Is it time to abaondon RB-focused strategy? (1 Viewer)

[otnemem]

Hey all. This may have been a topic in the past -- I'm new to the site. And it's quite possible many/most of you shifted away from an RB-focus long ago.

I've been a traditionalist, maintaining the belief that the key to fantasy success is being super strong at RB, often to the detriment of all other positions. This has led to great success for me all the way through this past season.

In a start-up dynasty last season, 4 of my first 5 picks were RBs, even though we only start a max of 3 per week. I never traded my RB depth for a WR and I lost the championship by a nose (with later round and waiver wire WRs like santana moss, steve johnson, hines ward). I won another dynasty league with the likes of garcon, santonio holmes, mike williams (seattle) starting for me. So there are recent examples of strong RB teams still having success.

In the past I have salivated to see teams draft WR ahead of RB in new leagues. I've licked my chops and happily scarfed up starting BSs and often laughed my way all the way to the bank. But with the proliferation of west coast pass happy offenses becoming the rule -- so much so that even historically staunch 4-3 defenses like the redskins making the switch to the 3-4 in order to defend the increased number of wide receivers running routes and the higher percentage of pass plays being run today -- not to mention the continuing trend toward RBBCs, is it now finally time to focus on the wide receiver position?

In fairly typical PPR scoring last year there were 9 RBs in the top 30 and only 6 WRs. On the surface perhaps this suggests a staying of the course. But the next 30 was populated with 15 WRs and only 7 RBs. So, 21 WRs to 16 RBs in the top 60. And my sense is that week to week, there were many many more WR game performances of double-digit catches and/or multi-TDs last season than ever before.

Again, some of you may have made the switch before now. I'm contemplating doing it now, meaning making RB trades for WRs, and in the one new league I plan on joining, drafting a bit more WR-focused in early rounds (within reason).

Would love to hear your thoughts on the topic, especially those of you like me who have long adopted and believed in a RB-first strategy.

Thanks,

--N

 

[KentGraham10]

I just started up again last year and I went RB with my first two picks and they both flopped. Still made it to the championship game but I think team proved to myself can plug and play at RB so in the future I will probably draft big at other positions.

 

[menobrown]

I'm someone who goes RB like 95% of the time in the first round and usually second round as well but I'm moving away from that based primarily on the following two reasons:

1. Not next year but in 2012 we are almost certain to have an 18 game schedule. We've seen RBBC situations grow over the past few years and I'm of the belief the extra 2 games is going to cause this to spike further and if teams don't go RBBC it's just going to make it that much harder for the RB to hold up when key fantasy playoff games come around.

2. Biggest two reason I've always went RB over WR early was the idea RB's were more scarce and belief I could locate usuable starting WR's later in the draft. I still think both of these ideas are true but a roster filled with usable WR's is not the same thing as a roster with a few absolute no doubt about it WR's you put in your starting lineup and don't have to think about it. I mean to say what I've experienced all to often the past few years is a roster filled with usable WR's but it's a crapshoot trying to figure out which one to start. The thing I always valued at RB was their consistency but the increase RBBC is making starting lineup at that position more of crapshoot as well.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Do a search but yes, the Early RB strategy is dead.

 

[Matt Waldman]

My link

Excerpt...

When it comes down to it we all have the potential to look like a genius one day and an idiot the next. When it comes to competing - especially in the game of fantasy football - I'd rather try to win big at the risk of losing big. I'd argue following convention is not only boring it's also dangerous against experienced competition.

"In a world of constant change, risk is actually a form of safety, because it accepts that world for what it is. Conventional safety is where the danger really lies, because it denies and resists that world."

-Charles Sanford on "Life Values and the Paradoxes of Risk"

Fantasy football has developed conventions most people follow when it comes to draft preparation. The first is projecting player performance. Whether you create these projections yourself or you use rankings based on someone else's projections, a majority of the information out there is fundamentally based on what each player did last year. There are always exceptions, but those reasons have logic.

A good example is Thomas Jones, who finished the year as the 6th-ranked, fantasy RB, but most people project him to finish much lower. They anticipate incumbent Chiefs starter Jamaal Charles performing well enough that Thomas' attempts are more limited than they were as a Jet. These concepts are also in play with average draft position (ADP) and built into more advanced concepts like Value Based Drafting, Quality Game Theory and Crank Scores.

Even with less savvy fantasy owners who take the beer and a two-month old cheat sheet approach, they are still picking specific positions at certain times. It means there are very clear conventions: We all know you can land a quality starting QB after round 5 or use a committee approach with picks after the 10th round. If you want an elite TE, the first one usually doesn't last past early round 4.

And if you want to be strong at running back, you better pick three within the first five rounds.

But is this really true?

In a draft where you pick the same positions in a similar range as most of your competition, it is the mid-to-late rounds where the differences in knowledge and experience separate a good team from an also-ran. It takes place later in most drafts because few teams deviate from the norm in the early rounds. Most fantasy owners have been indoctrinated into using a conventional approach. The players picked might vary, but the positions tend pick tend to be similar.

Convention can limit stupid mistakes, but it also limits owners from creating opportunities to build an excellent squad. A team that builds a roster with a conventional draft is really capitalizing on its opponents' mistakes and scooping up valuable players that either drop further than convention dictates, or they were valued too low to begin with. A fantasy owner can build an excellent team this way, but he has to depend on his competition to provide him the opportunities to pick valuable players.

However, you can increase your opportunities to pick valuable players by picking the right positions at the right time - when no one else is - which also provides you a larger pool of valuable players to choose from. The risk in my approach is that the average person will perceive the choices at running back as having a greater boom-bust factor. Just remember that there is substance behind the cliché, "dare to be great." As I have been saying all preseason, "Excellence deviates from the norm," and it involves greater risk to stand out from the pack.

But as Charles Sanford said above, the paradox of risk is it is not as risky as you think.

The strategy I'm going to lay out is something I called, "Maximizing Sleeper RBs." It could also be called the "Stud WR Strategy," or the "Upside Down Draft." The basic method is to draft receivers, quarterbacks, and a tight end in the first 4-5 rounds and then draft at least four running backs in rounds 5-9 or 6-10. The reason this strategy can be hugely successful is that while most teams are picking the position with the highest fantasy starter turnover from one year to the next (RB) in the early rounds, you are picking the most stable positions that make up the majority of your starting lineup. Because most teams are choosing runners, your team will have a greater range of choices at the other positions, which increases your likelihood of landing the best players.

 

[FantasyMan]

You're making it too simple. It's not a this or that type of thing because starting lineup requirements and scoring rules vary, sometimes greatly, from league to league. Running backs are generally both more consistent and score more points than wide receivers, but there is a huge dropoff after RB13-15. Wide Receivers don't have a big dropoff until WR20-22 and even then it isn't as big. If your league allows starting 3 running backs then you'd be foolish not to if you can get RB15 or better. With more and more leagues moving to flex players, having the running backs is becoming more important again.

 

[Choke]

In small (12 or less) leagues? I say yes.

In 14/16/20 team leagues, you have to be far more flexible about any potential methodology.

 

[DawnBTVS]

I definitely think RBs are still key but I've learned that teams need at least 1 stud RB if they want to have longterm success. Teams can get by week to week with a 2nd RB or Bye Week fill-in but having 1 high scoring RB still has a definite advantage.

I went cute and went WR(WR and TEs are combined)/QB heavy and wanted to get decent RB talent later. I ended up with Clinton Portis and Tim Hightower to start off the year and found myself quickly plummeting to a 7-7 record in part due to injuries and not having a RB talent that I could count on. It got to the point where I was relying on players like Jason Snelling and Chester Taylor for their receptions and GL touches.

Abandoning the RB focused strategy isn't a bad concept but the execution has to be pretty close to perfect to accomplish it and pull it off successfully, I think. I think the best balance is making sure you get a Top 12-16 RB first and then taking risks by going for other positions. Other owners will likely have stuck with that RB mentality and scoop up most of the names quicker than expected so they may "leave" value on the table but the cost is that if you waited too long, you're stuck with mostly trash unless you get lucky on waivers/FA.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Maybe RB-RB strategies are dead but picking a stud RB up in the first round if one is there is certainly not dead.

This past year was a little unusual in that most 1st round RBs didn't live up to their billing and the rookie RBs spent the season injured or not getting much playing time (Mathews, Best, and Spiller). Not to mention the odd use of Jamaal Charles in KC.

The leagues I participated in were dominated by:

Foster, Hillis, and McFadden - and no one thought that these guys would be nearly as productive as they were.

Vick - who, if drafted, was drafted as a handcuff.

and random WRs like Brandon Lloyd, Steve Johnson that were either drafted very late or picked up off waivers.

I wouldn't be surprised if the top scorers drafted in rounds 3-5 outscored most of the top players in rounds 1-2. That generally is not the case.

 

[footballsavvy]

I say it depends.

It depends on what the rest of your league is doing. In general there are many options for solid "committee" RBs to fill your roster with. That said, the few fantasy teams that manage to have players like Frank Gore and LeSean McCoy coming at you have a distinctive advantage at that position.

So if the first 6 picks in my draft are WR WR WR WR WR WR then it probably makes a lot of sense to snatch a RB in the first round, then get the best WR in the next tier when everyone is filling RB. Its good to be at the beginning of a run during a draft. That usually means you are getting the best of each tier.

In dynasty leagues I have been focusing on building studs at WR and QB before worrying about finding studs at RB. Between the predictability of WR/QB and their longevity, it only makes sense.

 

[Longshot88]

in a dynasty yes, I have abandoned the rbs... last year in a early dynasty start up I traded out of the first round and my first 6 picks were , Calvin Jhonson , Brandon Marshall, Jonathan Stewart, Hakim Nicks, Sidney Rice,and S Greene. Yeah I had a bad year, but after a few trades, my core for next year will be.... A Rogers, J Stewart,S Greene, J Starks, C Jhonson, H Nicks,S Rice, M Williams(TBB),J Maklin, J Finnly, J cook. and the 1,7,10 and 12th first round picks.even though my rbs are thin, you would be hard pressed to find a better group of wrs.for dynastys, and top wrs stay at the top longer that a rb would

In any dynasty Start up i would suggest trading out of the first, grabing all the young wrs you can get, and only taking early Rbs if extreme Value presents its self.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

If you hit on your later picks it's a great strategy.

 

[FantasyMan]

in a dynasty yes, I have abandoned the rbs... last year in a early dynasty start up I traded out of the first round and my first 6 picks were , Calvin Jhonson , Brandon Marshall, Jonathan Stewart, Hakim Nicks, Sidney Rice,and S Greene. Yeah I had a bad year, but after a few trades, my core for next year will be.... A Rogers, J Stewart,S Greene, J Starks, C Jhonson, H Nicks,S Rice, M Williams(TBB),J Maklin, J Finnly, J cook. and the 1,7,10 and 12th first round picks.even though my rbs are thin, you would be hard pressed to find a better group of wrs.for dynastys, and top wrs stay at the top longer that a rb would

In any dynasty Start up i would suggest trading out of the first, grabing all the young wrs you can get, and only taking early Rbs if extreme Value presents its self.

As to the bold, it lends to prove that going WR-WR will actually hurt you.As to the bold italic, it proves the same but also adds that you had to trade in order to fix your team after your draft.

Bottom line is this: getting a stud RB is still the most important piece of a fantasy football team.

 

[Concept Coop]

Bottom line is this: getting a stud RB is still the most important piece of a fantasy football team.

 

[texasbirdfan]

Bottom line is this: getting a stud RB is still the most important piece of a fantasy football team.

In long running dynasty leagues that is not only harder to find but iffy at best because NFL teams (because of win now baby)are turning their roster over quicker for new cheaper meat and the average life of an RB is still slightly over 4 years (NFL statistic) owning a stub WR for 8 or nine years would far out weigh the chances of landing two 4 year RBs that turned out to be studs. 3 years ago my philosophy was most things being equal, I would rookie draft a WR first and my later round picks would be for would be stud RBs like James Starks last year for instance

 

[Concept Coop]

In dynasty leagues I have been focusing on building studs at WR and QB before worrying about finding studs at RB. Between the predictability of WR/QB and their longevity, it only makes sense.

I hear this argument all the time, but don't recall seing it work. Have fun drafting Rodgers, Calvin, Marshall, Finley and being stuck with CJ Spiller and Pierre Thomas. I'll take ADP and Frank Gore and be "stuck with" Matt Schaub, Marques Colston, and Sidney Rice.

 

[footballsavvy]

Bottom line is this: getting a stud RB is still the most important piece of a fantasy football team.

:X

While this is true, most people got beat by teams who drafted safer bets in the 1st round like Rodgers, Roddy White, Calvin, etc then torched you with guys out of the 3rd and 4th rounds like Jamaal Charles, McFadden, and LeSean McCoy.While its nice to think that the perfect draft strategy will get you to the championship, the reality is that you need to pick safe players in the early rounds and get lucky in the middle rounds. The truth is that several owners in your league are always going to have those players (mcfadden, hillis, brandon lloyd, etc) and if any of those owners had safe/productive early round picks to go with their mid round break outs - then you are toast.As a broad-brushed rule of thumb, I like to get safe players in the first two rounds, value in the 3rd and 4th, then in the 5th+ go for those players that will get some points for you but also have a really high ceiling (because they are relatively young and unknown). I'm not a fan of these donald driver and hines ward types in those later rounds - being in too many dynasty leagues has tainted my valuation ofthe old fart receivers that never seem to "go away"

 

[Jedimaster21]

My link

Excerpt...

When it comes down to it we all have the potential to look like a genius one day and an idiot the next. When it comes to competing - especially in the game of fantasy football - I'd rather try to win big at the risk of losing big. I'd argue following convention is not only boring it's also dangerous against experienced competition.

"In a world of constant change, risk is actually a form of safety, because it accepts that world for what it is. Conventional safety is where the danger really lies, because it denies and resists that world."

-Charles Sanford on "Life Values and the Paradoxes of Risk"

Fantasy football has developed conventions most people follow when it comes to draft preparation. The first is projecting player performance. Whether you create these projections yourself or you use rankings based on someone else's projections, a majority of the information out there is fundamentally based on what each player did last year. There are always exceptions, but those reasons have logic.

A good example is Thomas Jones, who finished the year as the 6th-ranked, fantasy RB, but most people project him to finish much lower. They anticipate incumbent Chiefs starter Jamaal Charles performing well enough that Thomas' attempts are more limited than they were as a Jet. These concepts are also in play with average draft position (ADP) and built into more advanced concepts like Value Based Drafting, Quality Game Theory and Crank Scores.

Even with less savvy fantasy owners who take the beer and a two-month old cheat sheet approach, they are still picking specific positions at certain times. It means there are very clear conventions: We all know you can land a quality starting QB after round 5 or use a committee approach with picks after the 10th round. If you want an elite TE, the first one usually doesn't last past early round 4.

And if you want to be strong at running back, you better pick three within the first five rounds.

But is this really true?

In a draft where you pick the same positions in a similar range as most of your competition, it is the mid-to-late rounds where the differences in knowledge and experience separate a good team from an also-ran. It takes place later in most drafts because few teams deviate from the norm in the early rounds. Most fantasy owners have been indoctrinated into using a conventional approach. The players picked might vary, but the positions tend pick tend to be similar.

Convention can limit stupid mistakes, but it also limits owners from creating opportunities to build an excellent squad. A team that builds a roster with a conventional draft is really capitalizing on its opponents' mistakes and scooping up valuable players that either drop further than convention dictates, or they were valued too low to begin with. A fantasy owner can build an excellent team this way, but he has to depend on his competition to provide him the opportunities to pick valuable players.

However, you can increase your opportunities to pick valuable players by picking the right positions at the right time - when no one else is - which also provides you a larger pool of valuable players to choose from. The risk in my approach is that the average person will perceive the choices at running back as having a greater boom-bust factor. Just remember that there is substance behind the cliché, "dare to be great." As I have been saying all preseason, "Excellence deviates from the norm," and it involves greater risk to stand out from the pack.

But as Charles Sanford said above, the paradox of risk is it is not as risky as you think.

The strategy I'm going to lay out is something I called, "Maximizing Sleeper RBs." It could also be called the "Stud WR Strategy," or the "Upside Down Draft." The basic method is to draft receivers, quarterbacks, and a tight end in the first 4-5 rounds and then draft at least four running backs in rounds 5-9 or 6-10. The reason this strategy can be hugely successful is that while most teams are picking the position with the highest fantasy starter turnover from one year to the next (RB) in the early rounds, you are picking the most stable positions that make up the majority of your starting lineup. Because most teams are choosing runners, your team will have a greater range of choices at the other positions, which increases your likelihood of landing the best players.

This is a great post, as we have come to expect from Mr. Waldman. You generally want to go against the grain when drafting and that will bring you the most value. However, I am curious how you recommend building a team once the draft has occurred. Do you tend to go after the elite RBs or WRs? I still say the way to go is accumulating as many elite RB as possible. They may have a shorter shelf life, but they touch the ball more than WRs, and are also less dependent on the system, QB talent, and team success.

 

[Steed]

In dynasty leagues I have been focusing on building studs at WR and QB before worrying about finding studs at RB. Between the predictability of WR/QB and their longevity, it only makes sense.

I hear this argument all the time, but don't recall seing it work. Have fun drafting Rodgers, Calvin, Marshall, Finley and being stuck with CJ Spiller and Pierre Thomas. I'll take ADP and Frank Gore and be "stuck with" Matt Schaub, Marques Colston, and Sidney Rice.

Except for the guys that took all those guys early and then hit on Arian Foster late or picked up Peyton Hillis on waivers. More ways than 1 to win.

 

[Concept Coop]

In dynasty leagues I have been focusing on building studs at WR and QB before worrying about finding studs at RB. Between the predictability of WR/QB and their longevity, it only makes sense.

I hear this argument all the time, but don't recall seing it work. Have fun drafting Rodgers, Calvin, Marshall, Finley and being stuck with CJ Spiller and Pierre Thomas. I'll take ADP and Frank Gore and be "stuck with" Matt Schaub, Marques Colston, and Sidney Rice.

Except for the guys that took all those guys early and then hit on Arian Foster late or picked up Peyton Hillis on waivers. More ways than 1 to win.

If you call relying on luck a way to win, I suppose. I just call it luck. Just like the guy that loaded up on RBs and picked up Stevie Johnson and Brandon Lloy on waivers.

 

[footballsavvy]

In dynasty leagues I have been focusing on building studs at WR and QB before worrying about finding studs at RB. Between the predictability of WR/QB and their longevity, it only makes sense.

I hear this argument all the time, but don't recall seing it work. Have fun drafting Rodgers, Calvin, Marshall, Finley and being stuck with CJ Spiller and Pierre Thomas. I'll take ADP and Frank Gore and be "stuck with" Matt Schaub, Marques Colston, and Sidney Rice.

I mean, how long have you been playing in dynasty leagues? I know its "all the rage" these days, but not many people I know have been playing long enough to see this rational plan play out. I think if you drafted Randy Moss in the first round after his 2001 season, you made a much better investment than everyone who took Priest Holmes (like 5 additional years of top 5 production).The bottom line is that less than half the top 10 RBs return to the top 10 each season and their peak productive age range is roughly 24-28. WRs are more predictable form season to season and their productive peak years cover a larger range (most don't decline until 32/33 - and look at what owens was doing the first half of this season).Not saying its a horrible idea to draft RBs early in startup dyansty drafts, but you have to be a very good trader to make it payoff. For my stud RBs I try to acquire them as young as possible (obviously) and trade them soon after they turn 26 yrs old. Once they hit age 27 most owners will begin mentally adjusting their value, justified or not. If you ride a RB until he is not longer productive, then you have to make up all of that lost value somehow - which puts you at a disadvantage against players who don't hold players until they "wear out".I just took over a horrible team that I have to begin rebuilding. I started with QB (bradford) and will begin working on WRs next. Running backs will get my attention dead last because their shelf life is so short. Whats the point of going after good RBs when they won't be good anymore by the time I get a stable or WRs and QBs going? Anyway, you get my point.Running backs are important - but their unpredictability lends itself to drafting a small stable of "sleepers" in the mid rounds and using your all important top picks on other positions.I admit that I used to dominate by drafing RBs in the first 4 rounds of redraft leagues, but when there are only 5 RBs in the NFL that touch the ball 300 times, you are just adding runners that aren't separating you from the guy who is starting Tolbert against you.If you play me next year you will be dealing with my first 4 picks that might look something like this: Calvin, Austin, Felix, Romo which I would be much more scared of than McFadden, J. Stewart, Maclin, Brady - because when it comes right down to it there's very little guarantees anyone can give me that McFadden or Foster will out produce Felix Jones (or similar). Thats just the nature of RBs from season to season.

 

[Concept Coop]

If you play me next year you will be dealing with my first 4 picks that might look something like this: Calvin, Austin, Felix, Romo which I would be much more scared of than McFadden, J. Stewart, Maclin, Brady - because when it comes right down to it there's very little guarantees anyone can give me that McFadden or Foster will out produce Felix Jones (or similar). Thats just the nature of RBs from season to season.

They have VBD calculators. FBG has a great one. Input the stats and league info and see what it says. The more RBs move to RBBC in the NFL, the more important stud RBs become in FF - not the other way around. The less there are, the more premium is placed on them.

As for your "how long have you been playing" statment: if you have to play for years to see a plan come to fruition, I don't think it is a very good plan.

And your example is a cop out. Lets replace Stewart and McFadden with ADP and Frank Gore. Still confident? If so, I would look at the official FBG stats. They will provide you with plenty of reason not to be.

 

[footballsavvy]

In dynasty leagues I have been focusing on building studs at WR and QB before worrying about finding studs at RB. Between the predictability of WR/QB and their longevity, it only makes sense.

I hear this argument all the time, but don't recall seing it work. Have fun drafting Rodgers, Calvin, Marshall, Finley and being stuck with CJ Spiller and Pierre Thomas. I'll take ADP and Frank Gore and be "stuck with" Matt Schaub, Marques Colston, and Sidney Rice.

Except for the guys that took all those guys early and then hit on Arian Foster late or picked up Peyton Hillis on waivers. More ways than 1 to win.

If you call relying on luck a way to win, I suppose. I just call it luck. Just like the guy that loaded up on RBs and picked up Stevie Johnson and Brandon Lloy on waivers.

Well it is luck, but by acknowledging that you are relying on luck you can vastly increase your odds of hitting it. For example, last season in a startup dynasty I went heavy on young RBs early (rodgers in teh 1st, then Jamaal Charles and Ryan Mathews). By the time I got around to WRs I knew I needed some guys who were young and who had high ceilings but who I could also count on for *some* production even if they didn't break out like studs. So I drafted Garcon, Collie, Knox, Demaryius Thomas (I really think I would had something here until he ruptured his achilles), James Jones, Mike Thomas. Between the breakout of Collie and the decent production of Garcon, Knox and Thomas I did enough to get into the playoffs. Ryan Mathews and Pierre Thomas being injured all season really hurt me. Anyway, I guess the point is that I added enough potential "sleeper" receivers that at least one panned out to be a stud (Collie while he was not concussed) and others flirted with WR2 and steady WR3 status. Meanwhile my 2nd round RB (late 2nd was Mathews) and 4th rounder (Pierre Thomas) performed well below expectations because they are friggin running backs and can't be counted on. If I had gone WRs early and selected a stable of "sleeper" running backs I probably would have been in the super bowl (since half the sleeper RBs on my lists went ape).

 

[Spin]

If you play me next year you will be dealing with my first 4 picks that might look something like this: Calvin, Austin, Felix, Romo which I would be much more scared of than McFadden, J. Stewart, Maclin, Brady - because when it comes right down to it there's very little guarantees anyone can give me that McFadden or Foster will out produce Felix Jones (or similar). Thats just the nature of RBs from season to season.

They have VBD calculators. FBG has a great one. Input the stats and league info and see what it says. The more RBs move to RBBC in the NFL, the more important stud RBs become in FF - not the other way around. The less there are, the more premium is placed on them.

As for your "how long have you been playing" statment: if you have to play for years to see a plan come to fruition, I don't think it is a very good plan.

And your example is a cop out. Lets replace Stewart and McFadden with ADP and Frank Gore. Still confident? If so, I would look at the official FBG stats. They will provide you with plenty of reason not to be.

Why can't some people grasp this?

 

[mquinnjr]

I think drafting against the grain is the absolute way to go, as well as distribution in rounds 1-4. I try to get a stud at each position, and know that those will be the guys to carry me through the season. I drafted 4th overall in my league. People in my league draft like cattle, as soon as a new position starts that's where the herd goes. I used this to my advantage. 1st round Ray Rice, 2nd round while guys were picking up QB's I went with Roddy White to start off the RB's. 3rd round I got Schaub, and 4th round I went with Antonio Gates, who when healthy gets more points for you than alot of the better WR's.

QB's matter, but you win your championships picking guys early who are just distant firsts for their respective positions.

I will never deviate from this strategy. And this guy is right, you do win your championship in the later rounds, but I'm a huge believer in distributing your picks across the first few rounds and going for the best of the best.

 

[coolnerd]

If you play me next year you will be dealing with my first 4 picks that might look something like this: Calvin, Austin, Felix, Romo which I would be much more scared of than McFadden, J. Stewart, Maclin, Brady - because when it comes right down to it there's very little guarantees anyone can give me that McFadden or Foster will out produce Felix Jones (or similar). Thats just the nature of RBs from season to season.

They have VBD calculators. FBG has a great one. Input the stats and league info and see what it says. The more RBs move to RBBC in the NFL, the more important stud RBs become in FF - not the other way around. The less there are, the more premium is placed on them.

As for your "how long have you been playing" statment: if you have to play for years to see a plan come to fruition, I don't think it is a very good plan.

And your example is a cop out. Lets replace Stewart and McFadden with ADP and Frank Gore. Still confident? If so, I would look at the official FBG stats. They will provide you with plenty of reason not to be.

Why can't some people grasp this?

Well, if you are in a spot to get one the 4 or 5 guys who look to be guaranteed to get the ball (and do something with it) bunches of times great. When people are talking about abondoning the blind RB-RB strategy, they are generally talking about the strategy where they take a RB no matter what...Did not matter which WR was there you take the top 18 RBs in draft in by the end of the 2nd round be darned. The issue is how are dudes evaulating taking RB 13 versus WR4, not passsing on one of handful of dudes look top be studs. It is understanding that RB 17 probably has the same chance at being a stud as RB 30, so pick up a higher rank QB and WR and essentially take the same risk that you would have two rounds earlier. This issue is risk management not misunderstanding value.

 

[elbowrm]

If you play me next year you will be dealing with my first 4 picks that might look something like this: Calvin, Austin, Felix, Romo which I would be much more scared of than McFadden, J. Stewart, Maclin, Brady - because when it comes right down to it there's very little guarantees anyone can give me that McFadden or Foster will out produce Felix Jones (or similar). Thats just the nature of RBs from season to season.

They have VBD calculators. FBG has a great one. Input the stats and league info and see what it says. The more RBs move to RBBC in the NFL, the more important stud RBs become in FF - not the other way around. The less there are, the more premium is placed on them.

As for your "how long have you been playing" statment: if you have to play for years to see a plan come to fruition, I don't think it is a very good plan.

And your example is a cop out. Lets replace Stewart and McFadden with ADP and Frank Gore. Still confident? If so, I would look at the official FBG stats. They will provide you with plenty of reason not to be.

Why can't some people grasp this?

Because only 4 people in each league get a top 4 pick?

 

[Concept Coop]

If you play me next year you will be dealing with my first 4 picks that might look something like this: Calvin, Austin, Felix, Romo which I would be much more scared of than McFadden, J. Stewart, Maclin, Brady - because when it comes right down to it there's very little guarantees anyone can give me that McFadden or Foster will out produce Felix Jones (or similar). Thats just the nature of RBs from season to season.

They have VBD calculators. FBG has a great one. Input the stats and league info and see what it says. The more RBs move to RBBC in the NFL, the more important stud RBs become in FF - not the other way around. The less there are, the more premium is placed on them.

As for your "how long have you been playing" statment: if you have to play for years to see a plan come to fruition, I don't think it is a very good plan.

And your example is a cop out. Lets replace Stewart and McFadden with ADP and Frank Gore. Still confident? If so, I would look at the official FBG stats. They will provide you with plenty of reason not to be.

Why can't some people grasp this?

Because only 4 people in each league get a top 4 pick?

ADPCJ2K

Jamaal Charles

Arian Foster

LeSean McCoy

Darren McFadden

MJD

Ray Rice

 

[Concept Coop]

QB's matter, but you win your championships picking guys early who are just distant firsts for their respective positions.

Not true at all. Google VBD Football guys and read the article. Such a great read.

 

[ookook]

Because PPR warps their brains?

 

[elbowrm]

If you play me next year you will be dealing with my first 4 picks that might look something like this: Calvin, Austin, Felix, Romo which I would be much more scared of than McFadden, J. Stewart, Maclin, Brady - because when it comes right down to it there's very little guarantees anyone can give me that McFadden or Foster will out produce Felix Jones (or similar). Thats just the nature of RBs from season to season.

They have VBD calculators. FBG has a great one. Input the stats and league info and see what it says. The more RBs move to RBBC in the NFL, the more important stud RBs become in FF - not the other way around. The less there are, the more premium is placed on them.

As for your "how long have you been playing" statment: if you have to play for years to see a plan come to fruition, I don't think it is a very good plan.

And your example is a cop out. Lets replace Stewart and McFadden with ADP and Frank Gore. Still confident? If so, I would look at the official FBG stats. They will provide you with plenty of reason not to be.

Why can't some people grasp this?

Because only 4 people in each league get a top 4 pick?

ADPCJ2K

Jamaal Charles

Arian Foster

LeSean McCoy

Darren McFadden

MJD

Ray Rice

Precisely my point. Only 4 of those guys were top 5 picks last year. There's so much turnover year to year in the top rb's that once you get into the middle of the first round, the roddy white/ calvin johnson/ aaron rodgers / vick pick is a lot safer than any rb available then. And then you hope to hit on a foster in the 4th or a mcfadden in the 9th.

 

[Concept Coop]

If you play me next year you will be dealing with my first 4 picks that might look something like this: Calvin, Austin, Felix, Romo which I would be much more scared of than McFadden, J. Stewart, Maclin, Brady - because when it comes right down to it there's very little guarantees anyone can give me that McFadden or Foster will out produce Felix Jones (or similar). Thats just the nature of RBs from season to season.

They have VBD calculators. FBG has a great one. Input the stats and league info and see what it says. The more RBs move to RBBC in the NFL, the more important stud RBs become in FF - not the other way around. The less there are, the more premium is placed on them.

As for your "how long have you been playing" statment: if you have to play for years to see a plan come to fruition, I don't think it is a very good plan.

And your example is a cop out. Lets replace Stewart and McFadden with ADP and Frank Gore. Still confident? If so, I would look at the official FBG stats. They will provide you with plenty of reason not to be.

Why can't some people grasp this?

Because only 4 people in each league get a top 4 pick?

ADPCJ2K

Jamaal Charles

Arian Foster

LeSean McCoy

Darren McFadden

MJD

Ray Rice

Precisely my point. Only 4 of those guys were top 5 picks last year. There's so much turnover year to year in the top rb's that once you get into the middle of the first round, the roddy white/ calvin johnson/ aaron rodgers / vick pick is a lot safer than any rb available then. And then you hope to hit on a foster in the 4th or a mcfadden in the 9th.

What turnover? Aside from age, what RBs fell off the map? It is not about turnover. It is about value. That is why drafting Aaron Rodgers in the 1st makes no sense when Rivers and Brady are there in the 4th.

And this "Foster, Hillis, McFadden" argument has to end. Lets apply the same logic to QB (Vick), WR (Lloyd), TE (Tamme, Lewis) - then who do we draft early?!

 

[mquinnjr]

If you play me next year you will be dealing with my first 4 picks that might look something like this: Calvin, Austin, Felix, Romo which I would be much more scared of than McFadden, J. Stewart, Maclin, Brady - because when it comes right down to it there's very little guarantees anyone can give me that McFadden or Foster will out produce Felix Jones (or similar). Thats just the nature of RBs from season to season.

They have VBD calculators. FBG has a great one. Input the stats and league info and see what it says. The more RBs move to RBBC in the NFL, the more important stud RBs become in FF - not the other way around. The less there are, the more premium is placed on them.

As for your "how long have you been playing" statment: if you have to play for years to see a plan come to fruition, I don't think it is a very good plan.

And your example is a cop out. Lets replace Stewart and McFadden with ADP and Frank Gore. Still confident? If so, I would look at the official FBG stats. They will provide you with plenty of reason not to be.

Why can't some people grasp this?

Because only 4 people in each league get a top 4 pick?

ADPCJ2K

Jamaal Charles

Arian Foster

LeSean McCoy

Darren McFadden

MJD

Ray Rice

Precisely my point. Only 4 of those guys were top 5 picks last year. There's so much turnover year to year in the top rb's that once you get into the middle of the first round, the roddy white/ calvin johnson/ aaron rodgers / vick pick is a lot safer than any rb available then. And then you hope to hit on a foster in the 4th or a mcfadden in the 9th.

What turnover? Aside from age, what RBs fell off the map? It is not about turnover. It is about value. That is why drafting Aaron Rodgers in the 1st makes no sense when Rivers and Brady are there in the 4th.

And this "Foster, Hillis, McFadden" argument has to end. Lets apply the same logic to QB (Vick), WR (Lloyd), TE (Tamme, Lewis) - then who do we draft early?!

Exactly my point. I picked up Vick off of FA after Week 1. He can sneeze 20+ consistently, much more on a big day. There were other QB's available on waivers that can be adequate. Not QB1-5's, but solid guys. Sure you want a top QB if one's available and it's not compromising of other draft day needs, but if I can get a guy at a scarcer position (thinking TE, etc.) that is head and shoulders above the competition, I'm taking the TE. I'm talking 1 QB to start a week in my league. My league's 2RB's, 2WR's, a RB/WR and WR/TE setup. So sure QB's are important, but not the end of the world if you don't get Rivers, Brees, or Manning or someone like that. Different for everybody I know. Unless were talking Vick potential, I'll sleep well at night with a QB6-10 if the rest of my team is that much stronger for it on draft day.I used to try hoarding QB's when I started. Just plain stupid. Any time a QB 1-10 went down, no one wanted a QB via trade, since something viable was always available off of waivers. Again, a top QB is a nice to have, but unless it's a Vick type, I'll take a strong rest of my team any day, the spread in performance isn't large enough amongst your top QB's IMHO and league structure.

 

[Steed]

What team looks better a year later after hitting a late pick and a waiver stud?

Team that picked early and forced the RB-RB strategy:

Adrian Peterson, Steven Jackson, Stevie JOhnson, Brandon Lloyd

Or the the team that picked late with the WR-WR strategy:

Andre, Calvin, Arian Foster, Peyton Hillis

 

[footballsavvy]

If you play me next year you will be dealing with my first 4 picks that might look something like this: Calvin, Austin, Felix, Romo which I would be much more scared of than McFadden, J. Stewart, Maclin, Brady - because when it comes right down to it there's very little guarantees anyone can give me that McFadden or Foster will out produce Felix Jones (or similar). Thats just the nature of RBs from season to season.

They have VBD calculators. FBG has a great one. Input the stats and league info and see what it says. The more RBs move to RBBC in the NFL, the more important stud RBs become in FF - not the other way around. The less there are, the more premium is placed on them.

As for your "how long have you been playing" statment: if you have to play for years to see a plan come to fruition, I don't think it is a very good plan.

And your example is a cop out. Lets replace Stewart and McFadden with ADP and Frank Gore. Still confident? If so, I would look at the official FBG stats. They will provide you with plenty of reason not to be.

Why can't some people grasp this?

Oh come on, everyone realizes this. You are missing the point completely. Foster, Hillis, McCoy and Charles were the top four RBs last year - yet the top 4 drafted were CJ, ADP, RR, and MJD. You see the problem here? Why can't some people grasp this?

 

[FantasyMan]

What team looks better a year later after hitting a late pick and a waiver stud?Team that picked early and forced the RB-RB strategy:Adrian Peterson, Steven Jackson, Stevie JOhnson, Brandon Lloyd Or the the team that picked late with the WR-WR strategy:Andre, Calvin, Arian Foster, Peyton Hillis

I can do that too:Adrian Peterson, Steven Jackson, Mike Williams, Mike WallaceorAndre, Calvin, Ronnie Brown, Pierre Thomaslooks a bit different when the luck slides the other way, huh?By the way, for everyone who keeps bringing up top 10 finishes. WR has as much movement in the top 10 from year to year as RB does.

 

[footballsavvy]

If you play me next year you will be dealing with my first 4 picks that might look something like this: Calvin, Austin, Felix, Romo which I would be much more scared of than McFadden, J. Stewart, Maclin, Brady - because when it comes right down to it there's very little guarantees anyone can give me that McFadden or Foster will out produce Felix Jones (or similar). Thats just the nature of RBs from season to season.

They have VBD calculators. FBG has a great one. Input the stats and league info and see what it says. The more RBs move to RBBC in the NFL, the more important stud RBs become in FF - not the other way around. The less there are, the more premium is placed on them.

As for your "how long have you been playing" statment: if you have to play for years to see a plan come to fruition, I don't think it is a very good plan.

And your example is a cop out. Lets replace Stewart and McFadden with ADP and Frank Gore. Still confident? If so, I would look at the official FBG stats. They will provide you with plenty of reason not to be.

Why can't some people grasp this?

Because only 4 people in each league get a top 4 pick?

ADPCJ2K

Jamaal Charles

Arian Foster

LeSean McCoy

Darren McFadden

MJD

Ray Rice

Precisely my point. Only 4 of those guys were top 5 picks last year. There's so much turnover year to year in the top rb's that once you get into the middle of the first round, the roddy white/ calvin johnson/ aaron rodgers / vick pick is a lot safer than any rb available then. And then you hope to hit on a foster in the 4th or a mcfadden in the 9th.

What turnover? Aside from age, what RBs fell off the map? It is not about turnover. It is about value. That is why drafting Aaron Rodgers in the 1st makes no sense when Rivers and Brady are there in the 4th.

And this "Foster, Hillis, McFadden" argument has to end. Lets apply the same logic to QB (Vick), WR (Lloyd), TE (Tamme, Lewis) - then who do we draft early?!

Exactly my point. I picked up Vick off of FA after Week 1. He can sneeze 20+ consistently, much more on a big day. There were other QB's available on waivers that can be adequate. Not QB1-5's, but solid guys. Sure you want a top QB if one's available and it's not compromising of other draft day needs, but if I can get a guy at a scarcer position (thinking TE, etc.) that is head and shoulders above the competition, I'm taking the TE. I'm talking 1 QB to start a week in my league. My league's 2RB's, 2WR's, a RB/WR and WR/TE setup. So sure QB's are important, but not the end of the world if you don't get Rivers, Brees, or Manning or someone like that. Different for everybody I know. Unless were talking Vick potential, I'll sleep well at night with a QB6-10 if the rest of my team is that much stronger for it on draft day.I used to try hoarding QB's when I started. Just plain stupid. Any time a QB 1-10 went down, no one wanted a QB via trade, since something viable was always available off of waivers. Again, a top QB is a nice to have, but unless it's a Vick type, I'll take a strong rest of my team any day, the spread in performance isn't large enough amongst your top QB's IMHO and league structure.

Ahh the age old fallacy that "any old QB will do". Just because your QB puts up 15-20 points, you feel like you are doing just fine because, hey, 15 to 20 points is decent amount of points. Meanwhile Rodgers is cranking out 20-25 weekly. Yet that same weekly point differential between RBs is the difference in a RB5 and a RB35. Inevitable, more than a few people have the strategy of getting "Romo, Brady, or Rivers in the 4th" and you end up having to compromise with Matt Ryan. But hey at least you got Jonathan Stewart in the 2nd.

 

[footballsavvy]

What team looks better a year later after hitting a late pick and a waiver stud?Team that picked early and forced the RB-RB strategy:Adrian Peterson, Steven Jackson, Stevie JOhnson, Brandon Lloyd Or the the team that picked late with the WR-WR strategy:Andre, Calvin, Arian Foster, Peyton Hillis

I can do that too:Adrian Peterson, Steven Jackson, Mike Williams, Mike WallaceorAndre, Calvin, Ronnie Brown, Pierre Thomaslooks a bit different when the luck slides the other way, huh?By the way, for everyone who keeps bringing up top 10 finishes. WR has as much movement in the top 10 from year to year as RB does.

That isn't true. I've never seen a year when that was true. Obviously you can't predict every top 10 WR from year to year, but the accuracy of top 10 projections for WRs are much higher than that for RBs. We don't have to debate this. Either one of us can look it up. I will do so later if no one else has by then.

 

[Moniker]

What team looks better a year later after hitting a late pick and a waiver stud?Team that picked early and forced the RB-RB strategy:Adrian Peterson, Steven Jackson, Stevie JOhnson, Brandon Lloyd Or the the team that picked late with the WR-WR strategy:Andre, Calvin, Arian Foster, Peyton Hillis

I can do that too:Adrian Peterson, Steven Jackson, Mike Williams, Mike WallaceorAndre, Calvin, Ronnie Brown, Pierre Thomaslooks a bit different when the luck slides the other way, huh?By the way, for everyone who keeps bringing up top 10 finishes. WR has as much movement in the top 10 from year to year as RB does.

That isn't true. I've never seen a year when that was true. Obviously you can't predict every top 10 WR from year to year, but the accuracy of top 10 projections for WRs are much higher than that for RBs. We don't have to debate this. Either one of us can look it up. I will do so later if no one else has by then.

The statement that he made is true. There is just as much volatility in the top 10 WR as there is the top 10 RB. With that said, the point difference from WR10 to WR 15 is much less than the point difference from RB10 to RB15 which is why WRs are easier to predict.

 

[Steed]

What team looks better a year later after hitting a late pick and a waiver stud?Team that picked early and forced the RB-RB strategy:Adrian Peterson, Steven Jackson, Stevie JOhnson, Brandon Lloyd Or the the team that picked late with the WR-WR strategy:Andre, Calvin, Arian Foster, Peyton Hillis

I can do that too:Adrian Peterson, Steven Jackson, Mike Williams, Mike WallaceorAndre, Calvin, Ronnie Brown, Pierre Thomaslooks a bit different when the luck slides the other way, huh?

??Would you consider Ronnie Brown and Pierre Thomas as hitting a late pick and a waiver stud?

 

[domvin]

The NFL has changed. More RBBCs and a more wide open passing game. How many 4,000 yard passers did we havethis year? A lot more, and the trend continues to uptick. More rules allowing wrs to get open, and now the Illegal Helmet to Helmet calls are giving wrs freebies to make catches without fear of being decleated.

I understand the rationale of securing a stud rb-it's a supply/demand thing. Same can be applied toany NFL position though.

If I have Schaub, ADP, Arian, and then Santana, Colston, Marshall....I will make some noise. Sure, That core is a playoff team.

Honestly though, I'd rather have Calvin, Dez, Crabby, Romo/Ben, Grant, Pierre for the long haul, and then make rbs my main WW target. Seems like more rbs emerge off the WW each year, then WRS.

Basing solely on the short shelf life of rbs. The value lies in the stud wr. That's where I prefer my core to be at in Dynasty. I think it's a safer approach.

Would you consider a 55 rushing yards per game a good rb? That's the equivalent of a 1,000 yard runner in an 18 game season.

My 2 cents...

 

[Black]

Quick request to posters; don't attack another's strategy. Many people have success doing what they do. There is no silver bullet. So please tone down the 'you're wrong' postings. It should be 'I don't agree' or 'I have not had success with that'...which is fine.

Anyways...to answer original poster, I think the answer is 'it depends.' Some factors:

Rosters: start 3-4 WRs? Might lean more WR early.

Scoring: PPR? Also, might want more WR early (but those 3-4 pass catching RBs are SUPER valuable!)

League Type: Dynasty vs. Keeper vs. Redraft. In Dynasty, a good WR will most likely last longer than good RB, but you might also be stuck with a mediocre WR for that many years also (see Braylon Edwards). Year to year, I think you can fill out your roster with breakout/rookie RB/WRs, but you have to do your homework and get a little lucky.

The most basic tenet (discussed here periodically) is to go against the grain. Going WR/QB early ("doing the opposite") has been pimped by Paul Charchian, John Tuvey, etc. formerly of Fanball and still on the KFAN radio show. Matt Waldman's 'Upside Down Draft' also explains this strategy. If RBs are going in picks 1-8, then at pick 9 you might want to go QB1 or WR1 rather than RB9. VBD probably will suggest that pick. However, you don't do this blindly. If you are picking 1 overall, you take ADP/CJ2k/Arian Foster then come back with WR in next few rounds.

Personally, I have found WR/QB early strategies to be very successful, but it always hinges on the 5-6 secondary/backup RBs that I take in round 4-10 range. I assume that those who like RB early could make the same argument that when they picked Collie, Mike Thomas, Maclin, B.Lloyd in mid-rounds last year that they made out like champs. Another strategy to couple with this is to just take the full backfield if there are say, 2 clear 'guys.' One year I took CJ2k/Lendale and JStew/DeAngelo. That worked out great. Other years I have sat on guys most of the season and barely got 2 starting RBs out of the deal (MBIII + Felix).

In shallow leagues with shorter rosters and liberal waiver policies (10 team, 16 team rosters), you can often recover from waiting on WR or RB (whichever) and missing on those mid-rounders.

In Dynasty, I went WR heavy in preliminary auction, and have been scraping for RBs since. I have been competitive, but need some of my scrubbish RBs to hit (and my WR to stay relevant!) I think you could make that SAME argument (flipping WR/RB) if you had taken CJ2k and ADP early and a whole bunch of WRs late. You might have had success now if a WR or two had hit, but your window might close soon if your WR don't hit. For me, I just feel more confident scraping up RBs, so it's better for me to go established WR first.

The general assumptions on going WR (or QB) early (again just assumptions...not all are true all the time, but there are good trends to support this from say, 2005-2009):

1) By mid-season, a few backup RBs will be clear starters (due to injury to starter), getting 20 touches a game. They can put up near-starter numbers with those touches. These can be drafted in bulk in mid-rounds or picked off the Waiver wire if you are diligent.

2) If a #1WR goes down, usually the #2 cannot produce the same stats.

3) WR get fewer touches and therefore hits...so are less susceptible to injury

4) There are generally more rookie RB breakouts; WR take longer to develop and contribute

To me, some NEW, NEW trends are:

1) RBBC actually waters down ALL RB value, and finding that instant-starter RB mid-season is harder. You get BJGE+Woodhead when your #1 RB goes down. So, if you get a 20 touch guy who lasts all season, you will have a huge advantage.

2) Rookie RBs won't be 3 down backs if they aren't studs, don't protect the ball, AND can't pass-protect (see D.Brown). Fewer obvious rookie RBs make huge impacts.

3) Rookie WRs are contributing sooner.

 

[Concept Coop]

Basing solely on the short shelf life of rbs. The value lies in the stud wr. That's where I prefer my core to be at in Dynasty. I think it's a safer approach.

This only makes RBs more important, especially younger ones. I don't see any argument suggestig otherwise. Those advocating the WR early aproach, are ignoring the fact that WRs/QBs that you draft in round 3,4,5 last just as long as the ones in rounds 1 and 2.Taking Sidney Rice in the 4th, Colston in the 5th, and Schaub in the 6th will give you consistant productions for years as well.It is about value over replacement. The difference between a RB in the 1st round and 4th round is MUCH bigger than the difference between a WR/QB in the 1st round and 4th.

 

[Shutout]

The only strategy I employ is the "difference maker" strategy. All the ones talked about in the thread can work If this happens and if that happens but I think overall, to answer the initial question, there is no RB/RB strategy that holds up in leagues using PPR/flex/larger leagues.

In the past few years, my most consistently good DYNASTY teams have always been the ones with the difference making WRs/TEs and its not even close. In 2004, I took Fitz, locked him in for a decade and have used all my other resources building a good team while the guys with their Julius jones/Tatum bells/Kevin Jones of the world have retooled over and over again. Of course, you have to know who your difference makers are and then actually get them but in dynasty leagues, I subscribe to the theory that there is a lot ov value in locking down positions once long term. So, my teams with Fitz, Wayne, Gates, Clark, and those types have been much more stable than my teams in the last 6-7 years with guys who were awesome in straks like Larry johnson, Brian Westbrook, Tiki Barber, etc. As great as the RB was, it cost more resources (other players/draft picks, etc) a lot sooner than the other guys did.

My most dominant teams (the ones that just got onto auto-pilot and cruised) were the ones with the difference makers AND catching lightning when you get a priest Holmes when he comes to KC, Turner when he goes to Atlanta, Foster this past year.

All in all, in a DYNASTY, give me the known long-term all day long and the insight to catch the RB gravitating to a good situation. that seems to pay off much more than the cost it takes to get Peterson or Ray Rice or one of those guys.

one quick example. Four years ago, what would it have cost your dynasty team in terms of players and picks to get LT? and what would it have cost you that same day to get Fitz, Clark, Brandon marshall, Greg jennings, and Michael turner combined? And how many titles would you have won with each? And how would your team be looking for the next 2-4 years right now with each? Again, Yes, you have to have some skill in knowing what you are doing, but dollar for dollar, I think its pretty easy to know where the value sits.

 

[domvin]

Basing solely on the short shelf life of rbs. The value lies in the stud wr. That's where I prefer my core to be at in Dynasty. I think it's a safer approach.

This only makes RBs more important, especially younger ones. I don't see any argument suggestig otherwise. Those advocating the WR early aproach, are ignoring the fact that WRs/QBs that you draft in round 3,4,5 last just as long as the ones in rounds 1 and 2.

Taking Sidney Rice in the 4th, Colston in the 5th, and Schaub in the 6th will give you consistant productions for years as well.

It is about value over replacement. The difference between a RB in the 1st round and 4th round is MUCH bigger than the difference between a WR/QB in the 1st round and 4th.

I understand the rationale of securing a stud rb-it's a supply/demand thing

If you are going to quote me, include the whole post.

See above, where I stated I understand the rationale behind supply demand.

Enjoy drafting those rbs early, that have an average NFL lifespan of 3-4 years. In Dynasty, I prefer to build around stud WRs that have a much longer NFL career.

 

[renesauz]

There's plenty of workeable strategies, but in general I think that league size/reqt's are being under-discussed here.

Their are TONS of viable WR2s and 3's in the NFL. If you're in a 14 team league that requires 2 RB starters and allows up to 2 more to be flexed....RB's are still at a premium, and going WR-WR will leave you with a ton of junk at your RB2 slot all year long even if you hit big on a RB in the middle rounds.

OTOH...12 team leagues which only require 1 RB (and 1 or 2 more can be flexed) are much more flexible as you can get away with a single viable runner and junk for backups.

No matter which strategy you use, in the end you have to hit big on some mid round picks to win your league.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

I can appreciate the responses that claim that the RB-RB theory is dead. It sure looks that way for dynasty leagues as the shelf life of RB’s is 3 to 4 years.

I only play in redraft leagues. Last year I was in two leagues (PPR), and I still went RB/RB. I won both my league championships.

In my first league, I drafted ADP at #2 overall, busted out with my #2 pick of Jahvid Best, but ended up with a gem in the 12th round of picking Darren McFadden.

In my other league, I drafted Ray Rice at #3 overall, and picked R. Mendenhall in the 2nd round, and later took A. Bradshaw in the 7th along with L. Blount off of waivers. Very strong RB team.

Being strong at RB allowed me the flexibility to make trades for stud WR’s or go with the minimum quantity. Having H. Nicks in both leagues helped too.

I saw a lot of others get cute and draft Moss/Fitz/Marshall and end up with a losing record. The WR/WR is no sure thing. There are lots of different ways to make a successful FF team and no one right way or wrong way to assemble it.

Based on past success, I am sure to continue RB/RB drafting, and hope to snag some undervalued WR’s and RB’s later.

 

[habsfan]

Outside of a top 4 pick, I draft what my leaguemates don't. I try to swim upstream if it makes sense at all.

 

[eaglesfan7]

Receivers are a dime a dozen but backs on the other hand...not so sure. Unless you find sleepers later in the draft you are sol. It's so much easier finding replacement receivers later in the draft than it is backs.

 

[beerbarron]

Its tough to make a blanket statement and say this strategy works better and this type doesnt.. the standard old school RB, RB method still works at times but if the injury parasite hits.. your done.. it seems more and more owners are going WR early to combat the standard RB, RB format and having success with it..

The last few redraft leagues that I made it to the championship in.. and was 1-2 in the c-game... i picked stud wr's early and the best rb's left after round 3 or a QB.. which went against the rb, rb norm.. but every year is different..

In dynasty your probably better off taking the stud WR earlier than the RB... - like most have said, shelf life is better... but if you are pick 9 and the stud WR's you want/wanted are gone.. go a different route than you had planned.. it helps to be fluid and be able to shift strategies and use bits and pieces of different draft strategies you found have worked for you while the draft is going on..

I hate predrafting when there are still several picks to go. the flow(position and level of players taken) could have changed by the time its my pick and a run on a certain position could have started which you might want to avoid or perhaps capatilize on... etc..

One thing is for sure.. mid to late round picks and scouring the waiver wire have been important parts of every league I have won or placed in..