Is it crazy to think RB with the 1, 2, or 3 pick this year in non-ppr? (1 Viewer)

[Short Corner]

I guess that's the rationale behind Zero RB. Just take lots of WRs early and hope you can hit on a few later round RBs. But if I feel like I can get a reliable RB in the first, I definitely want to take advantage of it.

It is grab the handful of the top of the food chain WRs and then carpet bomb the RBs late.  Much easier to anticipate workloads of RBs week to week than WR so you want thhe highest producing consistent guys at that position that carries the most variance.

 

[shadyridr]

Look, there's risk with any player. Brown wasn't as dominant with Ben out last year; what happens if Ben misses even more time? I still think Peterson is just about the safest thing in fantasy.

More importantly, though, my point was that stability at WR is more evenly distributed. Yes, Brown is a lock for huge numbers, but the WRs you could get at the end of the second are pretty solid, too. But the RBs you could get there are huge question marks.

I guess that's the rationale behind Zero RB. Just take lots of WRs early and hope you can hit on a few later round RBs. But if I feel like I can get a reliable RB in the first, I definitely want to take advantage of it.

I think the RBs you can get at the end of the 2nd round (Ingram, Lacy, Martin, etc) dont have any more questions than the ones in the 1st. Gurley plays for a horrible team, no clue what kind of workload Johnson will get (although he is my #1 RB), bell is suspended, and ADP is aging.

 

[zftcg]

I think the RBs you can get at the end of the 2nd round (Ingram, Lacy, Martin, etc) dont have any more questions than the ones in the 1st. Gurley plays for a horrible team, no clue what kind of workload Johnson will get (although he is my #1 RB), bell is suspended, and ADP is aging.

Hmm, so maybe it's more a function of my playing in larger leagues. In my 16-teamer, if I draft Brown first, I'm looking at CJA/Hyde/Rawls at the end of the second, all of whom have huge question marks. But if I take a RB first, I can get Evans/Cooper/DThomas as my WR1.

 

[Ilov80s]

I guess that's the rationale behind Zero RB. Just take lots of WRs early and hope you can hit on a few later round RBs. But if I feel like I can get a reliable RB in the first, I definitely want to take advantage of it.

The real rationale behind Zero RB is that the injury rate and turnover rate of RBs is significantly higher than WR. Also, in PPR WRs outscore RBs. Many leagues have flex spots so 4-5 WRs can be started. If WRs score the most and get hurt/bust less than you want your lineup to have as many WRs as possible. The other element is anti-fragility. This is the idea that as the RB situation in the league weakens through the year due to injury, Zero RB teams are improved because they aren't losing highly invested picks to injury and they have chances to add the new RBs filling in (the DJ, Rawls, Hightowers of the world). This doesn't work the opposite way for 2 reasons. One, when a WR gets hurt, it's unlikely their replacement is on waivers since most teams #2 WRs are already owner. Also, for some reason replacement WRs just don't perform as well as replacement RBs. The difference from Bell to DeAngelo, Lynch to Rawls, Ingram to Hightower, Charles to West, Forte to Langford, Randle to McFadden was negligible (in most of those cases the back-up actually outperformed the starter). However, there was nobody stepping and replacing Jordy, Dez, Sammy, Keenan Allen or OBJ when they missed games. Those WR points didn't just transfer to another individual, they were either spread over several players or evaporated completely. 

Zero RB is about playing it safe early and being able to benefit, not suffer from the chaos of the season. 

 

[ourmanflint]

I have the #2 pick in a 12-team non-ppr, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1TE league and I'm leaning towards taking Gurley as well.  I really like the WR's available at the 2/3 turn, the RB's there not so much.

Many studies have been done for standard format. If you trust in VBD and I believe thats what ilove80s and bia are basically referring to, you should assess your ability to obtain the highest ranked players at each position and then act according to the draft flow.

Numbers change every year but basically, if you can get one of the top 6 ranked WRs you have over a 70% chance of landing a WR1. Your chances of landing a WR1 fall to roughly 25% for the next 18 ranked WRs and it all decays from there.

If you draft one of the top 12 ranked RBs you have roughly a 50% chance of landing an RB1. Your chances of landing an RB1 fall to 30% for the next 6 ranked RBs and to 20% for the next 6. Your chances then fall off a cliff thereafter. 

Lots of rankings out there and mileage may vary but this stuff is backed by a lot of good data. My vote would be to get one of these combos from the first two rounds:

WR1/WR1, RB1/RB1, RB1/WR1

or if you are a Gronk truther TE1/RB1, TE1/WR1

 

[Ilov80s]

Many studies have been done for standard format. If you trust in VBD and I believe thats what ilove80s and bia are basically referring to, you should assess your ability to obtain the highest ranked players at each position and then act according to the draft flow.

Numbers change every year but basically, if you can get one of the top 6 ranked WRs you have over a 70% chance of landing a WR1. Your chances of landing a WR1 fall to roughly 25% for the next 18 ranked WRs and it all decays from there.

If you draft one of the top 12 ranked RBs you have roughly a 50% chance of landing an RB1. Your chances of landing an RB1 fall to 30% for the next 6 ranked RBs and to 20% for the next 6. Your chances then fall off a cliff thereafter. 

Lots of rankings out there and mileage may vary but this stuff is backed by a lot of good data. My vote would be to get one of these combos from the first two rounds:

WR1/WR1, RB1/RB1, RB1/WR1

or if you are a Gronk truther TE1/RB1, TE1/WR1

Good stuff. I am not really a proponent of VBD. What I don't like about VBD is that I don't know which of those 50% of RBs will be an RB1 and  or which 70% of the WRs will be an WR1. My point is more that trends have gotten us to a point where RBs and WRs scoring is very similar for standard. So if you start 3 WRs and only 2 RBs, that WR position is more important than the RB position because it represents a large % of your weekly lineup. Maybe that is VBD or there is some element of VBD in there, but I don't consider myself a proponent of VBD.  

My only comment on your final piece of advice is that all you are basically saying is don't go TE/TE and don't take a QB because you have every other combo listed. 

One point to consider is the idea of what a RB1 is anywya. 

 

[ourmanflint]

Good stuff. I am not really a proponent of VBD. What I don't like about VBD is that I don't know which of those 50% of RBs will be an RB1 and  or which 70% of the WRs will be an WR1. My point is more that trends have gotten us to a point where RBs and WRs scoring is very similar for standard. So if you start 3 WRs and only 2 RBs, that WR position is more important than the RB position because it represents a large % of your weekly lineup. Maybe that is VBD or there is some element of VBD in there, but I don't consider myself a proponent of VBD.  

My only comment on your final piece of advice is that all you are basically saying is don't go TE/TE and don't take a QB because you have every other combo listed. 

One point to consider is the idea of what a RB1 is anywya. 

Actually my combos are literal. I am saying get 2 WR1's or 2 RB1's meaning top 12 in a 12 team league. Based on your rankings, try to get those players that give you a 50% chance on RBs or 70% chance on WRs. I guess the point I was trying to make was that taking that top 6 ranked WR is the best chance you have of not blowing your 1st pick. If you're all about playing the percentages, its the way to go. Like you said, it all hinges on having good projections/rankings.

A VBD drafter would take whatever player gives them the highest value above his peers, depending on their projections and their chosen VBD calculation method. Regardless of the lineup rules, VBD drafting theoretically gives you an edge because of your advantage gained at certain positions. Even though my 3rd WR is average, I'm kicking your butt so bad at TE and QB, it doesn't matter. You can't make up those points. VBD fails when your projections are poor or your guys get injured as you mentioned.

 

[Biabreakable]

What you are describing is one of the main principles of VBD worst starter baselines.

In older leagues, you may have only been required to start 2 RB and 2 WR. Maybe with a flex option. This causes the baseline worst starter to be RB 24/ WR 24 or if you want to consider the flex option then either RB 30/ WR 30 or RB 36 and WR 36.

Most leagues today are 2 RB 3 WR 1 flex. So your baselines would be RB 36 and WR 48.

In VBD the baseline performance is what you subtract from all players projected fantasy points. This takes into consideration the scarcity of positional value and how those values are relative to other positions.

You may get more total fantasy points from drafting WR 36 which was 113.7 points in 2015 than you will from drafting RB 36 which was 103.4 points in 2015. However the VBD for RB 12 was 60 points while WR 12 was 56 points. So although it is close, the RB is actually worth a bit more than the WR.

If you recognize that an optimal line up will in most cases be 2 RB and 4 WR then you could set baselines at RB 24 which is 124.6 points and WR 48 which is 90.6 points. At these baselines RB 12 is worth 38.5 VBD and WR 12 is worth 79 points because of the deeper baseline.

If you set baselines at RB 30 (124 points) and WR 42 (104 points) assuming half the teams will start more than 2 RB each week half of the time and 4 WR half of the time, RB 12 is worth 39 VBD and WR 12 is worth 65 VBD. The WR is worth more.

The baselines depend on your starting requirements and VBD is a good way to measure the relative value of the players, which for the most part favors WR over RB in terms of VBD because you generally need to start more of them or to put it another way, it is a better choice to start more of them because they not only provide more VBD but they also score more total points.

The emphasis of this discussion was not so much on RB 12 however, but players that fantasy owners think have the best chance to finish in the top 6 of RB for 2016. 

RB 6 in 2015 scored 187 points. So in terms of VBD RB 6 was worth 84 VBD at RB 36 baseline, 62 VBD at RB 24 baseline or 63 VBD at RB 30 baseline.

WR 6 in 2015 scored 218 points. So in terms of VBD WR 6 was worth 104 VBD at WR 36 baseline. 76 VBD at WR 24 baseline or 114 VBD at WR 42 baseline. 

Comparing by VBD principles clearly favors drafting the WR even though there are more of them scoring near or over 100 points (44) than there are RB scoring over 100 points (38). In 2015 there were 52 RB to score over 80 points compared to 54 WR to score over 80 points. The two positions are very balanced in standard scoring leagues, the WR are just worth more because you need to start more of them.

In PPR leagues the advantage to WR becomes even more pronounced and the deeper RB do not keep up in terms of total points as well against the WR anymore.

 

[Koya]

The rationale to go WR is that even if the players are "all things equal" (so a more impactful RB needs to be that much more so than a WR counterpart) there is generally more risk of injury / missed time for RBs. However, look at the WR's at the top of the draft, especially OBJ and Julio... hardly gives you huge faith for 16 healthy games.

I think the lack of true full time backs gives that much more reason to take a chance on A Peterson, Johnson, Gurley or, assuming fully healthy, Elliott.   You still have some potential stud #1 WRs going into the middle of the 2nd Rd who, in the context of the top guys perhaps not giving you full confidence they will handle a full season, might look all the better paired with a very rare commodity in a 3 down no question who's the starter, back. 

That said, guys like A Robinson are not likely to drop much below their actual value - the "not a big name" will be close to where he should be in most experienced leagues and I could even see him going before guys with a name in some leagues (i.e Dez comes to mind).  In more casual leagues you may have a point. 

 

[devouredbychaos]

My league has a bunch of dinosaur owners that go RB-RB if possible. Hell, Eddie Lacy was #1 last year and Brown went 7th.

I'm guessing Gurley, Johnson, Zeke, AP all go top 5. I don't have my draft slot yet, but I'm looking at 7-8 being a great landing spot to still get either OBJ or Julio. 

I've won my standard scoring league the past 5 out of 6 years using the RB-RB strategy. Maybe I'm a dinosaur but I've had success with it and I see no reason to change course this season. 

 

[Short Corner]

I've won my standard scoring league the past 5 out of 6 years using the RB-RB strategy. Maybe I'm a dinosaur but I've had success with it and I see no reason to change course this season. 

 

[Ilov80s]

I've won my standard scoring league the past 5 out of 6 years using the RB-RB strategy. Maybe I'm a dinosaur but I've had success with it and I see no reason to change course this season. 

Your username is funny given the underpinnings of zero RB and all.

 

[ponchsox]

Outside the top 3 WR I like RB/RB in standard. WR is pretty deep in the 8-25 range. RB seems to fall off the cliff after the top 12 or so. If you can get 2 out of the top 10 RB and still land a WR like Hilton, Watkins, or D. Thomas as your #1 you should be in good shape.

 

[ZenMaster]

I have the #1 pick in my draft this weekend and I'm pretty sure I'm going with RB.

The league setup is QB/RB/RB/WR/WR/TE/Flex/Flex. Since only two WR are required, RB become relatively more valuable and the VBD app reflects that. Of the top 10 VBD leaders, 6 are RB. Part of it is also that I've been burned in the past trying to scrape together RB if I don't grab one or two early.

Since I have two flex spots, I've considered going zero-RB and drafting WR/WR/WR but from what I've seen in the past in this league, I will NOT be happy with my RB choices by the end of the 4th round or later. I still need to do some mocks (I'm totally unprepared this year) to see how I like my teams by starting with either RB or WR.

 

[Biabreakable]

What RB do you select #1 overall?

With two flex spots and 2 RB/2 WR you would have baseline RB 48 and WR 48 or else RB 36 and WR 36. If VBD is telling you 6 of the top 10 VBD leaders are RB, then I assume your league does not have PPR scoring.

In leagues with multiple flex options such as this I do think you want to take more of BPA approach. There are few RB who should be expected to have 300 opportunities, so it makes sense to draft those early as they will not last long. At the same time your ideal starting line up will likely be 2 RB 4 WR unless you actually get 3 workhorse RB, which seems hard to do when there are only six or so of those players right now.

Something you should consider is what WR will still be available to you at the 24/25 turn and also at the 48/49 turn. You have the best draft position as one of only two teams to have five picks in the top 50 so maximizing those picks is how you can get ahead of the competition.

If you know your league will draft a certain way, then you take that into consideration over looking at ADP.

The point of zero RB as a label for the strategy is that you are willing to accept not having good RB. It is a sacrifice you make if you think drafting other positions gives you a better chance to win. So if you embrace the strategy, then you shouldn't be happy with the RB you get, but you won't care because of being strong at other positions.

The extra flex spot I think means you should take more of a BPA/VBD approach and try to maximize the value of your first five picks regardless of position. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You've got Bowen, Beckham and Julio.  The big three.  In ppr I totally get it.  They should go first before any RBS.  

But non-ppr?  Is it crazy to choose Todd gurley over one of them?

I don't think it's crazy at all. 

In my non-PPR league, I know from talking to my friends/leaguemates that at least 1/2 of them are going "zero RB" or some iteration of that. 

So if I'm sitting at the 4-5-6 pick, and any of them are 1-2-3, I know I'll be getting one of DJohnson, Gurley or LMiller and I would be super happy with that.  The WR I'd get in the 2nd wouldn't been too far off what I'd get in the middle of the 1st round, whereas the RB would almost be guaranteed to drop off substantially. 

I may get "VBDDI" tattoed on one set of fingers, and "EHARD" tatooed on the other.  

 

[ZenMaster]

What RB do you select #1 overall?

With two flex spots and 2 RB/2 WR you would have baseline RB 48 and WR 48 or else RB 36 and WR 36. If VBD is telling you 6 of the top 10 VBD leaders are RB, then I assume your league does not have PPR scoring.

In leagues with multiple flex options such as this I do think you want to take more of BPA approach. There are few RB who should be expected to have 300 opportunities, so it makes sense to draft those early as they will not last long. At the same time your ideal starting line up will likely be 2 RB 4 WR unless you actually get 3 workhorse RB, which seems hard to do when there are only six or so of those players right now.

Something you should consider is what WR will still be available to you at the 24/25 turn and also at the 48/49 turn. You have the best draft position as one of only two teams to have five picks in the top 50 so maximizing those picks is how you can get ahead of the competition.

If you know your league will draft a certain way, then you take that into consideration over looking at ADP.

The point of zero RB as a label for the strategy is that you are willing to accept not having good RB. It is a sacrifice you make if you think drafting other positions gives you a better chance to win. So if you embrace the strategy, then you shouldn't be happy with the RB you get, but you won't care because of being strong at other positions.

The extra flex spot I think means you should take more of a BPA/VBD approach and try to maximize the value of your first five picks regardless of position. 

I realized later I forgot to specify non-PPR. I tried to convince the commissioner to go with PPR but I was declined.

I need to do some prep work/mocks to see how I like my team if I go RB or WR first. I agree with the two flex spots that BPA is the right approach, I'm just trying to figure out where to start. I think after the 1st round it'll get easier.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I realized later I forgot to specify non-PPR. I tried to convince the commissioner to go with PPR but I was declined.

I need to do some prep work/mocks to see how I like my team if I go RB or WR first. I agree with the two flex spots that BPA is the right approach, I'm just trying to figure out where to start. I think after the 1st round it'll get easier.

Non-PPR is about the only place it really makes sense to take a RB 1st overall. 

David Johnson is the consensus, but I wouldn't fault anyone for taking LMiller in that circumstance either.  Grab Cooks/Watkins, or Watkins/Hilton, or Benjamin/Cooks at the 2-3 turn and you've got the makings of a rock solid roster. 

Some in your league might mock you for it, but without PPR, the value of those elite few RBs skyrockets. 

I would avoid Gurley at 1.01 due to the team around him holding him back, and what I see as one of the league's worst OL's limiting his playmaking.