Debate Stud RB Theory vs Stud WR and RBBC...... (1 Viewer)

[midnightxxxx]

If you do not have the luxury of having one of the few elite running backs on your squad, I feel this is the year to grab stud WR first and just draft serviceable great running backs. Most teams are going to RBBC which in my opinion spells doom to most rosters that only draft the Stud RB Theory. In a typical 10 to 12 team league I see only a handful of true difference makers at the RB position. I believe that maybe 5 or 6 running backs are truly in elite status this year. Whereas I see about 10 to 15 recievers that will post similiar yardage and TD's as these elite backs. The area of concern for me is the number of touches for RB vs the WR role and the PPR leagues reward differently for this.

If the elite backs are gone would you rather have elite WR in those early rounds of your draft or go with simply the next best RB?

 

[LHUCKS]

depends on the league formats, but I agree that this may be a year to go RB-WR-WR.

 

[Byron_nyc]

I am drafting first in a 12 team league, and my current plan is RB-WR-WR. Although I see RBBC as on the rise in the NLF within historic norms, there are more muddled RB situations than in any time since I've been playing fantasy.

 

[Ariakis]

It depends on your format and who goes but in my money league that drafted over the weekend (redraft, 12x20 ppr, 1 util), I picked 2nd and most of the top WR's were there and so I ended up with SJackson, AGreen, JLewis, CJohnson, Fitzgerald, Tony G, and Chargers DT by going RB, WR, WR, RB, RB, QB, RB, TE, WR, DT so far through 10 rounds. Add in LenDale and Galloway for depth.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=316040

 

[BroadwayG]

I'll let you know how it goes this year after I traded LT for Holt, Fitz and some additional rookie picks.

 

[Synthesizer]

I'll let you know how it goes this year after I traded LT for Holt, Fitz and some additional rookie picks.

I'm going to guess that LT scores as much as Holt, Fitz, and your rookies combined. I think the point of going with stud WRs is to avoid RBBCs, not to avoid the best fantasy RB ever.

 

[QUEZILLA]

I am drafting #3, and I will probably go Randy Moss.

 

[midnightxxxx]

BroadwayG clearly your backfield has an elite runner in LT. This model would not work for you and your team to the degree in which I have asked others to respond. That aside I felt compelled to ask the question does this thought have merit in situations where a team does not have an elite back?

Based on everyone elses tone in writing I would say it has merit. No need to bash a thread unless your feeling a little bit insecure about the possibility of LT longevity or increased competition in your league. So my question remains does this have merit for teams without an elite back?

 

[AB in DC]

Too soon to tell. A number of unclear situations (Detroit, NYG, Houston, Dallas) may be resolved by the time August rolls around.

 

[John Mamula]

Like others have said it completely depends on your league's scoring system, and even more importantly the expected amount of positions taken in each round. Look at how your draft would look like if you took the RB and WR positions in different combinations. According to your projections of these players' stats an ideal strategy should emerge.

The earlier you pick in the first round the easier it is to go RB/WR/WR. The later you pick in the first round it becomes much tougher and you get close to being forced into RB/RB/WR. For obvious reasons with a top 5 RB your 2nd RB can be had later with the elite production you get with your first pick that you can grab two top WRs.

As long as you have a strategy of who you will target as your other starting RB by passing on him in the first couple rounds with a WR you should be OK.

Like everything else, it really comes down to whether you draft players who produce. Avoiding the big mistake in the first 5 rounds is more important than in what exact order you get your players in.

 

[David Yudkin]

Any strategy can work if you end up with the right players. I was in some 16-team leagues last year with 2 PPR for TEs and 1 PPR for WRs (but 0 PPR for RBs). Drafting late, it made no sense to me to try to grab RBs with issues that clearly were not going to be worth their draft slots and started off with Gates and Fitzgerald. I ended up with Addai, Henry, and Mike Bell later on and made it all the way to the finals (of course losing out to the team with LT).

 

[BroadwayG]

BroadwayG clearly your backfield has an elite runner in LT. This model would not work for you and your team to the degree in which I have asked others to respond. That aside I felt compelled to ask the question does this thought have merit in situations where a team does not have an elite back? Based on everyone elses tone in writing I would say it has merit. No need to bash a thread unless your feeling a little bit insecure about the possibility of LT longevity or increased competition in your league. So my question remains does this have merit for teams without an elite back?

I traded my elite back for one of the best (on paper) WR groups in the league. I'm not bashing the thread, I was just making a statement that I went from a stud RB team to a stud WR team in one of my dynasty leagues.In a redraft, it really depends on what RBs you are able to take in the mid rounds if you go WR early. Addai, Mike Bell, Travis Henry were great. Chris Brown, Wali Lundy, and Jerious Norwood not so much.

 

[David Yudkin]

In a redraft, it really depends on what RBs you are able to take in the mid rounds if you go WR early. Addai, Mike Bell, Travis Henry were great. Chris Brown, Wali Lundy, and Jerious Norwood not so much.

But after 20 RBs are off the board, is it worth taking RBs just because you need RBs? That was the issue I had in that there was no one left with great prospects and IMO no one was worth taking a shot in the dark on when there were bonafide studs at other positions.You're right in that if I had wound up with Brown, Lundy, and Norwood I would have been in trouble. But I would have been in more trouble if I drafted Caddy, Lamont Jordan, Benson, or Droughns with those early picks. (For the record, I was down on all those guys all off season and wouldn't have taken them and was higher on the guys I drafted so things worked out by design.)

 

[Ariakis]

David, who are some guys you are down on or high on vs. their early expected ADP this year?

 

[tppt]

to me it all depends on VBD. why pigeon hole yourself into players or positions when, if they arent the best values out there?

i love when peopl do that, it just makes the values even bigger for peeps like myself

 

[BroadwayG]

In a redraft, it really depends on what RBs you are able to take in the mid rounds if you go WR early. Addai, Mike Bell, Travis Henry were great. Chris Brown, Wali Lundy, and Jerious Norwood not so much.

But after 20 RBs are off the board, is it worth taking RBs just because you need RBs? That was the issue I had in that there was no one left with great prospects and IMO no one was worth taking a shot in the dark on when there were bonafide studs at other positions.You're right in that if I had wound up with Brown, Lundy, and Norwood I would have been in trouble. But I would have been in more trouble if I drafted Caddy, Lamont Jordan, Benson, or Droughns with those early picks. (For the record, I was down on all those guys all off season and wouldn't have taken them and was higher on the guys I drafted so things worked out by design.)

That's the whole point. If you're confident in your research that you can get a diamond or two in the rough, then it's a huge advantage to take some of the more reliable WR/TE early on. I've drafted WRs early in my main $$$ league for two years. That first year, I was high on LJ, drafted him in the 6th round as my #2 RB to leers and jeers and went on to devastate the league scoring records. Last year, I thought Chris Brown was going to put up respectable #s and drafted him in the 6th round to leers and jeers and I took 8th place.That's the way it goes, but I was also able to laugh at the guys who took those 'studs' early and were down at the bottom with me last year.

 

[Routilla]

I am an old school RB-RB-RB guy but last year I took S. Smith with my 2nd pick. I thought about RB-WR-WR last year but just didn't have the balls to do it. When I'm sitting at that table and looking at the draft board it is really hard to not grab what could be stud RBs. I think you have the same risk with WRs as Smith turned out to be last year. He was good but not incredible like '05. Plus there always seem to be more WRs that come out of nowhere to be fairly big contributors after your draft like Colston last year. But I am again atleast leaning away from RB-RB-RB and diversifying with atleast 1 WR in my top 3. If the right WR was there I would take 2 WRs in my top 3.

 

[David Yudkin]

David, who are some guys you are down on or high on vs. their early expected ADP this year?

I've already been in and observed several drafts already this year and here are guys that are generally going past RB20 that to me represent decent value . . .McAllisterJacobsLynchLewisKJonesDunnFTaylorJJonesWhiteFosterMBellIf there's a common theme it's normally the older, experienced guy that people tend to write off in favor of an up and comer that may not even be the starting RB. Obviously a lot depends on what it takes to pick up any of these guys, but in a draft I was just in, for example, Foster was the 110th player taken and he could easily be the primary ball carrier in CAR. If there are only RBBC guys available in Round 3, I'd much rather wait and take someone similar a lot later.To be clear, I doubt any of the guys I listed are Top 5 candidates, but they should score some points and get a lot of playing time even if they have to share the ball. If you got a big scoring advantage with your other early picks, you may not even be leaving points on the table as many may think.

 

[CalBear]

to me it all depends on VBD. why pigeon hole yourself into players or positions when, if they arent the best values out there?

VBD can't be used blindly; the V (value) is entirely dependent on the baseline, and I'm seeing mounting evidence that the baselines we're using for VBD tend to overstate the value of RBs. (Even more so if you're using "Joe's Secret Formula").

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I've started doing some mocks, and it looks like just like last year RB-WR-WR can work out fantastic if you're picking from the 1.01 spot.

If you're towards the end of the draft though and you wait at RB you're looking at some really, really weak RBs to fill-in and that's with only one stud WR, not two.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Here's my feeling on this...

It does not really matter that much what type of league you are in, you need to draft strategically and use the waiver wire and trade options to the optimum.

For instance, I play primarily in a Keep 5 (no more than 2 per position) re-draft league with 12 teams. I have not had a round 1, 2 or 3 pick in the last three years, yet have made the Super Bowl in each, and won it last year.

I subscribe to the 2 Stud RB theory. I get them, I hold them as long as possible. I am not afraid to trade for them and give up my future picks. I then look for quality WR's when I do draft. Not always easy or a lock, so I don't stop there. I continue to scour the waiver wire for the WR's that were not drafted and snatch them up.

Example: Last year I used up three of this years picks for a trade to aquire Reggie Wayne. The year before I used up 3 of this years picks and 3 of last years picks (6 total) for a trade to aquire Shaun Alexander. The year before that I traded D. Culpepper, W. McGahee, and Koren Robinson and picks for a trade to aquire Peyton Manning. I have not had a pick in the top 6 rounds of our Keeper/Re-draft league for three years. Yet, each year I have made the Super Bowl, setting scoring and total win records along the way. And, I finally won it last year. Even with my wheeling and dealing it was not a forgone conclusion that I would win. I needed to use the waiver wire each year to get where I wanted to be. It is much easier, in my opinion, to go get a WR off the waiver wire that could help me win a title than a RB. Even still, I did pick up MJD and Colston last year. They each helped me in my run for the title. I would not have picked up MJD had Alexander not gone down for a few weeks, but I did. The Colston pick-up was golden, of course. Prior year WR waiver wire pick-ups included: Steve Smith, Anquan Boldin and others. My current Keeper list is thus: Manning, Alexander, James, Boldin, Wayne. Left on the roster to deal away: MJD & Colston. I'm sitting pretty, NO?

 

[midnightxxxx]

I agree that it is very situational in every draft. I also strongly believe elite players provide consistency regardless of scoring formats. I just wanted to get a handle on everyone elses opinion and if they felt felt tradition might be broken based on more teams utilizing more RBBC. Thank you guys for the insights you provided me on this.

 

[David Yudkin]

The other thing to consider here is that Top end WR scoring is not going up any just because there may be a trend to have teams go RBBC. In fact, elite WR scoring has actually dropped off in the past few years (and determining who the truly elite WRs are has gotten more difficult).

Here are the number of WRs in 0 PPR leagues each of the past 3 years at various scoring milestones (200, 175, 150 points):

06: 1, 9, 14

05: 4, 9, 14

04: 5, 10, 23

Of those 10 guys that hit 200 points, they were a little bit harder to plan on doing so:

06 Harrison

05 Smith, Fitzgerald, SMoss, Ocho Cinco

04 Muhammad, Walker, Horn, Owens, Harrison

That's 9 different WR, so it's not like there are clear options that are totally reliable in terms of being at the top of the WR food chain in terms of VALUE.

In some ways, unless you are really sure that your WR pick is going to both pan out and have a value advantage over other WRs, you still may be better off taking a shot at a RB early if you don't have faith in picking RBs that will pan out later on. If you take a WR that IS NOT one of the guys in the 175-200+ point range even though the guy might still have decent numbers you may actually have hurt your team more than you realize by getting someone no better than WRs drafted several rounds later. Getting a WR in the 2nd round that puts up 1000/6 will hurt you even though he could still be a borderline Top 20 WR.

 

[TheNext0]

A lot of good points here. Let me just throw my $.02 out there.

Warning: PPR LEAGUE

It really does depend on your scoring and how your draft is going. Last year I really forced myself into a RB-WR-WR strategy, and struggled. I had Tiki, CJ, and Boldin and just could not fill that #2 back with someone reliable. Here's what I saw going into last year:

# of WRs over 18ppg:

2004: 6

2005: 5

I felt a big edge drafting 2 top 5 WRs who could get me around 18ppg instead of grabbing a #2 back who would only get about 13-14ppg. The end result...2006 had just 1 WR over 18ppg...just crushed my strategy.

Now I'm not sure if that was an anomaly or what. I don't have any stats on hand to go back on before 2004. If last year was just a down year for WRs, then should it scare me away from that strategy this year?

Anyway, I ended up passing on Westbrook and W Parker last year to grab Chad Johnson. Looking back, you just have to be dynamic enough to change your plans on the fly. I should have thrown my strategy out the window when I saw two good RBs slip, but I was dead set on RB-WR-WR.

That said, last year was the first year I ever took a WR before round 3, and I've never struggled as bad as I did. That scares me away from a WR in the 2nd, but I nabbed the 1st pick this year and have to remain open to that possibility.

 

[TheNext0]

That was a fantastic explanation for what I was dancing around. I had my reply window open since early this morning and didn't submit until now, that's why some of the points I hit on just piggyback these ideas. My example of Tiki/CJ/Boldin is a great real world example of how hard it is to be sure of these top WRs from year to year. There are just more middle of the road WRs as compared to RBs each year, so it's usually easier to stock up on RBs early

The other thing to consider here is that Top end WR scoring is not going up any just because there may be a trend to have teams go RBBC. In fact, elite WR scoring has actually dropped off in the past few years (and determining who the truly elite WRs are has gotten more difficult).Here are the number of WRs in 0 PPR leagues each of the past 3 years at various scoring milestones (200, 175, 150 points):06: 1, 9, 1405: 4, 9, 1404: 5, 10, 23Of those 10 guys that hit 200 points, they were a little bit harder to plan on doing so:06 Harrison05 Smith, Fitzgerald, SMoss, Ocho Cinco04 Muhammad, Walker, Horn, Owens, HarrisonThat's 9 different WR, so it's not like there are clear options that are totally reliable in terms of being at the top of the WR food chain in terms of VALUE.In some ways, unless you are really sure that your WR pick is going to both pan out and have a value advantage over other WRs, you still may be better off taking a shot at a RB early if you don't have faith in picking RBs that will pan out later on. If you take a WR that IS NOT one of the guys in the 175-200+ point range even though the guy might still have decent numbers you may actually have hurt your team more than you realize by getting someone no better than WRs drafted several rounds later. Getting a WR in the 2nd round that puts up 1000/6 will hurt you even though he could still be a borderline Top 20 WR.

 

[switz]

Here's my take. If you can't grab one of the top 2-3 RBs, you need to go stud WR. But you shouldn't sacrifice a stud RB to get a stud WR.

I've found the last few years I've done RB-WR-RB-WR-WR- it seems to work ok...

 

[Ariakis]

The other thing to consider here is that Top end WR scoring is not going up any just because there may be a trend to have teams go RBBC. In fact, elite WR scoring has actually dropped off in the past few years (and determining who the truly elite WRs are has gotten more difficult).Here are the number of WRs in 0 PPR leagues each of the past 3 years at various scoring milestones (200, 175, 150 points):06: 1, 9, 1405: 4, 9, 1404: 5, 10, 23Of those 10 guys that hit 200 points, they were a little bit harder to plan on doing so:06 Harrison05 Smith, Fitzgerald, SMoss, Ocho Cinco04 Muhammad, Walker, Horn, Owens, HarrisonThat's 9 different WR, so it's not like there are clear options that are totally reliable in terms of being at the top of the WR food chain in terms of VALUE.In some ways, unless you are really sure that your WR pick is going to both pan out and have a value advantage over other WRs, you still may be better off taking a shot at a RB early if you don't have faith in picking RBs that will pan out later on. If you take a WR that IS NOT one of the guys in the 175-200+ point range even though the guy might still have decent numbers you may actually have hurt your team more than you realize by getting someone no better than WRs drafted several rounds later. Getting a WR in the 2nd round that puts up 1000/6 will hurt you even though he could still be a borderline Top 20 WR.

I think it also depends on the RB's you pick up. Last year some poor sap passed on the elite tier of WR's for Lamont Jordan for example.Picking 3rd in a $$ league redraft that is still ongoing here is my team to date in going RB1, WR1, WR2, RB2, RB3, QB1, RB4, TE1, WR3, DT1, QB2, PK1 so far. With 1 UTIL slot in a PPR format I think I did pretty well. I should have pulled the trigger on guys like FTaylor or Foster over Galloway maybe as they slid FAR but FatDale and Galloway pretty much cover my byes barring injury plus the waiver wire.McNabbSchaubSjacksonJlewisAgreenLwhiteCJFitzGallowayTonyGVinatieriSDC DTOverall I think the higher you pick in Round 1 (thus the later in Round 2) the more you are forced to go WR if the WR run doesn't start in Round 2 by your pick. I passed on Deangelo Williams, Brandon Jacobs, and Caddy to take CJ and Fitz but no other major RB slid that far. My taking those two WR's helped to start the WR run and left Jamal Lewis and Ahman Green for me on the back swing in Round 4. My WR selections by then would have been in the Coles, DJax, or Chambers tier. I may regret taking Jamal over Marion Barber but Chester Taylor and Dunn were out there into the 5th round too. Give me CJ, Fitz, Jamal, and Ahman over drafting Caddy, Deangelo, Coles, and Djax IMO.

 

[coolnerd]

 

[renesauz]

I've been a very vocal opponent of the "RBBC Trend Theory" for a while now....there are NOT more RBBC's then before...and really not many more "muddled" situations then before...so I'm ignoring that argument altogether (After all...the more people believe the false theory, the easier it is for me to beat them!)

The reason the stud RB theory of drafting holds true has less to do with the raw #s presented by the rankings and more to do with post draft and mid season maneuvering. It is FAR FAR easier to find a replacement WR then it is a replacement RB if one of your picks misses. There are ALWAYS WR's who break out BIG...usually 4 or more in any given year, with another half dozen or more who make adequate bye week fillers. When your marginal RB you took in round 5 doesn't pan out, there's usually nothing on the waiver wire who can make a splash for you.

Again...it isn't the starters...it's what happens when a starter doesn't pan out, or gets injured.

 

[midnightxxxx]

I agree Ladel Betts was pretty marginal for me last year running down the stretch, LOL. Seriously though I do think drafting is purely situational and most important is the league scoring mechanisms and rules. If your predictions are solid you cant really go wrong unless injuries appear. I do however like all the situational feedback and justification posts on why things worked out for others or did not work based on last season. That is the valuable part of any post in my opinion when dealing with predictions and being able to recognize tendencies.

 

[darmani]

Here's my take. If you can't grab one of the top 2-3 RBs, you need to go stud WR. But you shouldn't sacrifice a stud RB to get a stud WR.I've found the last few years I've done RB-WR-RB-WR-WR- it seems to work ok...

I generally agree with this guy. But it depends on where you're drafting.One of the top 4 receivers are still usually available after 10-15 of the top RB's are there.In a PPR league, those extra point can offset the production drop that you'll incur having to settle on a 3rd or 4th tier back as your number 2. The fact that so many teams are going to RBBC provides a deeper talent pool in the RB spot. The days of getting "shut out" of running backs if you don't grab two right away are slowly passing us by. There is good production these days in 3rd or 4th tier backs. (IE. DrewJones, Marion Barber,Jets RBs, etc)