RB-RB-RB in a PPR? (1 Viewer)

[Scruff Mcgruff]

Has anyone else tried this strategy, if so i'm curious about the results?

I have been giving alot of thought to this, and I think its the best way to maximize value because theres so many question marks about RBs this year, and it is easier to find value WRs later on.

 

[Kleck]

My in-depth statistical analysis of the subject

 

[Scruff Mcgruff]

no subscription :(

 

[LordHusker]

Cough up the dough.

 

[cybergourmet]

no but I've tried the RB-RB-RB-RB-RB Strategy in PPR leagues...

Works fine since I enjoy trading.

 

[kolejo]

I'm in a start 3 RB PPR league, and my 2nd year in the league I actually went RB-RB-RB-RB, I had a pretty decent season going 11-6 and lost in the championship game, but it gave me great depth and trade leverage as soon as someone else had an injury, so I'm not opposed to the strategy at all.

 

[Scruff Mcgruff]

I'm in a start 3 RB PPR league, and my 2nd year in the league I actually went RB-RB-RB-RB, I had a pretty decent season going 11-6 and lost in the championship game, but it gave me great depth and trade leverage as soon as someone else had an injury, so I'm not opposed to the strategy at all.

In my main league we don't have start 3 rbs but we do have a flex rb/wr play so its essentially the same thing which makes this strategy more worthwhile.

 

[BassNBrew]

no subscription :(

That's a shame because it was an eye-opening article for me backed by some great statically work. I especially enjoyed the pretty graphs.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Just go with the value, and if it takes you to RBRBRB, fine. I've only done it once and it worked out great. It was two years ago and Tiki was available in the 3rd and I couldn't leave him there. That was his breakout year.

 

[RKMoney]

Has anyone else tried this strategy, if so i'm curious about the results?

I have been giving alot of thought to this, and I think its the best way to maximize value because theres so many question marks about RBs this year, and it is easier to find value WRs later on.

Totally depends on whose available to you in each round. I have never found it to be easy to find value later in the draft concerning WR.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

Has anyone else tried this strategy, if so i'm curious about the results?

I have been giving alot of thought to this, and I think its the best way to maximize value because theres so many question marks about RBs this year, and it is easier to find value WRs later on.

Totally depends on whose available to you in each round. I have never found it to be easy to find value later in the draft concerning WR.

in today's omega draft, i went RB-RB-RB from the 8 spot. it's 1PPR for non-RBs and 0.5PPR for RBs.I took Clinton Portis, Lamont Jordan, and Julius Jones.

I had no real choice @ 1.08 and 2.05 since those were clearly the best available. @ 3.08 I could have taken Jamal Lewis or Hines Ward over Julius Jones. In retrospect, I should have taken Ward (I think).

 

[brakeyawself]

Has anyone else tried this strategy, if so i'm curious about the results?

I have been giving alot of thought to this, and I think its the best way to maximize value because theres so many question marks about RBs this year, and it is easier to find value WRs later on.

Totally depends on whose available to you in each round. I have never found it to be easy to find value later in the draft concerning WR.

I dont know. Most teams start 1 running back, unless theirs a RBBC, but that usually decreases their value. All teams start at least 2 wide receivers. So there are about double the number of starting receivers as there are RB's. Which I think means you can get ADEQUATE WR production in the later rounds if you grab some good number 2 guys. Plus there's always injuries and Runningbacks are usually handcuffed while WRs are usually not. I would take at least 1 number 1 wide reciever for sure. But if you have a productive QB and productive RB's, youll stand a good chance of doing well if 2 out of your 3 receivers (if you start 3) are number 2's on their team. There's probably only like a max 25 percent production drop from most teams number 2 recievers compared to their number 1 counterparts. My preference though is usually RB, RB, WR, RB, QB, WR, TE. Usually. But it all really does depend on how your league draft is going and who you're drafting with. Get the best talent you can. And make some trades if need be.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I went RB/RB/RB in a 12 team PPR league. Ronnie Brown, McGahee and Bush. The problem is that my top 3 WR are not great. Plaxico, Reggie Brown and Branch.

The first 7 rounds went like this: RB/RB/RB/WR/RB/QB/WR

 

[Bristol]

Has anyone else tried this strategy, if so i'm curious about the results?

I have been giving alot of thought to this, and I think its the best way to maximize value because theres so many question marks about RBs this year, and it is easier to find value WRs later on.

Totally depends on whose available to you in each round. I have never found it to be easy to find value later in the draft concerning WR.

WHAT?!?!Are you kidding me? There is TONS of value at WR at the end of the draft. Your problem may be that you odn't know how to play the matchups correctly.

I employ this strategy every year. Every year I make the playoffs and usually get to the Championship game. Don't worry. RB-RB-RB works. You could even take a 4th one and it will still work. Just be prepared to trade as the season goes on for what you need (i.e. Top WR, etc). It always works for me.

 

[RKMoney]

Has anyone else tried this strategy, if so i'm curious about the results?

I have been giving alot of thought to this, and I think its the best way to maximize value because theres so many question marks about RBs this year, and it is easier to find value WRs later on.

Totally depends on whose available to you in each round. I have never found it to be easy to find value later in the draft concerning WR.

I dont know. Most teams start 1 running back, unless theirs a RBBC, but that usually decreases their value. All teams start at least 2 wide receivers. So there are about double the number of starting receivers as there are RB's. Which I think means you can get ADEQUATE WR production in the later rounds if you grab some good number 2 guys. Plus there's always injuries and Runningbacks are usually handcuffed while WRs are usually not. I would take at least 1 number 1 wide reciever for sure. But if you have a productive QB and productive RB's, youll stand a good chance of doing well if 2 out of your 3 receivers (if you start 3) are number 2's on their team. There's probably only like a max 25 percent production drop from most teams number 2 recievers compared to their number 1 counterparts. My preference though is usually RB, RB, WR, RB, QB, WR, TE. Usually. But it all really does depend on how your league draft is going and who you're drafting with. Get the best talent you can. And make some trades if need be.

That's what I said. Most teams have either a RBBC or unproven RB. Solid fantasy WR are not a dime a dozen so you wait then you are really grasphing at straws. That said, I totally stand by me first post here, "Totally depends on whose available to you in each round. I have never found it to be easy to find value later in the draft concerning WR."

I don't have a preference to be honest anymore because I used to paint myself into a box (RB/RB always for example) then had to HOPE a bunch of WR2 or lower end WR1 would pan out which usually ended up not doing just that.

And there are just as many WR injuries as RB, I also don't really buy that anymore. You had Randy Moss for example get injured, TO get injured, Bruce get injured...every WR for DET get injured...that's just right off the top of my head right there.

The point is that it's really a guessing game so why not take the best player available regardless if it's RB or WR.