pinkstapler
Footballguy
On the OG post of the thread: to me it comes down to price vs perceived risk. We never really know if the new guy is going to come in and take over or not. I don't know that I've really ever seen solid data saying whether this is more likely or less likely to happen on average; my guess being that there are just too many variables to find an actual predictable trend. Considering most new RBs get a shot due to injury/fumbling issues (neither of which I find to be predictable themselves) I think that makes sense.
So I could probably hone my first statement down even farther and just say it's a cost proposition. And in my experience recent years, I agree with Meno. Rookie RBs don't feel like they give the value they used to. Definitely not like rookie WRs who JJ Zacharison did a study on a year or two ago showing something wild like 75% or so out produce their ADP (and that percentage went higher if you exclude the rookie WRs who got drafted in the first round, seeing as they tend to not be discounted much at all on their redraft ADP). Anymore I target RBs in muddied backfields. Seems counterintuitive, but working from the cost perspective, it makes sense. A backfield has 3 options, and while their might be a community "favorite" of this group predicted to get the most work, ADP almost always dings all 3 of them. So then it really just comes down to picking the right one. 33% chance. But now if you are doing that across three muddied backfields, you basically have 3 shots at a 33% chance. I'm not a mathmatician and I don't want this to turn into some Monte Hall problem statistical analysis haha; just to say I've been doing very well the past few years taking this route. That and aging/"boring" RBs. James Conner, Joe Mixon, Aaron Jones, etc. Due to their volatility and higher injury risk, I find it generally better to just have a greater number of cheaper options with a lower upside, then put fewer eggs in the basket for a shot at a top 6 guy.
Circling back, I guess I let my predraft evals "anoint" some players; but tbh I think I stay rather reasonable with my expectations and view most of them in a 3 year window rather than having expectations for year 1. I may be the biggest Cam Skattebo lover on FBG, but even I wouldn't bet money he's walking out week 1 as the starting RB. Not sure if I'd bet on him even ending the season that way. But, at his current ADP around RB36 and round 9.... I'll be happily taking him round 7 or 8 and around RB26-30ish to ensure I get him and feel very comfortable with the bet he will return that value to me. Also for Cam (and I will target others I feel similarly on) I think there is a potential ceiling attached to this value proposition that makes him even more valuable. And if he misses... well then I'm out an ~8th round pick. Hopefully one of the other 6 backs I took in these mid to late rounds IS the guy that exceeds value. I'm probably swerving on guys like Hampton/Judkins/Henderson depending their value in August because IMO it won't be that great of a value, as much as I do love those RBs. I love them in their window, not to come out the gates year 1 on fire.
So I could probably hone my first statement down even farther and just say it's a cost proposition. And in my experience recent years, I agree with Meno. Rookie RBs don't feel like they give the value they used to. Definitely not like rookie WRs who JJ Zacharison did a study on a year or two ago showing something wild like 75% or so out produce their ADP (and that percentage went higher if you exclude the rookie WRs who got drafted in the first round, seeing as they tend to not be discounted much at all on their redraft ADP). Anymore I target RBs in muddied backfields. Seems counterintuitive, but working from the cost perspective, it makes sense. A backfield has 3 options, and while their might be a community "favorite" of this group predicted to get the most work, ADP almost always dings all 3 of them. So then it really just comes down to picking the right one. 33% chance. But now if you are doing that across three muddied backfields, you basically have 3 shots at a 33% chance. I'm not a mathmatician and I don't want this to turn into some Monte Hall problem statistical analysis haha; just to say I've been doing very well the past few years taking this route. That and aging/"boring" RBs. James Conner, Joe Mixon, Aaron Jones, etc. Due to their volatility and higher injury risk, I find it generally better to just have a greater number of cheaper options with a lower upside, then put fewer eggs in the basket for a shot at a top 6 guy.
Circling back, I guess I let my predraft evals "anoint" some players; but tbh I think I stay rather reasonable with my expectations and view most of them in a 3 year window rather than having expectations for year 1. I may be the biggest Cam Skattebo lover on FBG, but even I wouldn't bet money he's walking out week 1 as the starting RB. Not sure if I'd bet on him even ending the season that way. But, at his current ADP around RB36 and round 9.... I'll be happily taking him round 7 or 8 and around RB26-30ish to ensure I get him and feel very comfortable with the bet he will return that value to me. Also for Cam (and I will target others I feel similarly on) I think there is a potential ceiling attached to this value proposition that makes him even more valuable. And if he misses... well then I'm out an ~8th round pick. Hopefully one of the other 6 backs I took in these mid to late rounds IS the guy that exceeds value. I'm probably swerving on guys like Hampton/Judkins/Henderson depending their value in August because IMO it won't be that great of a value, as much as I do love those RBs. I love them in their window, not to come out the gates year 1 on fire.
