Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Position scarcity 2013 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gbill2004
- Start date
That's what most people think. Go do a mock at FFC.com and watch 25+ RBs come off the board in the 1st three rounds.
If you play in a league that can only start 2 RBs, I think it's crazy to take a RB like SJax, Forte, MJD, Reggie Bush, or Frank Gore in the 2nd over young studs like Dez Bryant and AJ Green. I also see Darren McFadden, David Wilson, Lamar Miller, and Monte Ball going before Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees. I understand that QBs and WRs are "SO DEEP" but in my experience, you win fantasy leagues by avoiding busts in the early rounds.
I think RBs are top heavy, but guys are getting pushed way up just because they are RBs. I also think there's the illusion of depth at QB and WR. We'll see how deep they really are come October.
If you play in a league that can only start 2 RBs, I think it's crazy to take a RB like SJax, Forte, MJD, Reggie Bush, or Frank Gore in the 2nd over young studs like Dez Bryant and AJ Green. I also see Darren McFadden, David Wilson, Lamar Miller, and Monte Ball going before Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees. I understand that QBs and WRs are "SO DEEP" but in my experience, you win fantasy leagues by avoiding busts in the early rounds.
I think RBs are top heavy, but guys are getting pushed way up just because they are RBs. I also think there's the illusion of depth at QB and WR. We'll see how deep they really are come October.
Of course they are ... in a start 2 required RB league it's critical to hit on your running backs... the more the better. The reason so many are taken is that the replacement RBs available are scoring a pittance compared to the top ~24 guys. Replacement WRs are a dime a dozen. Even in start "only 2" RB leagues I don't hesitate to go RB/RB/RB if I think the third one has upside (or is in) the top 24.
Trading a decent RB mid season is extremely easy. If people only draft until a position is full they are falling behind. Meaning, if you start 2 RB, only draft two, then move on to fill other positions, that's a really bad strategy. I always grab an extra RB at some point before filling out my roster... it's almost necessary. In fact, I can't think of a 2-RB league I have ever drafted where I didn't get 3 RB in the first five rounds.
And by drafting three, your odds of having two in the top 24 is much higher, not to mention bye-weeks and injuries. I will take Forte over guys like Julio all day. This is also extremely dependent on league settings. If scoring is tilted to high scoring WRS (+points for 100 yard games, yadda yadda) and/or the baseline for the WRs is higher, then I might consider taking one of those top WRs. You have to evaluate the risks/rewards in your own leagues but the generally rule is that guys like Forte will end up being more valuable than the top WRs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Warrior
Footballguy
If your league-mates feel the same way you do, you'll likely have a tougher decision to make. How about if your choices are between Forte and AJ Green? I ran into that choice in my draft.
Warrior
Footballguy
Neither. If I could start 3 RB and 2 WR, I'd probably get 4 RB and 1 WR in the first 5 rounds, assuming I pass on elite QBs.
You can fill that last WR slot easily in round 6+
pantherclub
Footballguy
every year this antique line of thinking is debunked and debunked but it never sets in for some folks
fightingillini
Footballguy
I agree that RBs have high trade value, but I disagree that taking other positions after securing 2 RBs is a bad strategy.
You have to consider the opportunity cost of drafting these RBs, which is not taking an elite WR, or Jimmy Graham, or Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees. To me the cost is very high, way too high to take a RB-RB-RB approach.
I have no issues going RB-RB if you can get two top 15 guys. But I generally wouldn't take that strategy. I would rather have an elite WR to anchor my team along with a top 10 RB. You have to get a RB in the 1st round IMO. But after the 1st 10 are gone, the next 5 have potential but aren't sure things like Forte, Jackson, C Johnson, Murray and Ridley. I would rather get a more sure option in 2nd round, and WRs like Green, Marshall, and Bryant are sure things.
That said, if I was playing in a standard non-PPR league with a 2RB-2WR-1 Flex at RB/WR format, then I would take as many decent RBs as I can. But I play in start 3 WR leagues with a flex and PPR. The elite WRs are much more valuable in this format, and I can't pass them up to take a RB with a lot of risk like Murray.
fightingillini
Footballguy
It's only scarce at the top. After you get past Graham and Gronk, and then the next tier of Witten and Gonzalez, the next 15 TEs could easily end up TE1s. So it's scarce if you want to secure a top guy......otherwise it's not and you should just wait as long as you can.
Warrior
Footballguy
In shallow leagues, I agree with you.
In certain deeper leagues, I definitely agree with him.
Good luck competing in a 16 team league with QB, WR, WR, RB, RB, Flex, Flex, TE rosters if you pass on the early RBs and go WR heavy in the early rounds. If you start with WR/WR or QB/WR or WR/TE, you're looking at guys like Ben Tate as your RB2 because 30 RBs have already come off the board by the time you get your 3rd pick. Your Bell/Tate combo probably won't stand a chance against the guy with McCoy/Forte or Charles/Bush. Even if you do have AJ Green/Julio Jones vs his Roddy White/Wes Welker.
pantherclub
Footballguy
History tells us that the 2 guys you think are in the top 15 will not finish the season that high. Last year we did a study on one of the threads and the turnover rate for top 10 backs is 60%. So basically 6 out of the top 10 preseason rating running backs will not finish there. For WR's and QB the number is drastically lower. So in essence you are getting more guaranteed points by taking a wr or qb in the top 2 rounds
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
Your logic is flawed. There's usually a big difference between Year-N final rankings and Year-N+1 draft order.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
Actually, it looks like you were referring to pre-season rankings holding up, not turn-over. In that case, you have a point, but the same sort of thing happens for other positions, as well (at a smaller percentage, I'm sure.)
Everyone would appreciate some sort of proven stat or analysis and not random negativity.
If you read the entire post you would have seen that my caveat is that it depends great on the league, as well as the players available. Obviously if 20 RBs are gone and Dez/Julio is still on the board then I am likely going to take one of those two. You also have to take into consideration VBD. But if the VBD says to take a WR, and it's close to a RB, I'm going to take the 3rd RB no questions asked in order to deepen a vital position.
There are so many replacement level WRs in both PPR and non-PPR that the position is much less necessary to fill early.
RB/RB/WR/WR/WR league:
1) Four RBs projected to be within 10% of the points of the RB24 (4 suitable replacement level RBs)
2) 15 (!) WRs projected to be within 10% of the points of the WR36.
That's a ridiculous number of replaceable WRs.
Way too many people look at the front end (total points scored/VBD) and not at the back end for required replacement levels when building fantasy rosters. Generally I will take a third RB within the replacement zone over any WR2. I would rather have three RBs in the top 24, a WR1, and two WR3s than relying soley on two decent RBs while getting a mediocre boost from a WR3 to a WR2.
Last edited by a moderator:
