Something I've been thinking a lot about lately, and would like to revisit. In the last couple of years, top fantasy players have ditched the stud RB theory and embraced a stud WR approach. The basic reasoning seems to be that stud WRs are more stable, and that if you can get 3 or 4 stud WRs, your team will remain powerful for a longer period of time.
I'm just not completely buying it (although I don't buy the stud RB approach either). First of all, WR's turn over and get hurt also. At any given time, there are only 5 or so that reliably put up WR1 numbers year in and year out (as in top 12). The advantage is that unlike RB's, their down years are often still lower end WR2 or 3 numbers. BUt here's the problem: lower end WR2 or WR3 numbers are generally easy to replace/find. In shallower leagues, you can often find a plug and play WR3/4 type on waivers. So while the approach can work, it really only works if you grab at least two top 5 guys...guys that really will put up top 10 numbers EVERY year (Calvin, Julio), AND grab at least one or two more that will put up top 15 numbers some years (Colston, D. Jackson, Cruz) but rarely fall out of the top 20-25.
Meanwhile, starting three studly WRs can be easily wasted if youre stuck starting the Rashad Jenning's of the NFL one week, and Bryce Brown the next. It's true that stud RBs don't last as long as WRs, but you still need them in start 2 leagues, and their relative scarcity makes them MUCH more difficult to replace. I can almost always replace a hurt WR2 in my dynasty leagues, finding a RB I feel good about sticking in my lineup after a starter gets hurt can be hell. Heck, in many leagues simply finding a quality #2 to use any given week can be tough. People simply don't trade them away, because there really aren't enough to go around. While so many have correctly identified that WRs have equivalent value in a lineup and are more stable long term, I wonder if the current line of thinking has incorrectly minimized or overlooked the scarcity issue. It's interesting how we look at trades at FBGs and tend to love the deals for guys picking up high quality WRs for mediocre RBs, yet when Ilook at rosters and look at leagues as a whole I tend to find that young RB2s with upside are far more difficult to attain than decent WR2s.
Is anyone trading Lacy, Moreno, or Bernard (three upside RBs, two outside the top ten, young and unproven, and the other older with a spotty history but currently inside the top 10) for anything less than an equivalent RB or a WR1+?
I'm starting to think the better approach might be "no real holes + 2 studs (any position)"
