Does a Flex spot make RB's incredibly more valuable? (1 Viewer)

[solorca]

I am using Draft Dominator this year in a league with flex spots. My league is set at 2RB, 3WR, 1 TE, with one flex for any of those positions. Prior to including the flex spot, RB's were valued about where I would expect them to be. Top 6 or so before someone like Andre Johnson jumps into the rankings. When I added the flex in, it suddenly moved 13 RB's ahead of the first non back on the list.

This is less of a question about DD and more of a question about the value of running backs. Does having the option of starting a flex at that spot truly make them more valuable? I've never considered it in the past, but now I am starting to wonder...

 

[LittlePhatty]

I'd say yes because there are fewer quality RBs to be had. If you can somehow secure 3 of the top 24 backs in a 12-team league, you're not only improving your team but you are also making it more difficult for the other owners to field 2 competitive backs.

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm playing a flex for the first time this season.

 

[renesauz]

I've never been real comfortable with how much DD changes values when you click the little flex box. I use the DD more for tracking and to ensure I don't overlook something than for pick advice though, soI just don't check the box in most leagues.

IE: Rb values probably do increase a hair, but not nearly as much as DD suggests.

 

[degenerate]

it could also depend on your league mates. in my most competitive league, it's 1qb, 2rb, 2wr, 1rb/wr, 1te. because of this, most want 3 solid starting rb's making them more valuable.

 

[Mello]

Depends on the scoring system, but typically (at least in non-PPR) RBs score more and more consistently than WRs or TEs so you want to try to get a RB for your flex spot, making them more valuable.

 

[bigmiiiiike]

it could also depend on your league mates. in my most competitive league, it's 1qb, 2rb, 2wr, 1rb/wr, 1te. because of this, most want 3 solid starting rb's making them more valuable.

This is my main league's format, and it makes RBs fly off the board. I guarantee that in Round 1, 10 of the 12 picks will be RBs, maybe more. In round 2, 8 or 9 of the picks will be RBs. If you want to experiment with upside down drafting, this would be the type of league to do it in.

 

[Runningman]

I would bet money over half the people in your league is going to be drafting with the thought in mind to snag 3 starting RBs. Whether the actual value at RB is there or not people are going to be drafting like it is and if you ignore that you very well could end up with trouble fielding even two starting RBs.

 

[fightingillini]

In general, yes it makes RBs more valuable (especially in nonPPR leagues), and you will want to secure 3 good ones if you can. The way to combat this is to make RBs NonPPR and WRs/TEs PPR. Then you would see a good mix of RBs and WRs go off the board.

In a Flex RB/WR league with 2 starting RBs, I would suspect 20 RBs will be taken by the middle of Round 3.....or 20 of the first 30 or so picks.

 

[Knowlt]

Simple supply and demand, along with the fact that the drop off between startable RB and the scrap heap is much greater than the same drop at the WR position.

Without a flex spot, 12 teams are fighting over maybe 18-20 legitimate starter to plug in at RB to fill 24 starting spots. Now with the flex, 12 teams are fighting over the same 18-20 starters to fill up to 36 starting spots.

So, in short, yes the flex adds some value to the RB position, but only to a certain point. Obviously you will be at an advantage if you can grab 3 of the top 20 or so RBs and plug them in. Realistically, that can't happen for all 12 teams, so that is where the knowledge of where that break point between RB and WR value for the flex starting spot comes into play.

 

[Isotopes]

I think it is important to also consider value when drafting. While having 3 strong rb's is a good strategy, you have to get value for the draft picks. If you blindly pick 3 rbs in the first three rounds,then your team will most likely get outproduced by an owner who snapped up a stabile of wide receivers while everyone else was grabbing running backs.

 

[Shutout]

UNBELIEVEABLY SO!!!!

We have a 16 team league we have had for almost 10 years that allowed 3RB starters and I can report the actual history of how that affects things.

It made RBS rediculously hard to obtain..You had to sell your soul to get them. All the rookie drafts were dominated by them with even the slightest fringe players being drafted. If the guy had RB at the end of his name, he was scarfed up.

The league ended up being a league of haves and have nots: the heavies in the league all had 2-3 starting RBs and beat up on people and then there were other teams that became terrible, either because they had no way to counter 3 RBs or they got caught up in making trades that killed them later (like giving up a young Larry Fitz and a 1st rounder AND a veteran like Tony Gonzalez to get an aging Jamal Lewis...).

The league was always PPR but did not allow a full point per reception. What we ended up having to do to bring balance to the force was give WRs double PPR compared to RBs and doubled TEs compared to what WRs got.

That brought things in line well but the first few years were BAD.

 

[Mark Wimer]

Simple supply and demand, along with the fact that the drop off between startable RB and the scrap heap is much greater than the same drop at the WR position. Without a flex spot, 12 teams are fighting over maybe 18-20 legitimate starter to plug in at RB to fill 24 starting spots. Now with the flex, 12 teams are fighting over the same 18-20 starters to fill up to 36 starting spots.So, in short, yes the flex adds some value to the RB position, but only to a certain point. Obviously you will be at an advantage if you can grab 3 of the top 20 or so RBs and plug them in. Realistically, that can't happen for all 12 teams, so that is where the knowledge of where that break point between RB and WR value for the flex starting spot comes into play.

This is a good overview of why a flex position that allows RB/WR/TE inflates RB value. More owners will want to draft the meager supply of "featured" running backs or lead backs in a committee if there is a chance of starting three RBs each week. While the elite wide receivers are still more valuable than lead backs in a committee, they become less valuable in relation to the few "featured" backs in the NFL, so you see almost exclusively RBs in the first round of this sort of league (with the possible exception of Andre Johnson and Roddy White this year)These are the guys I'd call "featured" backs (please note this isn't the order I'd rank their probable 2011 finish in total fantasy points - but these guys are likely to see 60+% of the total touches available out of their respective backfields):Charles, Jamaal - KCRice, Ray - BALPeterson, Adrian - MINFoster, Arian - HOUJohnson, Chris - TENMendenhall, Rashard - PITTurner, Michael - ATLMcCoy, LeSean - PHIHillis, Peyton - CLEJones-Drew, Maurice - JAXMcFadden, Darren - OAKGore, Frank - SFJackson, Steven - STLBest, Jahvid - DETAddai, Joseph - INDBenson, Cedric - CINThese are the guys I'd call "lead backs in their committees" - likely to see greater than 50% of the total touches out of their respective backfields.Bradshaw, Ahmad - NYGWilliams, DeAngelo - CARGreene, Shonn - NYJBlount, LeGarrette - TBGrant, Ryan - GBJackson, Fred - BUFForte, Matt - CHIHightower, Tim - WASIngram, Mark - NOMcGahee, Willis - DENSo there are ~26 guys currently playing in the NFL that I'd want slotted between RB#1 and RB#3 for my team in a start-2RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) scenario as of the second week of preseason. Some other guys may fulfill their potential (Ryan Williams, Ryan Mathews, Daniel Thomas) and join the above list by the end of training camp. Some of those 26 guys on my rough list will suffer season-ending injuries, or lose enough playing time to an up-and-coming challenger, and drop off that list. Probably a few veterans I didn't name will move up in there, too. But the bottom line is IMO 25ish or so backs are likely to be worth picking for the 36 available starting RB slots in a 2 RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) league. That's why the demand for those 25ish guys at RB is more pronounced in a 2 RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) league than a traditional start 2 RB league. 4 more weeks to real !!!!!!!!!!! Woo Hoo!!!!!

 

[CalBear]

Depends on the scoring system, but typically (at least in non-PPR) RBs score more and more consistently than WRs or TEs so you want to try to get a RB for your flex spot, making them more valuable.

This is not true.http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2007/07guest_holub1.php

You're probably running into the biases coded into the default baseline ("Joe's Secret Formula") in DD. Try a different baseline and you'll get different results.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I don't know about 'incredibly', but the added scarcity makes them more valuable, and that's before injuries.

imagine if you could field 3 qb --- how would qb's get drafted in your league?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I think the short answer is yes.....obviously it depends on scoring system and other starting lineup requirements (meaning is the WR spot a start 2 or start 3)...

in the flex leagues I have played in, I always look at using a RB at the flex spot because that is what the scoring sytem and starting lineups dictate....

I'll take a Lynch or Fred Jackson instead of a low end WR3 anyday....

and many times I look to target 4 solid RB's in the first 5-6 picks.....sounds crazy, but with bye week/injury coverage for that 3rd starting spot sometimes it is neccessary.....the mindset is that I will not be starting more than 2 WR's any given week and I feel that if I pick up a WR1 somewhere in those first 5-6 picks, that I have the ability to find a serviceable WR2 later....

I just think the advantage you can gain on a weekly basis by starting 3 (solid) RB's is better than trying to hit every week on that WR3 you end up getting....

 

[Dentist]

I think it makes the draft suck. RB's have so much value it's un-fun.

I have a league with a flex position as well... but it's a 1 RB start league... 2 WR... flex is either a 2nd RB or 3rd WR... most players use the 2nd RB.. but not all.

I think this makes it a lot more fun because now the 1st round has plenty of QB's and WR's because the top WR's are worth more than RB7 or 9... just like in real life.

 

[the spanker]

Simple supply and demand, along with the fact that the drop off between startable RB and the scrap heap is much greater than the same drop at the WR position. Without a flex spot, 12 teams are fighting over maybe 18-20 legitimate starter to plug in at RB to fill 24 starting spots. Now with the flex, 12 teams are fighting over the same 18-20 starters to fill up to 36 starting spots.So, in short, yes the flex adds some value to the RB position, but only to a certain point. Obviously you will be at an advantage if you can grab 3 of the top 20 or so RBs and plug them in. Realistically, that can't happen for all 12 teams, so that is where the knowledge of where that break point between RB and WR value for the flex starting spot comes into play.

This is a good overview of why a flex position that allows RB/WR/TE inflates RB value. More owners will want to draft the meager supply of "featured" running backs or lead backs in a committee if there is a chance of starting three RBs each week. While the elite wide receivers are still more valuable than lead backs in a committee, they become less valuable in relation to the few "featured" backs in the NFL, so you see almost exclusively RBs in the first round of this sort of league (with the possible exception of Andre Johnson and Roddy White this year)These are the guys I'd call "featured" backs (please note this isn't the order I'd rank their probable 2011 finish in total fantasy points - but these guys are likely to see 60+% of the total touches available out of their respective backfields):Charles, Jamaal - KCRice, Ray - BALPeterson, Adrian - MINFoster, Arian - HOUJohnson, Chris - TENMendenhall, Rashard - PITTurner, Michael - ATLMcCoy, LeSean - PHIHillis, Peyton - CLEJones-Drew, Maurice - JAXMcFadden, Darren - OAKGore, Frank - SFJackson, Steven - STLBest, Jahvid - DETAddai, Joseph - INDBenson, Cedric - CINThese are the guys I'd call "lead backs in their committees" - likely to see greater than 50% of the total touches out of their respective backfields.Bradshaw, Ahmad - NYGWilliams, DeAngelo - CARGreene, Shonn - NYJBlount, LeGarrette - TBGrant, Ryan - GBJackson, Fred - BUFForte, Matt - CHIHightower, Tim - WASIngram, Mark - NOMcGahee, Willis - DENSo there are ~26 guys currently playing in the NFL that I'd want slotted between RB#1 and RB#3 for my team in a start-2RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) scenario as of the second week of preseason. Some other guys may fulfill their potential (Ryan Williams, Ryan Mathews, Daniel Thomas) and join the above list by the end of training camp. Some of those 26 guys on my rough list will suffer season-ending injuries, or lose enough playing time to an up-and-coming challenger, and drop off that list. Probably a few veterans I didn't name will move up in there, too. But the bottom line is IMO 25ish or so backs are likely to be worth picking for the 36 available starting RB slots in a 2 RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) league. That's why the demand for those 25ish guys at RB is more pronounced in a 2 RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) league than a traditional start 2 RB league. 4 more weeks to real !!!!!!!!!!! Woo Hoo!!!!!

Um where is Felix Jones?

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

i love filling my flex spots with wide receivers. people so greatly over value running backs that I get to fill my flex spots with wr's who score more than their running backs.

 

[pheagles]

i love filling my flex spots with wide receivers. people so greatly over value running backs that I get to fill my flex spots with wr's who score more than their running backs.

 

[hotboyz]

I'm not sure what the answer is to this because in my 12 team non ppr we start 1 RB 1 Wr and 3 flex RB/wr I'm starting to think wr is the value play while others go Rb

 

[Sarnoff]

Depends on the scoring system, but typically (at least in non-PPR) RBs score more and more consistently than WRs or TEs so you want to try to get a RB for your flex spot, making them more valuable.

This is not true.http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2007/07guest_holub1.php

You're probably running into the biases coded into the default baseline ("Joe's Secret Formula") in DD. Try a different baseline and you'll get different results.

 

[NeverEnough]

I'm not sure what the answer is to this because in my 12 team non ppr we start 1 RB 1 Wr and 3 flex RB/wr I'm starting to think wr is the value play while others go Rb

I think the way to go in non-ppr is BPA. If that happens to be a RB great. If it's a WR great too. The better WR should give you more points over the season than reaching for a lesser ranked RB.

 

[Mark Wimer]

Simple supply and demand, along with the fact that the drop off between startable RB and the scrap heap is much greater than the same drop at the WR position.

Without a flex spot, 12 teams are fighting over maybe 18-20 legitimate starter to plug in at RB to fill 24 starting spots. Now with the flex, 12 teams are fighting over the same 18-20 starters to fill up to 36 starting spots.

So, in short, yes the flex adds some value to the RB position, but only to a certain point. Obviously you will be at an advantage if you can grab 3 of the top 20 or so RBs and plug them in. Realistically, that can't happen for all 12 teams, so that is where the knowledge of where that break point between RB and WR value for the flex starting spot comes into play.

This is a good overview of why a flex position that allows RB/WR/TE inflates RB value. More owners will want to draft the meager supply of "featured" running backs or lead backs in a committee if there is a chance of starting three RBs each week. While the elite wide receivers are still more valuable than lead backs in a committee, they become less valuable in relation to the few "featured" backs in the NFL, so you see almost exclusively RBs in the first round of this sort of league (with the possible exception of Andre Johnson and Roddy White this year)These are the guys I'd call "featured" backs (please note this isn't the order I'd rank their probable 2011 finish in total fantasy points - but these guys are likely to see 60+% of the total touches available out of their respective backfields):

Charles, Jamaal - KC

Rice, Ray - BAL

Peterson, Adrian - MIN

Foster, Arian - HOU

Johnson, Chris - TEN

Mendenhall, Rashard - PIT

Turner, Michael - ATL

McCoy, LeSean - PHI

Hillis, Peyton - CLE

Jones-Drew, Maurice - JAX

McFadden, Darren - OAK

Gore, Frank - SF

Jackson, Steven - STL

Best, Jahvid - DET

Addai, Joseph - IND

Benson, Cedric - CIN

These are the guys I'd call "lead backs in their committees" - likely to see greater than 50% of the total touches out of their respective backfields.

Bradshaw, Ahmad - NYG

Williams, DeAngelo - CAR

Greene, Shonn - NYJ

Blount, LeGarrette - TB

Grant, Ryan - GB

Jackson, Fred - BUF

Forte, Matt - CHI

Hightower, Tim - WAS

Ingram, Mark - NO

McGahee, Willis - DEN

So there are ~26 guys currently playing in the NFL that I'd want slotted between RB#1 and RB#3 for my team in a start-2RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) scenario as of the second week of preseason. Some other guys may fulfill their potential (Ryan Williams, Ryan Mathews, Daniel Thomas) and join the above list by the end of training camp. Some of those 26 guys on my rough list will suffer season-ending injuries, or lose enough playing time to an up-and-coming challenger, and drop off that list. Probably a few veterans I didn't name will move up in there, too.

But the bottom line is IMO 25ish or so backs are likely to be worth picking for the 36 available starting RB slots in a 2 RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) league.

That's why the demand for those 25ish guys at RB is more pronounced in a 2 RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) league than a traditional start 2 RB league.

4 more weeks to real !!!!!!!!!!! Woo Hoo!!!!!

Um where is Felix Jones?

He was obliquely referred to in the bolded sentence above. That's the short answer.The long answer is: Stuck in Dallas, in the flavor-of-the-week committee that they love to run down there. Stuck down there where he's never been a top-20 fantasy back.

Here's where he was last year at season's end:

26 RB Jones, Felix DAL 16 185/800/1 rushing and 48/450/1 receiving - TWO whole TDs all year long. Wowsers. And that is his BEST season so far in his career, in terms of total fantasy points.

As I noted, some veterans MAY join my preliminary list as we move through preseason and RB stables/time shares clarify, as some others will undoubtedly drop off.

Jones isn't a guy I'm holding my breath to draft, though. He'll have to show me he has somehow hidden his inner lead-back-plays-through-minor-injuries-alternate-self during his first three seasons in the NFL, cuz so far color me unimpressed.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I'm not sure what the answer is to this because in my 12 team non ppr we start 1 RB 1 Wr and 3 flex RB/wr I'm starting to think wr is the value play while others go Rb

I think the way to go in non-ppr is BPA. If that happens to be a RB great. If it's a WR great too. The better WR should give you more points over the season than reaching for a lesser ranked RB.

or even TE...

 

[Tanner9919]

Simple supply and demand, along with the fact that the drop off between startable RB and the scrap heap is much greater than the same drop at the WR position. Without a flex spot, 12 teams are fighting over maybe 18-20 legitimate starter to plug in at RB to fill 24 starting spots. Now with the flex, 12 teams are fighting over the same 18-20 starters to fill up to 36 starting spots.So, in short, yes the flex adds some value to the RB position, but only to a certain point. Obviously you will be at an advantage if you can grab 3 of the top 20 or so RBs and plug them in. Realistically, that can't happen for all 12 teams, so that is where the knowledge of where that break point between RB and WR value for the flex starting spot comes into play.

This is a good overview of why a flex position that allows RB/WR/TE inflates RB value. More owners will want to draft the meager supply of "featured" running backs or lead backs in a committee if there is a chance of starting three RBs each week. While the elite wide receivers are still more valuable than lead backs in a committee, they become less valuable in relation to the few "featured" backs in the NFL, so you see almost exclusively RBs in the first round of this sort of league (with the possible exception of Andre Johnson and Roddy White this year)These are the guys I'd call "featured" backs (please note this isn't the order I'd rank their probable 2011 finish in total fantasy points - but these guys are likely to see 60+% of the total touches available out of their respective backfields):Charles, Jamaal - KCRice, Ray - BALPeterson, Adrian - MINFoster, Arian - HOUJohnson, Chris - TENMendenhall, Rashard - PITTurner, Michael - ATLMcCoy, LeSean - PHIHillis, Peyton - CLEJones-Drew, Maurice - JAXMcFadden, Darren - OAKGore, Frank - SFJackson, Steven - STLBest, Jahvid - DETAddai, Joseph - INDBenson, Cedric - CINThese are the guys I'd call "lead backs in their committees" - likely to see greater than 50% of the total touches out of their respective backfields.Bradshaw, Ahmad - NYGWilliams, DeAngelo - CARGreene, Shonn - NYJBlount, LeGarrette - TBGrant, Ryan - GBJackson, Fred - BUFForte, Matt - CHIHightower, Tim - WASIngram, Mark - NOMcGahee, Willis - DENSo there are ~26 guys currently playing in the NFL that I'd want slotted between RB#1 and RB#3 for my team in a start-2RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) scenario as of the second week of preseason. Some other guys may fulfill their potential (Ryan Williams, Ryan Mathews, Daniel Thomas) and join the above list by the end of training camp. Some of those 26 guys on my rough list will suffer season-ending injuries, or lose enough playing time to an up-and-coming challenger, and drop off that list. Probably a few veterans I didn't name will move up in there, too. But the bottom line is IMO 25ish or so backs are likely to be worth picking for the 36 available starting RB slots in a 2 RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) league. That's why the demand for those 25ish guys at RB is more pronounced in a 2 RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) league than a traditional start 2 RB league. 4 more weeks to real !!!!!!!!!!! Woo Hoo!!!!!

guys who are NOT in RBBC:Blount - there's Blount and then there's everyone else in TB..Grant ( Starks is already hurt, Grant will be the workhorse for the Packers)Fred Jackson - Spiller is not-ready-for-prime-time.Matt Forte - lots of recs, obviously has tremendous value in RB PPR leagues...Shonn Greene - By all accounts, Jets have moved him to the featured RB role..he will see 60%+ of carries.Ingram *might* be in an RBBC, but he's going to get the majority of those carries..225/1012/10td, 4.5 per carry.

 

[Mark Wimer]

Simple supply and demand, along with the fact that the drop off between startable RB and the scrap heap is much greater than the same drop at the WR position.

Without a flex spot, 12 teams are fighting over maybe 18-20 legitimate starter to plug in at RB to fill 24 starting spots. Now with the flex, 12 teams are fighting over the same 18-20 starters to fill up to 36 starting spots.

So, in short, yes the flex adds some value to the RB position, but only to a certain point. Obviously you will be at an advantage if you can grab 3 of the top 20 or so RBs and plug them in. Realistically, that can't happen for all 12 teams, so that is where the knowledge of where that break point between RB and WR value for the flex starting spot comes into play.

This is a good overview of why a flex position that allows RB/WR/TE inflates RB value. More owners will want to draft the meager supply of "featured" running backs or lead backs in a committee if there is a chance of starting three RBs each week. While the elite wide receivers are still more valuable than lead backs in a committee, they become less valuable in relation to the few "featured" backs in the NFL, so you see almost exclusively RBs in the first round of this sort of league (with the possible exception of Andre Johnson and Roddy White this year)These are the guys I'd call "featured" backs (please note this isn't the order I'd rank their probable 2011 finish in total fantasy points - but these guys are likely to see 60+% of the total touches available out of their respective backfields):

Charles, Jamaal - KC

Rice, Ray - BAL

Peterson, Adrian - MIN

Foster, Arian - HOU

Johnson, Chris - TEN

Mendenhall, Rashard - PIT

Turner, Michael - ATL

McCoy, LeSean - PHI

Hillis, Peyton - CLE

Jones-Drew, Maurice - JAX

McFadden, Darren - OAK

Gore, Frank - SF

Jackson, Steven - STL

Best, Jahvid - DET

Addai, Joseph - IND

Benson, Cedric - CIN

These are the guys I'd call "lead backs in their committees" - likely to see greater than 50% of the total touches out of their respective backfields.

Bradshaw, Ahmad - NYG

Williams, DeAngelo - CAR

Greene, Shonn - NYJ

Blount, LeGarrette - TB

Grant, Ryan - GB

Jackson, Fred - BUF

Forte, Matt - CHI

Hightower, Tim - WAS

Ingram, Mark - NO

McGahee, Willis - DEN

So there are ~26 guys currently playing in the NFL that I'd want slotted between RB#1 and RB#3 for my team in a start-2RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) scenario as of the second week of preseason. Some other guys may fulfill their potential (Ryan Williams, Ryan Mathews, Daniel Thomas) and join the above list by the end of training camp. Some of those 26 guys on my rough list will suffer season-ending injuries, or lose enough playing time to an up-and-coming challenger, and drop off that list. Probably a few veterans I didn't name will move up in there, too.

But the bottom line is IMO 25ish or so backs are likely to be worth picking for the 36 available starting RB slots in a 2 RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) league.

That's why the demand for those 25ish guys at RB is more pronounced in a 2 RB + 1 flex (RB/WR/TE) league than a traditional start 2 RB league.

4 more weeks to real !!!!!!!!!!! Woo Hoo!!!!!

guys who are NOT in RBBC:Blount - there's Blount and then there's everyone else in TB..

Grant ( Starks is already hurt, Grant will be the workhorse for the Packers)

Fred Jackson - Spiller is not-ready-for-prime-time.

Matt Forte - lots of recs, obviously has tremendous value in RB PPR leagues...

Shonn Greene - By all accounts, Jets have moved him to the featured RB role..he will see 60%+ of carries.

Ingram *might* be in an RBBC, but he's going to get the majority of those carries..225/1012/10td, 4.5 per carry.

on Blount - Kregg Lumpkin has been staking a claim to the third-down back/change-of-pace role, and is impressing the coaches: LINK I agree Blount is the lead back, but I don't think he is a three down back this season despite his desire to catch more passesGrant - he is in a RBBC by his own admission: LINK although if Starks stays sidelined for a long period then Grant may become a "featured" back rather than lead back in a committee

Fred Jackson - You may be right on that one, although the Bills paid Spiller a pile of cash and want to find a role for him. Right now I'm on the fence about whether to bump up Jackson's projections and move him up my RB board. That

'll be pending week three preseason

Forte - Marion Barber wasn't brought in to sit on the bench. We have yet to see the mix of touches there, but I think Barber is a threat for short-yardage/goal-line duty. For now, Forte remains in my "lead-back-in-a-committee" tier

Greene -

Tomlinson expects Greene to see the majority of the rushing attempts. Tomlinson said he is happy about being the team's third-down back, and is looking to catch more than 50 passes this season.

LINK Tomlinson will handle the third-down role and in passing situations. Greene is a two-down, lead back in a committee, no matter how many times the team calls him a "bell cow". Now, given the Jets' offensive mix Greene may still get near 300 carries this season, but he is not a "Featured" back in the way that LeSean McCoy or Arian Foster is. Ingram - the team didn't sign Darren Sproles to fill Reggie Bush's role for no reason. Sproles received $14 million over four years, including $6 million in guaranteed money. Ingram is a two-down, lead-back-in-a-committee IMO