Anybody Ever Drafted 5 Running Backs with their first 5 picks? (1 Viewer)

[Bookeyman]

Had the 2nd pick in a 10 team league. We can only start 2 each week. Normally, I'd never consider this, but everytime with the exception of the 3rd round (where I took Portis), the running back was far and away the best player available.

FYI, we start 2 RB and 3 WRs each week.

Summary:

1: Jones Drew

2: Jacobs

3: Portis

4: Ronnie Brown

5: Kevin Smith

6: Eddie Royal

7: Anthony Gonzalez

8: McNabb

9: Holt

10: Donald Brown

11: Donnie Avery

12: Chris Henry

13: TE

14: Defense

15: Kicker

Obviously wouldnt mind trading a back for a stud WR. However there is sentiment in the league to not trade with me for taking this strategy.

Thoughts? Am I nuts for doing this?

 

[Gordon Keith]

Had the 2nd pick in a 10 team league. We can only start 2 each week. Normally, I'd never consider this, but everytime with the exception of the 3rd round (where I took Portis), the running back was far and away the best player available.FYI, we start 2 RB and 3 WRs each week.Summary:1: Jones Drew2: Jacobs3: Portis4: Ronnie Brown5: Kevin Smith6: Eddie Royal7: Anthony Gonzalez8: McNabb9: Holt10: Donald Brown11: Donnie Avery12: Chris Henry13: TE14: Defense15: KickerObviously wouldnt mind trading a back for a stud WR. However there is sentiment in the league to not trade with me for taking this strategy.Thoughts? Am I nuts for doing this?

Dude.....

 

[dansav]

Had the 2nd pick in a 10 team league. We can only start 2 each week. Normally, I'd never consider this, but everytime with the exception of the 3rd round (where I took Portis), the running back was far and away the best player available.FYI, we start 2 RB and 3 WRs each week.Summary:1: Jones Drew2: Jacobs3: Portis4: Ronnie Brown5: Kevin Smith6: Eddie Royal7: Anthony Gonzalez8: McNabb9: Holt10: Donald Brown11: Donnie Avery12: Chris Henry13: TE14: Defense15: KickerObviously wouldnt mind trading a back for a stud WR. However there is sentiment in the league to not trade with me for taking this strategy.Thoughts? Am I nuts for doing this?

Not nuts for doing this especially if your draft strategy is best available. Why didn't you just grab an elite WR instead? Above you mentioned you could trade a rb for a wr... maybe you should have grabbed a (jennings, colston, roddy white or steve smith) instead of Portis.

 

[mydixie]

Which WR were available when you took RB #6? When you took Brown, you knew that this team was thin at WR and still took another RB. RB #6 is the only one I have a problem with.

 

[lod01]

You won't be winning anything.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

The ones that do this are the ones that quit the league after the 1st/2nd year when the RB's have zero value and crappy WR's. A commissioner's delight to try to find someone to take over the mess.

 

[Masked Vigilante]

Good luck finding the right two to start each week.

 

[Itchy Amos]

Had the 2nd pick in a 10 team league. We can only start 2 each week. Normally, I'd never consider this, but everytime with the exception of the 3rd round (where I took Portis), the running back was far and away the best player available.

FYI, we start 2 RB and 3 WRs each week.

Summary:

1: Jones Drew

2: Jacobs

3: Portis

4: Ronnie Brown

5: Kevin Smith

6: Eddie Royal

7: Anthony Gonzalez

8: McNabb

9: Holt

10: Donald Brown

11: Donnie Avery

12: Chris Henry

13: TE

14: Defense

15: Kicker

Obviously wouldnt mind trading a back for a stud WR. However there is sentiment in the league to not trade with me for taking this strategy.

Thoughts? Am I nuts for doing this?

Never say never, but... when talking about the "best player available" I think it is important to ask yourself - best player for whom? So now you have the 3rd, 10th, 13th, 15th and 17th best backs. The guy who drafted Peterson and paired him with Marion Barber will probably outscore your starters from the running back position. Same with the guy drafting 12th who took Gore & Slaton. The difference is that they have 3 very good players from other positions- and you have nothing. By not taking anything but running backs, some players slid to the other teams that normally wouldnt have. By taking this strategy, you have put yourself behind the 8-ball for every other position.I think you will find it tough going unless your league mates bail you out with trades. It is likely that you will need them alot more than they need you. You will likely be forced to trade away your 3rd and 4th round RBs for recievers that you could have gotten in rounds 5 or 6.

 

[Freakin'Farmer]

Had the 2nd pick in a 10 team league. We can only start 2 each week. Normally, I'd never consider this, but everytime with the exception of the 3rd round (where I took Portis), the running back was far and away the best player available.FYI, we start 2 RB and 3 WRs each week.Summary:1: Jones Drew2: Jacobs3: Portis4: Ronnie Brown5: Kevin Smith6: Eddie Royal7: Anthony Gonzalez8: McNabb9: Holt10: Donald Brown11: Donnie Avery12: Chris Henry13: TE14: Defense15: KickerObviously wouldnt mind trading a back for a stud WR. However there is sentiment in the league to not trade with me for taking this strategy.Thoughts? Am I nuts for doing this?

I'm guessing this isn't PPR. In our recent draft A.Gonzales and Royal were gone in round 4 (37th and 38th picks.) WR's available where you picked Gonzales and Royal would have been S. Moss,Berrian,Coles and your team would stink. I'd think about going PPR if your league doesn't appreciate WRs any more than that. I guess I can't figure what players were going off the board if receivers like thisare still available as well as quality RB's that late.

 

[Ozymandias]

So you start 2 RB's. What are the possible chances that you will ever start the 4th and 5th RB taken? Only if injury to 2 of the ones you took 1-3. So on that off chance of an injury, you didn't take a receiver that you would be starting every game.

Strategy is one thing. Blindly sticking to it is another thing entirely.

 

[two_dollars]

You'll easily be able to trade for WR's, nothing wrong with it at all.

It obviously pissed off your league mates. Especially the ones waiting for an RB to fall because they assumed you wouldn't take one. If they thought it was funny/stupid they wouldn't be colluding against trading with you.

 

[gianmarco]

That team looks fine. At this time of the year, so many people forget just how inevitable and often injuries take a toll on a team not to mention how players bust and others come out of nowhere. As long as you're vigilant early on and pay attention to the WW, you'll do just fine.

 

[Sebowski]

I am scared I may end up doing something similar drafting out of the two spot. I am not high as high on the WRs around those picks.

 

[Instinctive]

I had an owner do this in my money league draft too. At first it pissed me off that they grabbed Ray Rice 1 ahead of me, as a 5th RB...then I thought about it, and our league isn't very active in trading...and she has no WRs at all and her starting QB is Brady Quinn.

You just need to do a pakage 2 for 1 deal or two. Put Smith and Brown together for a strong WR1 like Colston and pick up an extra upside guy like Ogletree from the FA pool.

You really need some trade action to be competitive

 

[pollardsvision]

Seen it done. It usually backfires.

It means you are playing against guppies or are in a league where guys just don't value RBs as much. In either case, the dream of trading them ain't happening. Experienced players believe in their choices and guppies don't even know yet that they are weak at RB.

The real reason is that it doesn't work is this: RBs are easier to predict on a game-to-game basis, while WRs are easier to predict on a season-to-season basis. Stud RBs pop up out of nowhere, where as stud WRs rarely do. The RBs may only be studs in short stints, but it doesn't matter. It's predictable (b/c of the injury that just happened). While WRs are fairly predictable for the season, they are impossible to predict on a per-game basis. That's another reason studs are important. When you go with lower-end WRs, a quarter of the season will be gone by the time you figure out who your best WRs are. With studs, you set it and forget it.

The most likely result is that you'll be frustrated during the 1st month of the season, leaving some huge RB games on the bench and having trouble figuring out your WR "pecking order". Those "idiots" that allowed you to find such great value in RBs will snag the hot FA RBs (you can't b/c your roster's clogged with all that great depth) and kick your butt.

 

[LionsFan78]

Never say never, but... when talking about the "best player available" I think it is important to ask yourself - best player for whom? So now you have the 3rd, 10th, 13th, 15th and 17th best backs. The guy who drafted Peterson and paired him with Marion Barber will probably outscore your starters from the running back position. Same with the guy drafting 12th who took Gore & Slaton. The difference is that they have 3 very good players from other positions- and you have nothing. By not taking anything but running backs, some players slid to the other teams that normally wouldnt have. By taking this strategy, you have put yourself behind the 8-ball for every other position.I think you will find it tough going unless your league mates bail you out with trades. It is likely that you will need them alot more than they need you. You will likely be forced to trade away your 3rd and 4th round RBs for recievers that you could have gotten in rounds 5 or 6.

This guy gets it.