Dynamic Duo - RBBCs To Watch (1 Viewer)

[Andrew Garda]

Check it out - it's my first FBGs article!

Enjoy! Discuss! Sharpen your pitchforks! Raise your beer steins!

If there's a tandem I didn't do that you want a take on (or a reason why) let me know. I have some stuff I wrote up that now lies on the cutting room floor, so in some cases the answers might be sitting around on my desktop.

What I tried to do is look at a variety of factors from opportunity to ability to upside and figure out who had the best combinations. There were some pairs who were close but I felt were off enough in a few factors to where I didn't feel strongly that they would both be worth a look. There were some situations where there is a good opportunity for a pair of backs but as of now, it's a little too cloudy as to who will rise above the group for my taste and that may change in a couple months when camps open.

Anyway, hope you enjoy it and if nothing else, it starts some good debate!

 

[Rovers]

Good effort, but pretty much a rehash of what we already knew.

Where were the tough ones, like Dallas, Houston and Seattle? Giants? I think this is pretty much all any of us will know until training camps start, but a nice summary.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Good effort, but pretty much a rehash of what we already knew. Where were the tough ones, like Dallas, Houston and Seattle? Giants? I think this is pretty much all any of us will know until training camps start, but a nice summary.

well to be honest, in my opinion not one of those is a strict duo (although, Seattle is closer with LenDale going bye bye today but this was finished days ago when White was still viable as a back for them) which is more what I wanted to look at. The Giants will probably involve Ware and perhaps Brown and both could impinge upon Bradshaw and Jacobs, neither of which stays healthy. They've also proven they can pretty much fit any back in when need be so I'm not confident they just don't go with any of the backs on the roster who gets hot. Houston is a complete mess at this point, and again, too many injuries there. I like Slaton, but I don't think he can do it alone, Foster has looked good at times, but tate is definitely a factor. Again, a team who could easily go with all three and very well might. Dallas can't make it's mind up as to whether Barber is going yet or Jones is lead back or Choice is stepping in.Any of those four could end up a duo - but as of now, in my opinion there are too many options. I was looking at backs who were far more clear cut than those particular teams. Dallas I went back and forth on the most, but in the end felt that I wanted to see a little more where the Barber rumors went before I called it and am concerned Choice might eat at some of the carries of the other two.But i appreciate the thoughts Rovers and will certainly keep it under consideration. I already have the Giants, Dallas and Houston broken down in raw form somewhere - will see if I can pull them together for you this weekend. I didn't finish them when I decided they wouldn't make the cut.

 

[rzrback77]

So, if the RB carries are shared in a 3-way split that doesn't qualify as a RBBC because you were focused on duos?

Houston, Seattle, NY Giants, ans Dallas are very much RBBC at this point.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

I look forward to the 1st articles by Rovers and rzrback.

Thanks for the 1st article AG.

 

[Glaven]

So, if the RB carries are shared in a 3-way split that doesn't qualify as a RBBC because you were focused on duos?Houston, Seattle, NY Giants, ans Dallas are very much RBBC at this point.

Obviously when a team uses more than 2 RB's it is still called RBBC, but Garda's article was focused only on the RBBC's where the team will be heavily using only 2 RB's. Seems pretty simple to understand.Nice stuff Garda

 

[AtomicDogg97]

Good stuff.

 

[Thomsen]

Great job Andrew, I pretty much agree with the whole article.

I do think though that Bush will be the clear feature back, and DMC will be more situational. BUsh has shown alot of flashes and I think he is ready to carry the full load.

Regarding Pierre Thomas, I think he is very underrated. He'll get a ton of scoring opportunities and maybe 75-100 more carries. I don't think Hamilton will take over where Bell left off. I could see PT as an RB1 this year.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Thanks for all the responses and support - as well as criticism.

Two things i take away here:

1) adding RBBC into the title confusified folks. Certainly 3 or 4 backs are an RBBC but as was pointed out, I was focusing on Duos this time out. It was just a choice i made to focus on a specific group. But -

2) There's probably enough interest in a wider reaching 3/4 RBBC article. Between and betwixt the other stuff I have going for the site, doing a Terrific Trio or Phenomenal Four (to carry a silly title scheme forward) right before Training Camps might be a way to go.

Food for thought. I appreciate all the notes.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Chicago

 

[_lurker_]

The difference between Duos and RBBCs is that there might be several times a season where you'd start BOTH duos. If you knew for a fact that NYJ will run the ball 600 times again this year and LT is healthy, wouldn't you just start both RBs every game?

I think that's the point of an article about Duos. An article that should've been in the FBG magazine

 

[Donnybrook]

Chicago

I agree. Martz will probably split up the carries evenly. Unfortunately that means both Forte and Taylor will get about 5 carries a game.

 

[anakin]

Thanks AG!

 

[rzrback77]

Thanks for the article. I am always appreciative of new information posted in the slow summer. Besides the Spotlights, there is not a lot of board discussions going on.

Couple of thoughts, meant to hopefully promote addditional discussion.

Teams that I think should have been added to the discussion of duos capable of both being used.

1) New York Giants - unless there is significant shift in focus of attack, both Jacobs & Bradshaw could be usable in most leagues, especially 14 team and 16 team leagues. A year ago Jacobs had 224 carries compared to Bradshaw's 163, even though Bradshaw was more effective.

2) Dallas - Felix Jones really came on down the stretch and may be considered the starter right now, but Barber had almost twice as many carries in 09 and should not be dismissed.

3) Chicago - Forte struggled and some have even stated that Chester Taylor was brought over to start, but Forte had 258 carries a year ago. Taylor has not had the lion's share in a while, so he is not a sure thing at all.

4) Philly - LeSean McCoy is apparently expected to carry the load, but he only had three games in 06 where he had over 15 carries. I realize that Westbrook is gone, but most seem to forget that he had very few opportuinities last year. Weaver was effective and the Eagles have added Mike Bell, who is also capable.

Teams that I don't think should have been included

1) San Diego - Sproles had only 93 carries a year ago, even with the lack of production by LT on his 223 carries. If Mathews can handle the load, he should get as much as he can handle and Sproles will not be a fantasy starter

2) Pittsburgh - Mendenhall averaged 18 carries per game over the last thirteen weeks of 09 and he should be the top guy for the Steelers

 

[Andrew Garda]

Chicago

I agree. Martz will probably split up the carries evenly. Unfortunately that means both Forte and Taylor will get about 5 carries a game.

I know you're half kidding Donny but that's ultimately one of the reasons I didn't include them.I don't think there is enough there for two solid RB plays. And frankly I don't have much in the way of faith in Matt Forte - I think Taylor will end up with the better season and could even sneak in as the lead.And ultimately? I'm not sure how huge a season RB1 in CHI will have - they might be better than the 29th in yards AND attempts they were in 2009, but I don't think it'll be enough. Martz very rarely has a 1000 yard rusher and never has TWO backs who put up numbers. One guy usually emerges and gets both the lion's share of the carries and the receptions. The more I wrote and researched, the more I came to feel that you'll have just one viable back out of chicago. I happen to think taylor emerges as that guy, but even if I'm wrong, this won't end up being a team where both backs will be productive, so they didn't make it in.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Excellent stuff and thank you! My thoughts below in lovely bold letters - some of which I've touched on in the thread already.

Thanks for the article. I am always appreciative of new information posted in the slow summer. Besides the Spotlights, there is not a lot of board discussions going on.

Couple of thoughts, meant to hopefully promote addditional discussion.

Teams that I think should have been added to the discussion of duos capable of both being used.

1) New York Giants - unless there is significant shift in focus of attack, both Jacobs & Bradshaw could be usable in most leagues, especially 14 team and 16 team leagues. A year ago Jacobs had 224 carries compared to Bradshaw's 163, even though Bradshaw was more effective. My biggest worry here is twofold - injury for both guys who are often banged up and then because of injury, spreading the carries too thin. I do think we'll have a clearer picture of this in TC.

2) Dallas - Felix Jones really came on down the stretch and may be considered the starter right now, but Barber had almost twice as many carries in 09 and should not be dismissed. I said it earlier but it might bear repeating - this was a close one for me. I think Choice ends up in the mix here. Also, not sure if Jones ends up the starter or not - might depend on Jerrah Jones' impulse in camp. Barber also might not be there in a month or so. But a close one for me.

3) Chicago - Forte struggled and some have even stated that Chester Taylor was brought over to start, but Forte had 258 carries a year ago. Taylor has not had the lion's share in a while, so he is not a sure thing at all.See below - especially the martz part - I love Taylor in this offense but I think either way, you only get one viable back out of this team.

4) Philly - LeSean McCoy is apparently expected to carry the load, but he only had three games in 06 where he had over 15 carries. I realize that Westbrook is gone, but most seem to forget that he had very few opportuinities last year. Weaver was effective and the Eagles have added Mike Bell, who is also capable. Because Bell AND Weaver could both be a part of this, I shied away from the eagles. I like Shady but I agree it's hard to say if he can carry the load. How much the other two are involved is a big question - I don't feel real strongly about the group yet and it could be the carries get split three ways. another one to visit as the summer goes.

Teams that I don't think should have been included

1) San Diego - Sproles had only 93 carries a year ago, even with the lack of production by LT on his 223 carries. If Mathews can handle the load, he should get as much as he can handle and Sproles will not be a fantasy starterSproles only had 93 carries and 343 yards rushing BUT he had 45 catches and 497 yards receiving (and 7 total TDs). I think both stats can go up, especially if Mathews is as good as I suspect he might be. So yeah, not a lot of carries in 2009, but productive and I think will be moreso this season.

2) Pittsburgh - Mendenhall averaged 18 carries per game over the last thirteen weeks of 09 and he should be the top guy for the Steelers

Yeah I know and people keep telling me it's going to be all Mendenhall. Call this a Gut Check (apologies to Waldman LOL) but I think the steelers run A LOT this year and I think dwyer has a shot at being a productive back for fantasy (and NFL) purposes. this is one of those I have a feeling about that you guys will either call me on in a year or tip a beer with me over at that time. I think Dwyer is a better fit for the offense they will run than Moore is or Parker was - and both of those guys had their moments. We'll see but again, I have a feeling....

Again I appreciate the thoughts rzrback and I don't dissmiss anything you're saying - just replying with my counter thoughts.

 

[Dragon1952]

As for Wells/Hightower, there was no mention of Hightower's pass-catching abilities. He did have 63 catches on 80 targets for 428 yds last year, which put him at over 1000 yds combined and in the top 15 RB's in PPR leagues awarding 1 pt per reception. That makes him a great RB2 or flex option right there in PPR leagues. If the Cards do use the running game more this year as expected, his carries may not drop dramatically and he will still be the guy getting most of the catches.

 

[Rovers]

I look forward to the 1st articles by Rovers and rzrback.Thanks for the 1st article AG.

As soon as I get an offer to write an article, I hope you would read it and offer commentary... as I did. My point was that at this point in time, we all know who the RBBC teams are, which is most of them. So, this was a good summary, but had no real new news. Andrew wrote a well written easy to read article, which was a great summary of these situations as they stand now. If one was not aware of team situations, this is very good stuff. If one had a handle on it already, it was basically a rehash. I have been toying with the strategy of drafting duos. Almost by accident, the Ravens/Dolphins duos were tandems I used based on matchups last year, and it worked well, especially for the first 6 to 8 games. I thought I was drafting handcuffs, but eneded up starting 2 RB's from either team based on matchups instead of starting say, Rice and one of the Miami RB's. The next step in this article would be to project which duos might make a start 3 RB league as starters in a given week. That is real crystal balling until we see some preseason action. I said it was a well written article, spot on in it's facts, but offered me nothing I didn't know already. I would have liked some projections as to which duos are draftable to be flex starters the same week in a 3 RB start flex. That is the issue I am currently wrestling with. Identifying which duos might work in such a strategy was missing. It was a good article. I said as much. Since when are constructive comments bad form?

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

It was a good article. I said as much. Since when are constructive comments bad form?

To each their own. I thought it leaned more toward criticism than constructive. For the dude's 1st article, I'd rather see folks provide support -- along with some suggestions -- rather than focus on the negative. Just personal preference.I took this as an article that was mostly catching people up on situations. People who aren't necessarily addicted to the Shark Pool. It served that purpose well.Some of the suggestions in here - including your own - for how to "take it to the next level" were very good suggestions. I'd love to see a follow up article and look forward to whatever topic AG tackles next.

 

[Andrew Garda]

The next step in this article would be to project which duos might make a start 3 RB league as starters in a given week. That is real crystal balling until we see some preseason action. I said it was a well written article, spot on in it's facts, but offered me nothing I didn't know already. I would have liked some projections as to which duos are draftable to be flex starters the same week in a 3 RB start flex. That is the issue I am currently wrestling with. Identifying which duos might work in such a strategy was missing.

So for example, would Tashard Choice or Thomas Jones be a better flex start in a 3 RB/Flex league in week 3? Or are you meaning less specific, merely, which of the RBs on any given RBBC will have the most value (in that same league) week to week?Either is an interesting question and worthy of a look. I play in a few leagues where you can conceivably start three RBs and that third spot is ALWAYS the one to give you headache.So an interesting question, and I see WHY you were asking the things you were. Not that it matters, I thought asking why certain teams were left out was a totally valid question.

It was a good article. I said as much. Since when are constructive comments bad form?

I wasn't worried about it. If I was I wouldn';t have posted it in the Pool. Besides, I was an aspiring screenwriter (I suppose I still am in some ways) in Los Angeles for years. Screenwriters are a prickly bunch, Writer/Directors moreso and heaven help you if you get notes from a writer/director/producer. So I developed a pretty thick skin. Aside from being outright rude (which nobody has been IMO here) it's hard to get my backup. I've always felt that, as a writer, you HAVE to look at the criticism you get - even if you think it's insanely off base - and see why it was said, if you're going to get better.I have no problem with a challenge from anyone on whatever I write. And like I said in the first post - I hope anything I write engenders some debate.Even if I don 't write that article you propose Rovers, it's something that will be on my mind the next time I sit down to type. So will the compliments from guys like M Fox. And that's not a bad thing - it's how we improve both as writers and I think as a site.