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.
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.