Pasquino's RB2BC Article (1 Viewer)

[Bristol]

I have never really been a Pasquino fan, but I have to give him his props with this article. I was throughly impressed with the depth of analysis that he put into it. This should really be the blueprint for anyone playing in a PPR league. I am going to see if I can try and use some of the tactics in my drafts this year. Good stuff!

 

[fasteddie_21]

Ok, I give up...WTF is this article? Yes, I'm a subscriber....

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I have never really been a Pasquino fan, but I have to give him his props with this article. I was throughly impressed with the depth of analysis that he put into it. This should really be the blueprint for anyone playing in a PPR league. I am going to see if I can try and use some of the tactics in my drafts this year. Good stuff!

Here's the link.

RB2BC

Love to hear some feedback on it.

 

[jeter23]

You know how I feel already, but I loved this article. Good work Pasquino!

 

[fasteddie_21]

Ahhh...today's articles don't show up in the articles area til the day after. Noted thanks.

 

[amphibianbri]

Great article if you're in a draft Jeff, but I don't possibly see how this could work in an auction setting. The 2 RB you talk about pairing would definitely cost more than Edge, kind of ruining the point of the concept. Totally agree though with your idea in a draft. Keep up the good work!

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Great article if you're in a draft Jeff, but I don't possibly see how this could work in an auction setting. The 2 RB you talk about pairing would definitely cost more than Edge, kind of ruining the point of the concept. Totally agree though with your idea in a draft. Keep up the good work!

Auctions and Drafts are different species entirely.

 

[fasteddie_21]

Wow, good stuff. All my leagues this year are PPR, so this article really opens my eyes to some things. Thanks Jeff!

 

[poopdawg]

Good stuff Pasquino

I may have to put this one to use this year. I have been going RB/WR/WR for my first three picks in most of my drafts and I have 2 more drafts yet to go. There is some good value at RB later on.

 

[AcerFC]

First things first,

Awesome article Jeff. That takes time and effort and you did a great job.

However,

I have found in the past few years that the committee approach rarely works. It is easy to look at SOS before the season starts but once the ball is kicked off everything changes. Sure the same can be said about every player and position, but in this case you are basing an entire draft around a theory. If it works out, great, but I have tried Chases QB and Def by committee and it did not work as good as the article was.

 

[aburt19]

Very good article. In mock drafts that I have been in I have been using something like this, just not as scientific. I've normally gotten the 22nd-24th RB and then

have been picking another RB in the 25-27 range. I have assumed that I can play matchups most of the season and hope to be able to outscore the 20-22 RB.

Having the more scientific approach will help greatly.

 

[Bri]

Good article, well done Jeff

Not sure how I feel about the R2D2 name though

 

[Wyld Stallyns]

Haven't read the article, but from the sound of it I'm assuming that it's based on this post from JKL a couple weeks ago?

 

[Captain Hook]

First of all KUDOS Jeff - very nice article. A playable idea with the research.

I am going to add an extension to your plan

Of the 24 RB you list, there are three pairs, ie. - RB1 and RB2 from their respective teams:

Lendale White & Chris Johnson

Rudi Johnson & Kenny Watson

Jonathan Stewart & DeAngelo Williams

The TEN and CIN running backs are in separate lists, while the Carolina backs are both in the first group, but there are times one will slide (especially if you draft Stewart first) and those times when someone is on a corner and they could be put together.

The advantage to this is twofold:

1) You may find some games where you would want to play both (of those three the only one that would be a must now would be the Carolina backs in Week 10 @ Oakland. But of course that is on today's SOS which will change once we have some actual games to refine it as SOS now is based mostly on last years numbers (even with some tinkering for off-season personnel additions)

2) IF the RB1 of the pair goes down, you may have even MORE points if you hold the other and they are not joined in a committee for their team (for instance I would not add Adrian Peterson (CHI) or Kevin Jones to Matt Forte.

There are two other backs to be considered for a variation of your proposal - RB1s whose backup is even lower on the list - and could be drafted much later (assuming you have the roster space). The two who stand out would be:

Julius Jones, Seattle - where you can draft MoMo much later; and

Selvin Young, Denver - where you can add Ryan Torain and/or Andre Hall much later in the draft.

 

[Dancing Bear]

An extremely well thought out article Jeff!

I have three comments.

a) I really don't like the idea of playing against Jacksonville 3 times for my RB.

b) I keep a running tally of SoS for each position all season long. So that my assessments stay as reasonable as possible for the actual Defenses. It is possible that you will have to adjust to see if another pair of RB fits better than your original pair and either trade or pick up a better match from Free Agency.

c) Based on your original premise, I would say that both pair #9 and pair #22 give you better overall value than the one you chose. They surely give you an additional pick between RB's for a quality pick at another position. With #9 you are sacrificing about 0.5 ppg and with #22 you are sacrificing less than 1.0 ppg.

 

[Mr. Fusion]

In leagues that start 3 WR, if you can draft well and then take advantage of the advice in the article, you should be in great shape.

Edited to remove info exclusive to subscibers (sorry).

 

[george]

.

 

[BassNBrew]

Hi Jeff. Very interesting and well written article. As far as the premise, I don't put much validity into it in reality. The math works great, but expecting SOS and impact on RB production created in preseason to translate to real world outcomes is a pipedream. I would put more stock into your RB evaluations and situation analysis then your projections based on SOS.

 

[massraider]

In leagues that start 3 WR, if you can draft

That's pay content, isn't it? Not sure if it should be shared here.

 

[radiohead417]

An extremely well thought out article Jeff!I have three comments.a) I really don't like the idea of playing against Jacksonville 3 times for my RB.b) I keep a running tally of SoS for each position all season long. So that my assessments stay as reasonable as possible for the actual Defenses. It is possible that you will have to adjust to see if another pair of RB fits better than your original pair and either trade or pick up a better match from Free Agency.c) Based on your original premise, I would say that both pair #9 and pair #22 give you better overall value than the one you chose. They surely give you an additional pick between RB's for a quality pick at another position. With #9 you are sacrificing about 0.5 ppg and with #22 you are sacrificing less than 1.0 ppg.

LenDale against the Jaguars in 2 starts last year:Week 1: 18 carries, 66 yards, 2 rec, 7 yards, 1 FUM (and it was on the goalline)Week 10: 8 carries, 12 yards, 1 rec, 5 yardsThat's 3 yards a pop. Not exactly what I'm looking for. Jax might be a decent matchup for the running game, but not apparently with LenDale.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

JP,

Nice article, well written, you took a lot of time on it. Where I think RB2BC would be most helpful is in a best ball league. You can platoon Chester Taylor, Fred Taylor, and Felix Jones/Chris Johnson(either one), throw in an Ahmad Bradshaw late and I love the RBBC for the RB2 concept.

One thing I would like to see, is for the Shark Pool to get on top of some of these defenses. I tried earlier in the year, maybe now is a better time. I think you have to look at player movement and decide which defenses will be different this year.

 

[JKL]

Great article if you're in a draft Jeff, but I don't possibly see how this could work in an auction setting. The 2 RB you talk about pairing would definitely cost more than Edge, kind of ruining the point of the concept. Totally agree though with your idea in a draft. Keep up the good work!

I don't know. I've never drafted more than 1 RB in the first 3 rounds of a draft, I play in an auction draft and I never draft my RB2 for a large amount of money, instead I usually spend heavy on RB1 and play a RB2 by committee initially by grabbing guys in low RB2 or RB3 range, wait til people have spent their money and are looking elsewhere. In my opinion, people overspend on the low end RB1 and high end RB2 options, and the dropoff in perception is greater than in reality from RB11 to RB21. Here are the backs I have gotten for cheap as RB2 pairs (didn't hurt that I had LT also 2 of them):2005: Cadillac Williams and Thomas Jones2006: Frank Gore and Laurence Maroney2007: Jamal Lewis and Marion Barber IIISome of these guys may have been closer to RB18, but combined none of them cost me more than 15% of my cap in the auction. I do agree that that 2 might cost more than Edge, but Edge + one of the others would cost less than say McGahee or Jamal Lewis.The one thing I don't do however, is try to look at running matchups before the season, though I certainly do after. Missed games with injuries, one of the guys turning out to be better than the other, and unpredictability of who will be good and bad at run defense make that counter-productive. I just try to identify values and go after them at the right time at auction.Good article, but my only tweak would be to try to get your favorite two out of the group (maybe even extend it to RB20 and below) and not worry about the matchups . . . yet. Absolutely do play them once the season starts though to the best of your ability.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Just a head's up that these are now available:

We are doing our best here to make your Friday at work as unproductive as possible with a slew of must read features.

Enjoy.

G. Jeff Pasquino's Tight End by Committee

Jeff outlines what to do when the good TEs are gone.

H. Jeff Pasquino's Wide Receiver #3 By Committee

Jeff outlines how to get quality production from your WR3 at a fraction of the cost.

 

[Verbal Kint]

Guys, please be careful posting subscriber content in the forums. Its a difficult line to walk be please be aware of it.

 

[Happy]

Good article. A few questions....

1. Are you assuming week to week to start one of the two RB2BC players, and the starting player will be based on the Defense each player is playing, based on SOS? As you know this can get tricky. By week 5, we should have a new SOS based on weeks 1-4, so do you reset this during the season or stick with last season's SOS?

2. Are the results skewed toward the committe approach vs. the single player (who has a bye week, where a committe typically doesn't).

Keep it up! Would love to see also if WR2BC would work. Given the depth of #2 and #3 slot receivers in the league, I'd bet that WR2BC would work in PPR leagues well.

 

[hephner]

Haven't read the article, but from the sound of it I'm assuming that it's based on this post from JKL a couple weeks ago?

No it's a little different from that. The article doesn't refer specifically to drafting two RBs in a committee on the same NFL team. Mainly deals with pairing mid-range RBs together for the optimum potential fantasy points based on SOS, where you can draft them (rds 5 & 6 mainly), where the value lies, etc.

 

[Art_VanDalay]

Hi Jeff. Very interesting and well written article. As far as the premise, I don't put much validity into it in reality. The math works great, but expecting SOS and impact on RB production created in preseason to translate to real world outcomes is a pipedream. I would put more stock into your RB evaluations and situation analysis then your projections based on SOS.

Agreed. I too think the analysis is solid however, ALL of these RBBC/QBBC, etc. articles rise and fall with two things - Preseason Strength of Schedule rankings and starting the right player each week according to that schedule. We all know that what we think in August is often very different that reality in December or even October for that matter. In summary, I think conceptually this works because we all like our systems in evaluating talent but in reality, it doesn't go as planned and could cost you heavily. Out of curiousity to counter my position, does anyone know the results of prior years RBBC/QBBC articles? I am going to guess that this may prove my point.

 

[Art_VanDalay]

BTW, I found this post from Chase on his QBBC article in another thread,

In 2005, I suggested Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger and David Carr. I don't know their exact ADPs, just that none of them were top 12. Brees himself ended up #7, while Carr stunk. Roethlisberger was only called on to start four games, but if you went through it he probably would have only started the first two games of the season for you, when he played very well. He was injured in week 9, and by week 12 you would have been playing Brees every week. I consider 2005 to be a pretty strong season because you would have likely landed in the top half of your league based on the strength of your QBs despite being one of the very last guys to draft a QB.

In 2004, I suggested Jake Delhomme, Jake Plummer and Brad Johnson. Delhomme ranked 7th, Plummer 5th, and Brad Johnson stunk. I don't know how the mixing and matching of the guys would have gone, but I'd assume it would go pretty well. I don't have their ADPs handy, but none of them were top 10 guys.

In '06, the combo was Warner/Brooks/Rivers. That looked pretty ugly, as Warner and Brooks were huge busts. It seems hard to remember now, but I was pretty shocked that Brooks fell so badly in '06. Warner got hut and didn't play well, but Rivers did rank 6th. I don't consider '06 a success, though, because you probably hurt yourself for a few weeks before settling in on Rivers as a stud.

Last year, the combo hovered in the QB9-QB13 range for most of the season, until injuries did in all three QBs. Consider none of Campbell/Garcia/Smith had high ADPs, I'd consider it a mild success last year. The QBs as a committee certainly outperformed their draft spot, and injuries can happen to anyone, but I think you really want your QBBC to finish a bit higher than that range.

So I think '04 was the best year, '05 was second best, '07 was third best, and '06 was worst. There's a lot of luck involved in how this unfolds, mostly due to injury. But even in '06, I don't think QBBC was ever bad. It just didn't meet expectations.

As long as you can predict the defenses with a bit of accuracy, QBBC is going to be an upgrade over whatever else the average person does because you've got a leg up on them because you know something they don't. But if your QBs get hit by injury, no theory is going to save you no matter what it's called.

Based on this information, I think it proves that this theory is akin to throwing darts at names on the wall. I really do appreciate the effort and it is a nice read but the premise is highly suspect. I don't think that even if this committee approach has mild success you are going to win your league with it and at the end of the day, isn't that the point of FF!

 

[tombonneau]

Very interesting premise and a strategy I've implemented in past years to effect (though not always by design!). My only criticism of the analysis though is that based on the statistical formulas used, every year it will pretty much advocate taking the lowest possible starting RB (e.g. White RB24) and then pairing him up with a lower RB with a complementary schedule.

This makes sense, but I think you just need to frame the context of the article to suit it. It's not so much a R2BBC as a RB24+1 strategy. If that makes sense ...

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Guys, please be careful posting subscriber content in the forums. Its a difficult line to walk be please be aware of it.

Good point, but Shark Pool members like to talk about things as well.We can talk about it without giving away too much, but do keep it in mind folks.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Good article. A few questions....1. Are you assuming week to week to start one of the two RB2BC players, and the starting player will be based on the Defense each player is playing, based on SOS? As you know this can get tricky. By week 5, we should have a new SOS based on weeks 1-4, so do you reset this during the season or stick with last season's SOS?

Thanks Happy.Yes, that is the assumption. Can things change? Yes. Will they? Likely. But the point is that you CAN do a committee approach and get RB2/WR3/TE1 production if you're on top of the situations.

2. Are the results skewed toward the committe approach vs. the single player (who has a bye week, where a committe typically doesn't).

Excellent point. I thought about this little "hole" in the theory (the committees play 17 games, the comparative players play 16) - but I thought it was subtle enough to not bog down the article with it. It does have a small impact, certainly, but I don't think it is overly significant.

Keep it up! Would love to see also if WR2BC would work. Given the depth of #2 and #3 slot receivers in the league, I'd bet that WR2BC would work in PPR leagues well.

Thanks again. WR2BC is an option but I think with so many going to start 3WR or flex that WR2BC doesn't warrant a ton of attention.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Very interesting premise and a strategy I've implemented in past years to effect (though not always by design!). My only criticism of the analysis though is that based on the statistical formulas used, every year it will pretty much advocate taking the lowest possible starting RB (e.g. White RB24) and then pairing him up with a lower RB with a complementary schedule.This makes sense, but I think you just need to frame the context of the article to suit it. It's not so much a R2BBC as a RB24+1 strategy. If that makes sense ...

You may want to check out TEBC if you think it is always about grabbing the next guy and his best compliment.This is the first year I've done this, so it may not always play out this way.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Thanks all who read it and provided feedback. Always welcome.

I hope these help everyone with drafts very, very soon.

 

[Verbal Kint]

Guys, please be careful posting subscriber content in the forums. Its a difficult line to walk be please be aware of it.

Good point, but Shark Pool members like to talk about things as well.We can talk about it without giving away too much, but do keep it in mind folks.

Just a friendly reminder that FBG's is a business, and if people want the specifics in the article, they should pay you guys for it. ETA: I'm now off my soapbox.