RB1 and RB2 from same team? (1 Viewer)

[3nOut]

Looking over the most recent ADPs, I saw that Bush is going around 11 (RB1 in a 12 team league) while deuce is going around 22 (RB2 in a 12 team league) . If you draft Bush, and McAllister falls to you later in the draft, would you take him as your number 2 RB? Aside from having your top 2 RBs sharing the same bye week, are there any other drawbacks to drafting them both? If you say the odds are that they will not both score in the same game, I would think that the odds are about the same if they are on different teams. There is no guarantee that both your RBs, no matter what team they play for, both score the same week.

The positive is that if one gets hurt, you already have the other whos numbers should go up. So, would you do this?

 

[Ghost Rider]

I wouldn't do it, as I would never take a RB who shares time in the first round, but I can sorta understand why others might.

 

[Restricted]

I would think the odds less that 2 RBs from the same team score every week than RBs from two different teams. That would be my reasoning not to take them both. Taking one because the other may go down is called hand cuffing and a 2nd/3rd round handcuff is too pricey.

 

[Warhogs]

I would think a major drawback would be that if NO has a terrible matchup in a given week that your chances of winning that week are not very good. Personally I would prefer to pick another closely ranked RB from another team.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I would think a major drawback would be that if NO has a terrible matchup in a given week that your chances of winning that week are not very good.

Or what if Drew Brees gets hurt, and the Saints offense as a whole tails off? Then you are totally screwed.

 

[spec1alk]

It would really depend on the other options available. In a dynasty, I would consider this because I think that Deuce is going to be traded in the next 2 years and that he can be a RB1 for another team.

 

[Ghost Rider]

It would really depend on the other options available. In a dynasty, I would consider this because I think that Deuce is going to be traded in the next 2 years and that he can be a RB1 for another team.

Yeah, but given the wear-and-tear Deuce has already suffered, not to mention the injuries he has had, how many highly productive years do you think he has left?

 

[BaBastage]

I avoid this for the same reason I avoid QB-WR combos from the same team.

You either get feast or famine. If the team does well, then you kick butt and score a ton of points.

If the team tanks, you're screwed.

Getting screwed usually means a losing that week. But when both of your guys score well, often having extra points beyond the margin needed for win basically do nothing for you. (in a H2H league, of course.)

Therefore, I'd mitigate my risk and look for consistency.

 

[AnonymousBob]

If I felt both were clearly the best players available and filled starting spots on my roster, I wouldn't hesitate to take them both.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

I wouldn't do it and would probably try to avoid drafting a time-sharer this early anyway. also not a fan of handcuffing, though i haven't played in really large leagues where it might be more necessary.

 

[zed2283]

To throw a money in the wrench... if you could get him as a good value pick (like 3rd or 4th round?) in a flex league, that could be a great idea.

 

[Sweet Love]

I would do it in a redraft in a case like Taylor/Peterson or Barber/Jones (where you could get them on the 3rd-5th round swings, but I would not use a 1st and 3rd on a combo from the same backfield...

 

[TheLastDispatch]

I would think a major drawback would be that if NO has a terrible matchup in a given week that your chances of winning that week are not very good. Personally I would prefer to pick another closely ranked RB from another team.

I avoid this for the same reason I avoid QB-WR combos from the same team.You either get feast or famine. If the team does well, then you kick butt and score a ton of points.If the team tanks, you're screwed.Getting screwed usually means a losing that week. But when both of your guys score well, often having extra points beyond the margin needed for win basically do nothing for you. (in a H2H league, of course.)Therefore, I'd mitigate my risk and look for consistency.

 

[spec1alk]

I wouldn't do it and would probably try to avoid drafting a time-sharer this early anyway. also not a fan of handcuffing, though i haven't played in really large leagues where it might be more necessary.

Everyone talks about not drafting a "time-sharer" this early, but honestly we are living in the era of the RBBC in the NFL.Here are teams that have 2 RBs likely to see significant time:

ATL, BUF, CAR, DAL, DET, GBP, MIN, JAX, NOS, MIA, NYG, NYJ, OAK, SFO, TEN, WAS

Thats 16 teams, half of the NFL. There were also about 6 other teams that I was tempted to list (CHI, PHI, HOU, etc).

Lets assume the draft goes exactly to the redraft rankings from FBG:

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/v...amp;howrecent=7

Being that so many teams are running RBBC, would you draft Edge ahead of Bush? McGahee, Brown, Benson, Caddy, Green, J Lewis, Henry? I would take Henry ahead of Bush, but it would be difficult for me to take any of those other guys ahead of Bush.

Last year I tried to make a deal with an owner in a very RB heavy league (12 team, start 2 RB + Flex, no ppr) where I would send him Deuce, and was turned down because "I will not give xxxx for a back that shares time." I am wondering if this should be rolled into a separate topic, but the bottom line is that a back that shares time does not mean his value is lower than a back who doesn't. I would take Bush, MB3 or MJD over several of the backs listed in the previous paragraph.

I dunno, maybe this is the reason more WRs are going in the first round of redraft leagues.

 

[michaeled]

I agree with SPEC. Almost 1/2 of the NFL is going the RBBC route so not choosing one that doesn't share carries is getting hard to do even in just the first round. I think in the long run it's going to help fantasy football by leveling the playing field and taking some of the RB dominance out of the game

 

[Dirk Digler]

I had Duece & Bush as my 1-2 last year in a PPR league.

Got dead last.

 

[-OZ-]

If I felt both were clearly the best players available and filled starting spots on my roster, I wouldn't hesitate to take them both.

This is the right answer.

I would think a major drawback would be that if NO has a terrible matchup in a given week that your chances of winning that week are not very good. Personally I would prefer to pick another closely ranked RB from another team.

I can see this argument, but with Bush being used differently than Deuce, the chances of them facing a matchup that will stop both the run and the screen pass and stop the various other ways Bush is used, is minimal. Not many defenses are equipped to stop both Bush and Deuce.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Here are teams that have 2 RBs likely to see significant time:ATL, BUF, CAR, DAL, DET, GBP, MIN, JAX, NOS, MIA, NYG, NYJ, OAK, SFO, TEN, WASThats 16 teams, half of the NFL. There were also about 6 other teams that I was tempted to list (CHI, PHI, HOU, etc).

CAR, GBP, MIA, NYG, NYJ, OAK, SFO and TEN I wouldn't be so quick to say will be sharing backfields. In Green Bay, Carolina, Tennessee and both New York teams I feel backfields will only be split if they can't find a guy who can handle the load. While those might end up in a RBBC due to incompetence on the part of the starter, I would not say any of those teams appear to be planning for a RBBC. How is Miami or San Francisco going to be having Ronnie Brown and Frank Gore share carries? Who will be sharing the load???Heck, I disagree with your three fringe teams as well.

 

[3nOut]

spec1alk, you're absolutely right and thats why I brought this topic up. If Bush is ranked as projected to be a RB1 wouldn't you want his points? Why pass over him if he gets you the points regardless of whether he is sharing time or not.

Theoretically, if you knew next years final RB ranks and their FF point total, you would take the highest point getter at that position (lets assume we're using VBD) regardless of what team he plays for. You wouldn't pass up on a RB2 because he plays on the same team as your RB1 if you knew he'd get you 20 extra points more than the next best available option.

Lets assume, for example, that I knew the final ranking for RBs in my league last year and drafted Deuce at #8 (where he ended up in my league). Then when it came time to select my RB2, my choices would be Bush (125pts), Jamal Lewis (110), and Chester Taylor (101). Are you saying you would not take Bush?

 

[Spartans Rule]

I avoid this for the same reason I avoid QB-WR combos from the same team.You either get feast or famine. If the team does well, then you kick butt and score a ton of points.If the team tanks, you're screwed.Getting screwed usually means a losing that week. But when both of your guys score well, often having extra points beyond the margin needed for win basically do nothing for you. (in a H2H league, of course.)Therefore, I'd mitigate my risk and look for consistency.

Actually, I think the exact opposite is true for a RB-RB combo.There isn't the synergy like with a QB-WR combo, where the QB has to throw a TD pass for the WR to catch one. Deuce and Bush's numbers won't be in sync much at all. Are they both going to score 3 TDs in the same game? Both rush for 100 yards? When one's production goes up, the other's will go down. Against a team that can't stop the run, you may see lots of Deuce, whereas a strong team up the middle may force the Saints to look outside and dump off to Bush. And if one gets hurt, the other becomes a gold mine.

 

[spec1alk]

Here are teams that have 2 RBs likely to see significant time:ATL, BUF, CAR, DAL, DET, GBP, MIN, JAX, NOS, MIA, NYG, NYJ, OAK, SFO, TEN, WASThats 16 teams, half of the NFL. There were also about 6 other teams that I was tempted to list (CHI, PHI, HOU, etc).

CAR, GBP, MIA, NYG, NYJ, OAK, SFO and TEN I wouldn't be so quick to say will be sharing backfields. In Green Bay, Carolina, Tennessee and both New York teams I feel backfields will only be split if they can't find a guy who can handle the load. While those might end up in a RBBC due to incompetence on the part of the starter, I would not say any of those teams appear to be planning for a RBBC. How is Miami or San Francisco going to be having Ronnie Brown and Frank Gore share carries? Who will be sharing the load???Heck, I disagree with your three fringe teams as well.

I didn't necessarily want to defend all of my RBBC teams, and some of them are listed not so much because I think the #1 guy will not produce that well but because I think the #2 guy may have some good value.Its likely that MIA will be using Booker in some 3rd down situations and he may see some time. Not a true RBBC, but booker could be a productive player to grab for bye week depth.SFO - Michael Robinson is listed as a 3rd down/cop back on the FBG depth chart. Not really sure what his actual involvement will be.CHI - I really think that the carries in CHI will be split 20/10 with Benson getting 20 and wolfe/peterson getting 10 (at least to start the season, will need to see how benson does).PHI - Westbrook is not your traditional running back. He gets about the same amount of rec yds as he does rush yds. Last season was not normal imo. I could see Hunt having pretty good value as a GL back, think of hunt as the brandon jacobs to tiki barber.GBP - as far as Im concerned none of the RBs currently on the GBP roster are good enough to be a back who does not share carries. I think that Morency and Jackson will split carries till one of them distinguishes himself and then the situation will be similar to what I said above for CHI.HOU - there are like 8 RBs on that roster. If they were going to run the wheels off of Green, why would they have so many backs there? Ok, so maybe green will get the bulk, but I could see a 3D/COP back in HOU.CAR - Have you heard something I have not? Afaik, they will continue much the same as last year with Foster and Williams.NYG - They did not bring in Droughns for no reason. See a split similar to CHI.NYJ - I really like T Jones, but L Washington looked good enough last year that Mangini will get him in the lineup one way or another. This is a situation where I see T Jones having very good value on a team where 2 RBs have good value, much like NOS.OAK - so who is the #1 RB? Will they use one RB? L Jordan is a much better pass catching back than a runner. They could decide to shake things up. Its not as if Jordan is solidified as the starting runner. Bush could see time immediately.TEN - again, who is the starting runner? I could absolutely see Brown/White share carries but brown get the yds while white gets the TDs. Like a DAL backfield if you ask me.Frankly, I would like to see your reasoning on who the RB on these teams will be, the RB that will not share carries or be pulled at the GL/short yardage or 3Ds.

 

[kensat30]

The last time I drafted a RB combo "early" was Priest Holmes (1st) and Larry Johnson (5th). That worked out pretty well.

 

[Family Matters]

While having them together isn't a terrible thing the thing I see is that there is no upside to this strategy. In order for it to work you need everything to go perfectly. Further as already pointed out you are hoping nothing else on this goes wrong that will impact the RB.

The bye weeks are the least of my worries in a H2H format. I set up for the playoffs anyway so bye weeks sometimes need to be sacrificed in order to get the best team.

I think you create more diversity if you have your RB1/2 from different teams.

 

[thecardiackid]

Absolutely never...

Except maybe if MJD joined Freddy about 4/5 years ago in his prime, and they were used in the exact same way. Therein lies another problem with this theory - Just because the "duo" performed that way last year, doesn't automatically mean the exact same thing will happen in year x+1. Possibly, but tough to bet your entire season (via 2 picks in the top 3 rounds) to get it done. Too many eggs... for me anyway.

There aren't many teams that RUN a tandem where both guys will (unquestionably) get theirs. Bush/DM are a different animal b/c Reggie is on the field most of the time - either slotted or in the same backfield (at least @ the start of the plays) - more involved in the short passing game. Most other potential tandems or RBBCs generally only have one of the RBs on the field at a time. And the carry distribution usually isn't ideal (70/30 etc) for this type of strategy.

Then you have the Tiki/Jacobs & R Smith/L Hoard, Priest/LJ (kind of) in padre's last year, (almost Maroney/Dillon) types of tandems - where you'd have to draft (later of course) and consistently start the vulture to get the TDs you 'deserved'. This scenario costs less (pick wise), but also carries more risk than I'm personally willing to put into my lineup week after week. Feast or famine - pending matchups and other factors beyond your control. Bye week cover for your real #2, or maybe a flex, sure. IF THE PRICE IS RIGHT on draft day.

The Browns had a pair of RBs (Mack/Byner) in 1985 both go for over 1k each (w/ 20 tds combined) in the same season, but that's happened only 3 times in the HISTORY of the league. If you were playing FF in 1985 (hats off to you) and pulled this tandem out of your #### on draft day - kudos.

Rushing Rush Yds Avg TD

Kevin Mack 222 1104 5.0 7

Earnest Byner 244 1002 4.1 8

It just seems like more potential risk vs. reward IMO. Interesting thread though.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

PHI - Westbrook is not your traditional running back. He gets about the same amount of rec yds as he does rush yds. Last season was not normal imo. I could see Hunt having pretty good value as a GL back, think of hunt as the brandon jacobs to tiki barber.

Philly homer.No way Hunt has as big a role as Jacobs did IMO. Unless you're predicting injury to Westy and Hunt beating out Buck, Hunt's probably looking at about 300/5, and that's being a little generous.

 

[bentley]

If you're drafting the 11th best back as your RB1, I would hope that you would end up with an RB2 in the 15-16 range rather than waiting until you got the 22nd best back.

 

[chris1969]

If you're drafting the 11th best back as your RB1, I would hope that you would end up with an RB2 in the 15-16 range rather than waiting until you got the 22nd best back.

That's the best reply yet.The only way I would have both is if I drafted 3 RB's the first 3 rounds and the 3rd one was Bush. BTW don't forget the bye week along with the bad match-ups.

 

[ExtraPoint]

Actually, I think the exact opposite is true for a RB-RB combo.There isn't the synergy like with a QB-WR combo, where the QB has to throw a TD pass for the WR to catch one. Deuce and Bush's numbers won't be in sync much at all. Are they both going to score 3 TDs in the same game? Both rush for 100 yards? When one's production goes up, the other's will go down. Against a team that can't stop the run, you may see lots of Deuce, whereas a strong team up the middle may force the Saints to look outside and dump off to Bush. And if one gets hurt, the other becomes a gold mine.

No they wont be in sync and because of that they are less attractive to my fantasy team than the QB-WR combo. While you are usually guaranteed some points from the two RBs, you wont have many big games from both the same week. Something that often translates into wins for a fantasy team, especially in the playoffs when you are facing a challenging opponent. I w.ouldnt mind having both, but I wouldnt draft them as my RB1 and RB2

 

[ExtraPoint]

I had Duece & Bush as my 1-2 last year in a PPR league.Got dead last.

A lot of owners had both last year and ended up starting both because of their production vs their other options. In all my leagues, the team did not perform well unless they had another RB who performed well.

 

[my man otis]

I'd echo another post in that this is too high for both.

The fact that those ADPs are what they are signals that there's something wrong.

BOTH can't be right - either one or both of them are going too early, probably the latter.

 

[3nOut]

If you're drafting the 11th best back as your RB1, I would hope that you would end up with an RB2 in the 15-16 range rather than waiting until you got the 22nd best back.

That's the best reply yet.The only way I would have both is if I drafted 3 RB's the first 3 rounds and the 3rd one was Bush. BTW don't forget the bye week along with the bad match-ups.

What if you play in a keeper league and own Bush but don't pick until 12th in the first round?