent dollars you're prepared to bid on them, your position on the waiver order, or whether or not you were the one lucky enough to draft the guy where the starter went down ahead of him. 

 Simply put, if you're drafting strong running backs and wide receivers as a balanced approach, it would seem you have a far greater chance of success as compared to drafting no running backs, and hoping that some set of those variables will coincide to gift you with a breakout player. 

 An awful lot of things have to break right for you to get the next David Johnson or Tim Hightower.  Far too many variables to be treated with any degree of predictability in my opinion 
There are no guarantees in ANY drafting strategy.  The only thing that stays steady is that top RBs are more likely underperform their ADP than WRs.  Deep WRs are less likely to crack WR1-12 than deep RBs are.  WRs are less likely to get injured, the stabilty allows you to overstock your roster with these so called lottery tickets, which are more +EV than the lottery tix at other positions.

 
But there is no  guarantee that your team will be the beneficiary of that lottery ticket running back. 

 You might just be the guy with three top wide receivers and dog crap but you're running back spots week to week 

For every  Manager the drafted Mark Ingram's back up, you have another manager who drafted Adrian Peterson's back up. Same Siri, same strategy, vastly different returns and results.

 To me, this is the best evidence of why zero running back is great in theory, but highly unlikely to work out in practice. 

 As I mentioned above, various factors will play into whether or not you get that break out running back. The amount of free agent dollars you're prepared to bid on them, your position on the waiver order, or whether or not you were the one lucky enough to draft the guy where the starter went down ahead of him. 

 Simply put, if you're drafting strong running backs and wide receivers as a balanced approach, it would seem you have a far greater chance of success as compared to drafting no running backs, and hoping that some set of those variables will coincide to gift you with a breakout player. 

 An awful lot of things have to break right for you to get the next David Johnson or Tim Hightower.  Far too many variables to be treated with any degree of predictability in my opinion 
A huge part of the Zero RB strategy is working the waiver wire hard.   You can't sit around with backup RB's on your roster waiting for their teams starter to go down.  Zero RB guys are constantly turning over their RB's looking for guys who have a shot to break out.   It's not an easy thing to do, and quite frankly most people can't do it successfully but for really savvy owners it can be a very profitable strategy.

 
You can't apply all strategies to all formats.

"Zero RB" draft strategy is specifically for PPR leagues where the Top WR are in fact more valuable than the Top RB - just look at last year's scoring.

There is a big difference between home leagues with trading (and probably no ppr) versus the FBGPC and the high stakes leagues where Zero RB are more successful. 
Chuckling at the guy in my own friendly league banging the zero-RB drum when the scoring is ESPN Standard: no ppr.

-QG

 
There are no guarantees in ANY drafting strategy.  The only thing that stays steady is that top RBs are more likely underperform their ADP than WRs.  Deep WRs are less likely to crack WR1-12 than deep RBs are.  WRs are less likely to get injured, the stabilty allows you to overstock your roster with these so called lottery tickets, which are more +EV than the lottery tix at other positions.
That's a fair point. I concede that there are no guarantees for any strategy.

But whereas VBD is generally thought of as a blend of risk and reward, by disregarding set in stone draft strategy for "best available / best value" per pick, "zero RB" makes a fairly broad assumption that you can effectively lump all of the lower tier RBs together & mitigate risk. Because if you lose a lower tier RB to injury, it doesn't matter since he was not an essential asset to your team. 

I get all that.

But another ***** in the "ZRB" strategy is that all of the teams in your draft are chasing those late round RBs. The stud RB owners are looking to handcuff to protect those risky investments, and every single team wants to have this year's Tim Hightower & David Johnson. Not just the ZRB teams. 

And when say, 7-8/12 teams in your league are all chasing the same players?  Then some of those WRs will slip to later rounds. 

Willie Snead in the 9th seems to be working out well for me so far. Whomever steps up in San Diego should provide excellent return on the pick-up. Jeremy Kerley was claimed in both of my leagues - by comparison only Coleman seems more valuable today than he was on draft day.

small sample size and only 1 week in, no doubt.  But I'm not entirely convinced that the things we "know" to be absolutes are actually absolutes. 

Again, recency bias - in 2015 almost everyone got burned by taking RBs high.

will be interesting to see how folks draft next year if the "big 3-4" RBs stay healthy and perform as such. 

And i guess we'll also have to see who gets hurt and how the backups perform. It's quite possible that there will be no new David Johnson or Tim Hightower to emerge this year.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some form of this has been going on in one way or another since the mid-90s. League parameters are THE biggest variable in this. I did well for years drafting guys like Charlie Garner (I seriously probably owe that dude money for all he won me) after taking a couple of WRs and maybe a QB, but our league was set up way outside of the norm back then.

Then there was the "Portis Year" where his ADP was in the 20s or 30s because many drafters overreacted to the WR boom. And he way out-performed his draft position (almost positive there was a thread or 70,000 on it).

The older I get, the more I'm into anarchy so I'd love to see a league where an owner could start 9 kickers (or ILBs or Punters) and have a legit chance to win.

 
2. zero RB creates season-long WSIS headaches

The idea is that by marginalizing RB value, and stacking up on scrubs, it doesn't matter who you run out at RB every week because you've built a WR-TE-QB-oriented team. Nice in theory, utter fiction in practice. Because it does matter. Whether you're choosing top tier, middle tier or bottom tier RBs, you'll always have managerial questions - zero RB amplifies those substantially. Take a look at the assistant coach forum and note all the zero RB guys asking WSIS every week. It's telling. Having no confidence in your starting RBs sucks - and if you're facing the Miller/Johnson/Elliott team, even moreso. Because experienced FFB-ers know that it's about beating your opponent position by position. Your QB needs to outscore your opponent's QB, your WRs need to beat your opponent's WRs, your RBs - oh, wait, your RBs suck because you went "zero RB".  That's where I think the biggest flaw resides. It is possible to get value WRs after taking a RB or 2 in the first 5 rounds. I concede that it's also possible to find value RBs in the later rounds, but there are only so many Wares to be had, and if the majority of your league has bought into Zero RB, then they are all competing to grab that guy in your leagues. Which will likely result in someone reaching for them by a round or 2 because 1/2 way into the draft they get panicky about who their RBs will be. Desperation is never a good draft strategy IMO. 
David Johnson was the only guy drafted as a RB1 who finished in the top 12 week 1. A lot of guys drafted as RB1s are iffy starters going forward. 

Part of the strategy of Zero RB is to get high floor RBs in PPR leagues. Guys like Riddick, Woodhead, Sims, and Gio who always seem to get you 10 points. You are not always shooting for Ware (who when they fail are unstartable handcuffs). Sometimes you shoot for good enough.

If you look at Siegele's top 15 Zero RB targets for 2016 you'll see that mix. There's guys like Chris Thompson - never going to be a RB1 but should be baseline most weeks. There's guys like Coleman and Gordon who could be studs if the stars align.

It was published in July so some of the whiffs are date dependent. He picked Smallwood, maybe if he picked Barner it would have looked better. He picked Buck Allen, maybe he picked the wrong Raven. 

There are a lot of RB who are going to be relevant. As long as fantasy players look for studs first and foremost, it will undervalue guys like Riddick who give you good production with low variability.

Yes Zero RB is more work. But landing on someone like Hightower who wins the league for you is part of the joy of it. It is not more risk. There is no more risk in the Zero RB's WDIS questions. He is picking between sleepers and baseline performers. It is a hard question but provides +/- in both possible decisions. 

Simultaneous to Siegele's first article (2013) on the matter there were articles about going RB-RB-RB-RB-RB by Matthew Freedman to start off your draft with all RB to account for risk. They are yin and yang strategies. If you believe RB will fail at a higher rate, how do you not blow your draft?  Part of the point of Zero RB is the value available later. More RBs get touches now, and PPR changes how we value those touches. Take advantage when constructing your roster.

 
That's a fair point. I concede that there are no guarantees for any strategy.

But whereas VBD is generally thought of as a blend of risk and reward, by disregarding set in stone draft strategy for "best available / best value" per pick, "zero RB" makes a fairly broad assumption that you can effectively lump all of the lower tier RBs together & mitigate risk. Because if you lose a lower tier RB to injury, it doesn't matter since he was not an essential asset to your team. 

I get all that.

But another ***** in the "ZRB" strategy is that all of the teams in your draft are chasing those late round RBs. The stud RB owners are looking to handcuff to protect those risky investments, and every single team wants to have thisnear's Tim Hightower & David Johnson. Not just the ZRB teams. 

And when say, 7-8/12 teams in your league are all chasing the same players?  Then some of those WRs will slip to later rounds. 

Willie Snead in the 9th seems to be working out well for me so far. Whomever steps up in San Diego should provide excellent return on the pick-up. Jeremy Kerley was claimed in both of my leagues - by comparison only Coleman seems more valuable today than he was on draft day.

small sample size and only 1 week in, no doubt.  But I'm not entirely convinced that the things we "know" to be absolutes are actually absolutes. 

Again, recency bias - in 2015 almost everyone got burned by taking RBs high.

will be interesting to see how folks draft next year if the "big 3-4" RBs stay healthy and perform as such. 

And i guess we'll also have to see who gets hurt and how the backups perform. It's quite possible that there will be no new David Johnson or Tim Hightower to emerge this year.  
The Break Out Player thing is just a potential perk of the ZRB plan. Getting a late round stud for basically free is going to boost any team. I'm sorry but anyone who has the PLAN going into the draft is to pick up a waiver wire player that is going blow up and be one of the best PPG players in the league, well their plan sucks. Literally, every single team fantasy owner is going to put in a claim on said break out mega star. 

The only reason that a Zero RB team is more likely to get the break out RB is because they are willing to grab the guy who "might get work the passing game/goal line/relief role." Or their more willing to swing and miss on a guy like Jalen Richard. But there's also guys who could have had Gurley and AP, which meant they didn't have a bench full of scrubs and grabbed DJ just to see how it turns out.

With ZRB is to find starterable RBs and go from there. 

 
David Johnson was the only guy drafted as a RB1 who finished in the top 12 week 1. A lot of guys drafted as RB1s are iffy starters going forward. 

Part of the strategy of Zero RB is to get high floor RBs in PPR leagues. Guys like Riddick, Woodhead, Sims, and Gio who always seem to get you 10 points. You are not always shooting for Ware (who when they fail are unstartable handcuffs). Sometimes you shoot for good enough.

If you look at Siegele's top 15 Zero RB targets for 2016 you'll see that mix. There's guys like Chris Thompson - never going to be a RB1 but should be baseline most weeks. There's guys like Coleman and Gordon who could be studs if the stars align.

It was published in July so some of the whiffs are date dependent. He picked Smallwood, maybe if he picked Barner it would have looked better. He picked Buck Allen, maybe he picked the wrong Raven. 

There are a lot of RB who are going to be relevant. As long as fantasy players look for studs first and foremost, it will undervalue guys like Riddick who give you good production with low variability.

Yes Zero RB is more work. But landing on someone like Hightower who wins the league for you is part of the joy of it. It is not more risk. There is no more risk in the Zero RB's WDIS questions. He is picking between sleepers and baseline performers. It is a hard question but provides +/- in both possible decisions. 

Simultaneous to Siegele's first article (2013) on the matter there were articles about going RB-RB-RB-RB-RB by Matthew Freedman to start off your draft with all RB to account for risk. They are yin and yang strategies. If you believe RB will fail at a higher rate, how do you not blow your draft?  Part of the point of Zero RB is the value available later. More RBs get touches now, and PPR changes how we value those touches. Take advantage when constructing your roster.
Not a bad take. Except the higher end RBBC PPR studs are 5th-6th round ADP using 2016 as an example. So throwing names like Gio or woodhead & Sims out there is somewhat unrealistic for a true "zero RB" stragegy as I understand it.

in PPR leagues if Danny Woodhead or Gio Are sitting there in the 8-9-10-11 rounds then you don't really need to worry about draft strategy because you're theoretically playing in a league of questionable skill. 

That does bring up another interesting point about the Zero RB articles I'd read earlier this summer - so many of the target lists were players that seemed unlikely to be there that late. 

And as I've said a couple of times - just because you have this great stragegy and are targeting those players late doesn't meant that no one else is. In fact, when I'm at 3 as I was in my last draft, and the teams above me had no RBs though 4 rounds, I made it a point to grab guys like Arian Foster, RJennings and Riddick on every even round before they made the turn. Why would I possibly let those quality players slip just because I had 2 RBs through 5 rounds?  

Quite the opposite - at that point I'm so flexible with my draft that I'm looking to help my own team's depth while punishing the other teams who didn't take early RBs. I think I went RB-WR-RB-WR FOR 6 straight rounds between 4-10, with the exception of my 8th round TE. 

Someone just mentioned the skill and attention needed to work the WW / FA bid budget to get these breakout players. Which is true - but again, it's not as though the other members of your league aren't also doing that, regardless of strategy - and even more so with half or 3/4 of the league going "zero RB". 

 
2 RBs ran for 100 yards or more last week.

4 RBs ran for 90 yards or more last week

11 WRs gained more than 100 yards this week.

18 WRs gained more than 90 yards this week.

Now, I've never agreed with the "zero RB" theory as a whole, I think it goes too far to the extreme. But if you went WR-WR-WR this year and then drafted RBs in rounds 4-6, you could've gotten guys like CJA, Forte, the Murrays, Langford, etc. (all of whom outscored AP and Gurley combined in week 1)

If you pair 3 top WRs with two of those RBs, you're gonna be tough to beat in PPR.
This is very misleading. There were 22 players who had 100+ yards from scrimmage in week one: 11 WRs, 11 RBs. Those 11 WRs combined for 73 receptions, 1401 yfs, and 9 TD. The 11 RBs combined for 53 receptions, 1478 yfs, and 10 TD.

Of course, no one was drafting Theo Riddick, Mike Wallace, Tevin Coleman, Will Fuller, etc. at the top of the draft.

 
The reality of why zero rb is often times a sound strategy is that the position itself is super volatile. Youve mentioned a few times you dont wanna hear about 2015, thats fine, its a more extreme example sure, but it still has merit.

You're correct in that the top, elite guys are more valuable, but they're also more risk and higher investment than the zero rb candidates. Some owners are ok with that, while others would rather take what seems like a safer bet in a top tier wr. 

Scoring, bonuses if any, starting req's, size of the league, type of owners (smart vs not) are all factors that need to be considered when employing any strategy.

 
The Break Out Player thing is just a potential perk of the ZRB plan. Getting a late round stud for basically free is going to boost any team. I'm sorry but anyone who has the PLAN going into the draft is to pick up a waiver wire player that is going blow up and be one of the best PPG players in the league, well their plan sucks. Literally, every single team fantasy owner is going to put in a claim on said break out mega star. 

The only reason that a Zero RB team is more likely to get the break out RB is because they are willing to grab the guy who "might get work the passing game/goal line/relief role." Or their more willing to swing and miss on a guy like Jalen Richard. But there's also guys who could have had Gurley and AP, which meant they didn't have a bench full of scrubs and grabbed DJ just to see how it turns out.

With ZRB is to find starterable RBs and go from there. 
Perfectly said, and I concur. 

Reading many of the preseason articles on ZRB, they leaned far more heavily on the breakout RBs being key to success, as though anyone doing this was virtually guaranteed to get the next DJ or TH.  

So far from the "pro" side, yours is the most well reasoned argument. 

Did you employ this strategy? 

 
The reality of why zero rb is often times a sound strategy is that the position itself is super volatile. Youve mentioned a few times you dont wanna hear about 2015, thats fine, its a more extreme example sure, but it still has merit.

You're correct in that the top, elite guys are more valuable, but they're also more risk and higher investment than the zero rb candidates. Some owners are ok with that, while others would rather take what seems like a safer bet in a top tier wr. 

Scoring, bonuses if any, starting req's, size of the league, type of owners (smart vs not) are all factors that need to be considered when employing any strategy.
Also a fair take.

in the old days RBs were considered safer bets for fantasy production because they weren't so reliant on someone else for their production and thus had a better weekly floor. 

By comparison, a WR needs a QB to throw to him (Hello, Dez Bryant with Dak Prescott) while a RB gets their 20+ touches a game and does with them what they do. Even at their best, WRs can disappear for a week based on opponent pass D, QB injury, gameplan (e.g. David Johnson could have a career day, leaving all the WRs in AZ with minimal days) 

Since its football, and football is an inherently dangerous sport, I'm not sure anyone is more or less likely to get injured.  But let's agree that RBs are more likely since studies apparently show this to be true.

Then wouldn't the question become, "which is safer, the weekly floor of a top WR, who's dependent on a QB to throw to him and a DB to not make a play on the ball in coverage, or a RB's chances of staying healthy?"

seems like an awful lot of folks have bought into the former. I'm not as certain.   

 
Not a bad take. Except the higher end RBBC PPR studs are 5th-6th round ADP using 2016 as an example. So throwing names like Gio or woodhead & Sims out there is somewhat unrealistic for a true "zero RB" stragegy as I understand it.
You can take any strategy to extremes (and RB-RB-RB-RB-RB was meant to be a parody of the other extreme). I assume your OP was referencing Siegele's article.(http://rotoviz.com/2013/11/zero-rb-antifragility-and-the-myth-of-value-based-drafting/) Not that it is necessarily gospel but he spelled it out as

Depending on how a draft is progressing, I will draft either one high upside running back in Round 4 or 5, or I will draft none at all. My preferred lineup after five rounds is to own one tight end (Graham/Gronk) and four wide receivers. I then focus on selecting potential breakout players, the receiving back in timeshares, and backups in good offenses.
Also if he says Gio is the best Zero RB target for 2016 I think that means guys in late 5th (FFC has Gio at 5.11 in PPR) are fair game for the strategy, at least according to his interpretation.

Part of the strategy has to be if you have stud WR/TE you don't need to waste picks on WR/TE when all the Zero RB targets are still on the board.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top