In the age of RBBC, as a commish, what is the best (1 Viewer)

[pizzatyme]

It seems to me that I need to look for leagues that have enough positions on offense to account for the higher number of RBBcs we're seeing these days.

I mean doesn't it make sense to look for something like QB/RB/RB/RB WR/WR/TE/ or QB/RB/RB/WR/WR/Flex/TE?

This way those that have the first 5 or 6 picks in the draft don't have such an advantage on the whole. If you get LT, you still have to have a good draft to account for 2 more RB starters in my first scenario.

What say you?

 

[CalBear]

Your question is misguided on many levels.

First of all, this is not the age of RBBC. There are more feature backs in the league now than there have ever been.

Second of all, the more RBs you stick in the lineup, the more valuable RBs become. If you want to bring the value of RBs back in line with other positions, start 1 instead of 2 (and certainly instead of 3).

The #24 RB in 2006 was Warrick Dunn, who LT outscored by over 250 points. If you start 36 RBs in your league, the baseline RB will be someone who is not even an NFL starter; once you get down to that level, you'd might as well just give up on drafting a third RB and instead pick up someone like Ron Dayne or Leon Washington off waivers; the difference between a waiver scrub and the #36 RB is insignificant compared to the difference between LT and the #2 RB (93 points).

 

[Chase Stuart]

Everything CalBear wrote X2.

 

[radballs]

Your question is misguided on many levels.First of all, this is not the age of RBBC. There are more feature backs in the league now than there have ever been. Second of all, the more RBs you stick in the lineup, the more valuable RBs become. If you want to bring the value of RBs back in line with other positions, start 1 instead of 2 (and certainly instead of 3). The #24 RB in 2006 was Warrick Dunn, who LT outscored by over 250 points. If you start 36 RBs in your league, the baseline RB will be someone who is not even an NFL starter; once you get down to that level, you'd might as well just give up on drafting a third RB and instead pick up someone like Ron Dayne or Leon Washington off waivers; the difference between a waiver scrub and the #36 RB is insignificant compared to the difference between LT and the #2 RB (93 points).

 

[Family Matters]

Good post Calbear. As he already stated, RBBC is more fictional than reality. But if you want to mitigate the value of RB's you could add more flex positions to the starting requirements so that WR/TE's become more valuable. You could do something like QB/RB/WR/WR/TE/FLEX (RB/WR/TE) or QB/RB/WR/TE/FLEX/FLEX/FLEX as a way to enhance the value of other positions like WR's and TE's. You could also use PPR for WR/TE's and not RB's.

There's always ways to modify things and impact the value of positions. But keep in mind that values are seasonal and what was good last year might not be next year. The demand for stud RB's will however always be in high demand and short supply.

 

[David Yudkin]

As for whether RBBC is more prevelent or not, here is a basic breakdown since the season expanded to 16 game. The first total is the # of RBs with 100 carries in that year. THe second is the number of RBs with 100 fantasy points in that year (0 PPR).

78, 63, 45

79, 54, 38

80, 51, 39

81, 46, 38

82, 24, 13

83, 51, 42

84, 45, 36

85, 50, 44

86, 42, 34

87, 38, 29

88, 50, 35

89, 41, 33

90, 44, 33

91, 40, 31

92, 41, 31

93, 41, 31

94, 39, 33

95, 42, 34

96, 44, 32

97, 45, 35

98, 39, 29

99, 41, 31

00, 38, 30

01, 43, 33

02, 44, 37

03, 45, 37

04, 43, 36

05, 45, 34

06, 47, 39

IMO, the RBBC effect has been pretty minimal but over the last few years it does seem that there have been 4-6 more RBs to eclipse the 100 point mark than in the 90s and early 00s. I suspect that this will mean that that there will be more RBs in the third or fourth tier scoring wise (Tier 1 being thr Top 3 or 4 and Tier 2 being the Top 8 or 9). It's that next bandwidth that I think will have more guys in it (Say RBs 9-15) and the one after that (Say RB 16-25) that will each have a few extra guys in that scoring range than normal.

Basically compared to several years ago when there might be 18-20 RBs that you would want to have, there may be 22-25 before a decent dropoff. But with some teams thinning out the workload a bit the scoring differential may not be great in those tiers.

Bottom line, I think there will be a lot of RBs that could be ok fantasy RB2s, but the uber studs will be more valuable because the in the teens to low twenties will score pretty close to each other. That should help a little in RB crazed leagues with seemingly more palatable options available that are at least considerations for starting and as long as you could field one of those guys he won't kill you.

 

[Sea Leopard of Death]

You could always start 2 QB's...

 

[pizzatyme]

Your question is misguided on many levels.First of all, this is not the age of RBBC. There are more feature backs in the league now than there have ever been. Second of all, the more RBs you stick in the lineup, the more valuable RBs become. If you want to bring the value of RBs back in line with other positions, start 1 instead of 2 (and certainly instead of 3). The #24 RB in 2006 was Warrick Dunn, who LT outscored by over 250 points. If you start 36 RBs in your league, the baseline RB will be someone who is not even an NFL starter; once you get down to that level, you'd might as well just give up on drafting a third RB and instead pick up someone like Ron Dayne or Leon Washington off waivers; the difference between a waiver scrub and the #36 RB is insignificant compared to the difference between LT and the #2 RB (93 points).

Fair enough. I guess what I really feel is that there are haves and have-nots with the top 4 or 5 RBs. How do you level the playing field with a league setup? I know many will say that you have to be a better drafter if you're at 1.07 let's say, but I'm trying to figure out how to make it more fair for those who don't get the Uber-stud RB at the top of a re-draft league.Many leagues had a team in the championship game last year who was lucky enough to get LT. This, to me, takes the guesswork and fun out of it to some degree.I get it about trying to lessen the importance of the RB position. Maybe my idea to add RBs was the wrong way to go.What about the idea of going 1-12, 12-1, 12-1, then serpentine the rest of the way? Can domeone do the math to see if this puts it out of balance the other way?TIA

 

[GregR_2]

It seems to me that I need to look for leagues that have enough positions on offense to account for the higher number of RBBcs we're seeing these days.I mean doesn't it make sense to look for something like QB/RB/RB/RB WR/WR/TE/ or QB/RB/RB/WR/WR/Flex/TE?This way those that have the first 5 or 6 picks in the draft don't have such an advantage on the whole. If you get LT, you still have to have a good draft to account for 2 more RB starters in my first scenario.What say you?

In my dynasty league we start 1 QB, 2 RB, 1 flex QB/RB. 4 WR, 2 TE, 1 flex WR/TE. 2 DL, 2 DE, 3 LB, 2 CB, 2 Safeties. 1 coach, 1 punter, 1 place kicker, 1 team kick return unit. We also have .25 pt RB receptions, .5 pt WR receptions and 1 pt TE receptions. Since 90% of the time your 2nd best QB would outscore your 3rd best RB, and your 5th best WR would outscore your 3rd best TE, generally the offense turns into a 2 QB, 2 RB, 5 WR, 2 TE league. There is relative but not absolute parity across the positions. Using total points last year's VBD values were LT 280, Manning 220, Harrison 160, Gates 140. LT's having such a phenomenal year made him far and away the best guy, but RB2 was 180 so the top players at each position other than LT were pretty well lumped. The year before for example it was SA 220, S Smith 200, Palmer 190, Gates 190.The other thing I like about this setup is that with 12 teams, we use a lot of the starting WRs and people have to do a bit more research than just looking at some fantasy rag that ranks the top 50 WRs (as we start 60 of them). Also, having the QB/RB flex spot instead of a 2nd QB allows teams to start a RB on their QB bye week, since there's a shortage of starting QBs for everyone to have a 3rd QB.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Your question is misguided on many levels.

First of all, this is not the age of RBBC. There are more feature backs in the league now than there have ever been.

Second of all, the more RBs you stick in the lineup, the more valuable RBs become. If you want to bring the value of RBs back in line with other positions, start 1 instead of 2 (and certainly instead of 3).

The #24 RB in 2006 was Warrick Dunn, who LT outscored by over 250 points. If you start 36 RBs in your league, the baseline RB will be someone who is not even an NFL starter; once you get down to that level, you'd might as well just give up on drafting a third RB and instead pick up someone like Ron Dayne or Leon Washington off waivers; the difference between a waiver scrub and the #36 RB is insignificant compared to the difference between LT and the #2 RB (93 points).

Fair enough. I guess what I really feel is that there are haves and have-nots with the top 4 or 5 RBs. How do you level the playing field with a league setup? I know many will say that you have to be a better drafter if you're at 1.07 let's say, but I'm trying to figure out how to make it more fair for those who don't get the Uber-stud RB at the top of a re-draft league.Many leagues had a team in the championship game last year who was lucky enough to get LT. This, to me, takes the guesswork and fun out of it to some degree.

I get it about trying to lessen the importance of the RB position. Maybe my idea to add RBs was the wrong way to go.

What about the idea of going 1-12, 12-1, 12-1, then serpentine the rest of the way? Can domeone do the math to see if this puts it out of balance the other way?

TIA

Here's what we did in our 12 team redraft:Start: 1 QB, 1 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 D/ST, plus two flex players at any position. However, we capped the max # at QB & RB at 2. We also tweaked scoring - adding ppr for WRs & TEs, and making passing yds 1/30 - to level things out scoringwise so that your flex players could legitimately come from any of the Big 3 positions. Defense is also a legit play for one of the flex spots with our scoring & a couple of times even 2 Ks were started, but most will use them will be QB, RB, or WR.

In a normal year in our league, the # of QBs & RBs in the top 72 (the max number of QB/RB/WR starters) will be about even & about half of the number of WRs, which is exactly what we wanted (since twice as many are mandated starts). I'd post 2006's finals but CBS ran the damned totals through the playoffs & I'm too lazy to adjust them right now.

RBs still are important, but no more so really than QBs & WRs. The first round of our draft will still have more RBs than any other position, but I chalk some of that up to habit more than where the value lies. And you can draft against the grain in this league & do quite well, "finding" your RBs later instead of being forced to take them early in self-defense.

As for the "LT Advantage", he wasn't the consensus #1 going in last season. The guy picking #1 in many leagues had a tough choice (LT, LJ, or SA), so it wasn't a foregone conclusion that - at the time - the LT owner had a huge advantage. Also, he had a historic season - I don't know how often you'll see that large a spread between #1 & #2.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Switch to an auction format.

 

[Family Matters]

Your question is misguided on many levels.

First of all, this is not the age of RBBC. There are more feature backs in the league now than there have ever been.

Second of all, the more RBs you stick in the lineup, the more valuable RBs become. If you want to bring the value of RBs back in line with other positions, start 1 instead of 2 (and certainly instead of 3).

The #24 RB in 2006 was Warrick Dunn, who LT outscored by over 250 points. If you start 36 RBs in your league, the baseline RB will be someone who is not even an NFL starter; once you get down to that level, you'd might as well just give up on drafting a third RB and instead pick up someone like Ron Dayne or Leon Washington off waivers; the difference between a waiver scrub and the #36 RB is insignificant compared to the difference between LT and the #2 RB (93 points).

Fair enough. I guess what I really feel is that there are haves and have-nots with the top 4 or 5 RBs. How do you level the playing field with a league setup? I know many will say that you have to be a better drafter if you're at 1.07 let's say, but I'm trying to figure out how to make it more fair for those who don't get the Uber-stud RB at the top of a re-draft league.Many leagues had a team in the championship game last year who was lucky enough to get LT. This, to me, takes the guesswork and fun out of it to some degree.

I get it about trying to lessen the importance of the RB position. Maybe my idea to add RBs was the wrong way to go.

What about the idea of going 1-12, 12-1, 12-1, then serpentine the rest of the way? Can domeone do the math to see if this puts it out of balance the other way?

TIA

In all honesty being a better drafter is the right answer. Another way of saying what you're asling is how can we make the rich seem more like the poor? You'll never find a right answer. You can't level the field for 10 teams so that 2 teams don't have an advantage without inadvertantly hurting someone else.The key is better drafting after the 4th round. Most owners do not do enough research to know where the vlaue plays are in rounds 5-20. They get a bit lazy after 4 rounds and start to lose interest. I've seen championships from all draft positions 1-12. If getting LT was the answer then every LT owner would have won last year. Just as an example I won 3 champioships last year and I didn't have LT on any of those teams. In fact of all the leagues I palyed in only 1 LT owner won the championship. So I would be careful about making changes that affect everyone in an attempt to slow down this year's LT owner because you might be hurting yourself more than him.

At the end of the day use the DD to see how your changes will effect the overall DD values. But remember that last years numbers might be different than this years.

 

[fsufan]

Your question is misguided on many levels.First of all, this is not the age of RBBC. There are more feature backs in the league now than there have ever been.

But they all are the same after the top 5 or 6, average to mediocre

 

[Mr. Pink]

FM is right. The key to offsetting those teams who, by luck of the draw, get those first three picks is to just do a better job of drafting and finding value. It's not rocket science.

To defend the point, the owner in one of my leagues won a championship starting MJD and MBIII in the playoffs last season. By drafting value in the latter rounds, he won his title.

 

[CalBear]

There is absolutely no way to level the playing field when a RB has a season like LT did in 2006. He scored 90 points more than the #2 RB and 150 points more than the #4 RB. Even if the league starts only 1 RB to reduce the impact of RBs, he scored 240 points more than the #12 RB.

In 1998, Steve Young scored 90 points more than the #2 QB and 187 more than #12; maybe the best QB fantasy season of all time by VBD, and it didn't warrant changing your league setup to reduce his impact, despite the fact that many championship teams that year had Young. Sometimes there are going to be years like that. In 2004, only 149 points separated the #1 RB and the #24 RB--the same as the difference between #1 and #4 in 2006. Why do you think 2007 will be more like 2006 than 2004?

 

[tdog]

We have had a lot of success with QB, RB, Wr Wr, TE, K, D, Flex (QB, RB, Wr).

The #11 QB is generally a better scorer than #11RB. The possibility of starting 2 QBs in almost any form shakes up the draft.

 

[David Yudkin]

The biggest equalizer I have seen is having more fantasy teams in a league. In 16-team leagues, it's rare for a team to lock up two stud RBs and the talent pool thins out pretty quick at all positions. When their are a minimum of 16 QB, 32 RB, 48 WR, 16 TE, 16 PK, and 16 DEF/ST playing each week, there's a lot more strategy on how to compose your roster. Most of the 16-team leagues I'm in also have a flex so there is a lot of skill in targeting value and hidden gems. We all know LT and a few other RBs are true studs. But how are you at fishing in the WR75 pool?

 

[switz]

Your question is misguided on many levels.First of all, this is not the age of RBBC. There are more feature backs in the league now than there have ever been. Second of all, the more RBs you stick in the lineup, the more valuable RBs become. If you want to bring the value of RBs back in line with other positions, start 1 instead of 2 (and certainly instead of 3). The #24 RB in 2006 was Warrick Dunn, who LT outscored by over 250 points. If you start 36 RBs in your league, the baseline RB will be someone who is not even an NFL starter; once you get down to that level, you'd might as well just give up on drafting a third RB and instead pick up someone like Ron Dayne or Leon Washington off waivers; the difference between a waiver scrub and the #36 RB is insignificant compared to the difference between LT and the #2 RB (93 points).

Fair enough. I guess what I really feel is that there are haves and have-nots with the top 4 or 5 RBs. How do you level the playing field with a league setup? I know many will say that you have to be a better drafter if you're at 1.07 let's say, but I'm trying to figure out how to make it more fair for those who don't get the Uber-stud RB at the top of a re-draft league.Many leagues had a team in the championship game last year who was lucky enough to get LT. This, to me, takes the guesswork and fun out of it to some degree.I get it about trying to lessen the importance of the RB position. Maybe my idea to add RBs was the wrong way to go.What about the idea of going 1-12, 12-1, 12-1, then serpentine the rest of the way? Can domeone do the math to see if this puts it out of balance the other way?TIA

PPR

 

[tppt]

first of all, there is always turnover in the top spots at rb, say 50% of the top 10 every year or close to it. so a top 6 pick guarantees you nothing.

second of all, tweaking lineups or scoring to weight rbs wont do much in shark leagues. sharks know what value is and changing lineup requirements or scoring systems to de-value rbs, will just lead to the drafting of other positions, and then it will be, "qbs and wrs are too valueable"

lastly, RBs drive FF cause there are only 32 starting rbs and, depending on line-up requirements , you must start 2. qbs dont drive FF, there are 32 and you start 1, how hard can it be to find a qb, def, kicker? with wrs , most teams have 2 options, teams start 2, etc.

when its supply and demand meets VBD, the RB will always win