RB1 vs RB2 (1 Viewer)

[3quinox]

This will be my second year in a league and I am still learning the ropes. I do however hear these two terms mentioned a lot, along with every other position. For example I have MOJO D and all the sites say he is a RB1. I also picked up Isaac Redman and everywhere I hear it sounds like they see him is a viable RB2. I know it has to do with ranking of course but what else are they talking about? Say you have to start two running backs, I of course start MOJO D, and than as my second I start Redman? Or does it just mean he is good as a back up if my normal starter get's hurt?

 

[Pots]

This will be my second year in a league and I am still learning the ropes. I do however hear these two terms mentioned a lot, along with every other position. For example I have MOJO D and all the sites say he is a RB1. I also picked up Isaac Redman and everywhere I hear it sounds like they see him is a viable RB2. I know it has to do with ranking of course but what else are they talking about? Say you have to start two running backs, I of course start MOJO D, and than as my second I start Redman? Or does it just mean he is good as a back up if my normal starter get's hurt?

I have no idea what a MOJO D is, or if that's even football. But regarding RB1 vs RB2:A RB1 is a RB that you count on to do well every week and possibly blow up for a huge week half the time. He's consistant but also has good upside. You normally expect 80-100 yards and a TD every week from him, with the possible 150 yards and 2-3 TD weeks sprinkled in. He can basically win you some weeks when he goes off. There are usually only about ~10 of these guys in the league.A RB2 is a RB that is steady but unspectacular. You can count on consistent production but is unlikely to have the big games a RB1 would have. 70-90 yards and much fewer TD totals. He might have a big game now and then, but it'll likely be rare and don't count on them. He won't win you a game by himself, but he should be counted on to get you a handful of points and not lose you a game.A RB3 is someone that is a tier lower. He's very inconsistent and unpredictable and you can't count on the consistent points that a RB2 could get you but he has the potential to play like a RB2 any given week. You generally don't know which week though, so it's a gamble starting them and usually they're used only in great matchups or when your other RBs are hurt or on a Bye week.Hope that helps

 

[BuckeyeChaos]

This will be my second year in a league and I am still learning the ropes. I do however hear these two terms mentioned a lot, along with every other position. For example I have MOJO D and all the sites say he is a RB1. I also picked up Isaac Redman and everywhere I hear it sounds like they see him is a viable RB2. I know it has to do with ranking of course but what else are they talking about? Say you have to start two running backs, I of course start MOJO D, and than as my second I start Redman? Or does it just mean he is good as a back up if my normal starter get's hurt?

I have no idea what a MOJO D is, or if that's even football. But regarding RB1 vs RB2:

A RB1 is a RB that you count on to do well every week and possibly blow up for a huge week half the time. He's consistant but also has good upside. You normally expect 80-100 yards and a TD every week from him, with the possible 150 yards and 2-3 TD weeks sprinkled in. He can basically win you some weeks when he goes off. There are usually only about ~10 of these guys in the league.

A RB2 is a RB that is steady but unspectacular. You can count on consistent production but is unlikely to have the big games a RB1 would have. 70-90 yards and much fewer TD totals. He might have a big game now and then, but it'll likely be rare and don't count on them. He won't win you a game by himself, but he should be counted on to get you a handful of points and not lose you a game.

A RB3 is someone that is a tier lower. He's very inconsistent and unpredictable and you can't count on the consistent points that a RB2 could get you but he has the potential to play like a RB2 any given week. You generally don't know which week though, so it's a gamble starting them and usually they're used only in great matchups or when your other RBs are hurt or on a Bye week.

Hope that helps

Seriously?

 

[ldizzle]

This will be my second year in a league and I am still learning the ropes. I do however hear these two terms mentioned a lot, along with every other position. For example I have MOJO D and all the sites say he is a RB1. I also picked up Isaac Redman and everywhere I hear it sounds like they see him is a viable RB2. I know it has to do with ranking of course but what else are they talking about? Say you have to start two running backs, I of course start MOJO D, and than as my second I start Redman? Or does it just mean he is good as a back up if my normal starter get's hurt?

I have no idea what a MOJO D is, or if that's even football. But regarding RB1 vs RB2:

A RB1 is a RB that you count on to do well every week and possibly blow up for a huge week half the time. He's consistant but also has good upside. You normally expect 80-100 yards and a TD every week from him, with the possible 150 yards and 2-3 TD weeks sprinkled in. He can basically win you some weeks when he goes off. There are usually only about ~10 of these guys in the league.

A RB2 is a RB that is steady but unspectacular. You can count on consistent production but is unlikely to have the big games a RB1 would have. 70-90 yards and much fewer TD totals. He might have a big game now and then, but it'll likely be rare and don't count on them. He won't win you a game by himself, but he should be counted on to get you a handful of points and not lose you a game.

A RB3 is someone that is a tier lower. He's very inconsistent and unpredictable and you can't count on the consistent points that a RB2 could get you but he has the potential to play like a RB2 any given week. You generally don't know which week though, so it's a gamble starting them and usually they're used only in great matchups or when your other RBs are hurt or on a Bye week.

Hope that helps

Seriously?

Who calls him MOJO D? i've heard MOJO & MJD. But that post summed it up

 

[Instinctive]

To simplify, another use of the term is a delineation of how many points they score.

In a 12 team league for example, a RB1 is pretty much the RBs who finish 1-12 at year's end. A RB2 is the next 12 RBs.

Now that's not always perfect, but it helps explain what the other guy refers to with "tiers" if you don't already get that part. Sometimes you really have like eight RB1s, then there's a large drop off in scoring so you have like 16 RB2s, even though it is a 12 teamer.

Injuries mess with year end rankings too. I'd rather have a stud RB1 for 9 games than an RB2 who plays all 16 and outscores him on the season, but not on a per game basis.

 

[zilladog]

To simplify, another use of the term is a delineation of how many points they score.In a 12 team league for example, a RB1 is pretty much the RBs who finish 1-12 at year's end. A RB2 is the next 12 RBs.Now that's not always perfect, but it helps explain what the other guy refers to with "tiers" if you don't already get that part. Sometimes you really have like eight RB1s, then there's a large drop off in scoring so you have like 16 RB2s, even though it is a 12 teamer.Injuries mess with year end rankings too. I'd radther have a stud RB1 for 9 games than an RB2 who plays all 16 and outscores him on the season, but not on a per game basis.each team

I think its a big mistake to look at rb1-rb2 etc. in terms of 1-12, 13-24 etc. just because there happen to be 12 teams in your league. First of all, the rb's are never divided up evenly amongst the teams. Its not like each team gets a guy from each tier of 12. Many teams have 2 or more guys from the first 12 and other teams dont have any. Secondly there is often a huge discrepency in scoring between say, the #2 guy and the #11. They arent equivalent caliber players and you cant expect the same results from both. So calling them both rb1's makes no sense and really doesnt help define what kind of player they are for your teamI think Pots had it correct in his post above when he defined them by their quality. I would take it a step further though and say that it's a player's ppg (points per game) average that tells you if he's an rb1 or rb2 and so on, rather than his total points on the season. Simply beacuse some guys miss alot of games and cant be relied on as a true rb1, even if he performs really well when he does happen to play.

 

[DropKick]

To simplify, another use of the term is a delineation of how many points they score.In a 12 team league for example, a RB1 is pretty much the RBs who finish 1-12 at year's end. A RB2 is the next 12 RBs.Now that's not always perfect, but it helps explain what the other guy refers to with "tiers" if you don't already get that part. Sometimes you really have like eight RB1s, then there's a large drop off in scoring so you have like 16 RB2s, even though it is a 12 teamer.Injuries mess with year end rankings too. I'd radther have a stud RB1 for 9 games than an RB2 who plays all 16 and outscores him on the season, but not on a per game basis.each team

I think its a big mistake to look at rb1-rb2 etc. in terms of 1-12, 13-24 etc. just because there happen to be 12 teams in your league. First of all, the rb's are never divided up evenly amongst the teams. Its not like each team gets a guy from each tier of 12. Many teams have 2 or more guys from the first 12 and other teams dont have any. Secondly there is often a huge discrepency in scoring between say, the #2 guy and the #11. They arent equivalent caliber players and you cant expect the same results from both. So calling them both rb1's makes no sense and really doesnt help define what kind of player they are for your teamI think Pots had it correct in his post above when he defined them by their quality. I would take it a step further though and say that it's a player's ppg (points per game) average that tells you if he's an rb1 or rb2 and so on, rather than his total points on the season. Simply beacuse some guys miss alot of games and cant be relied on as a true rb1, even if he performs really well when he does happen to play.

I think of an RB1 as one of the top 12 (or so) RBs and the performance that comes with that... Basically, each team has their "top" back. Of course, there are differences within that group and they're not necessarily distributed evenly. Who cares? I think the term is simply a reference to tiers.

 

[lbouchard]

IMO, here are the current RB1s( in my order)

LeSean McCoy

Arian Foster

Ray Rice

Ryan Mathews

Maurice Jones-Drew

Chris Johnson

Trent Richardson

Steven Jackson (not valued nearly as highly and is old, but should have career year under Fisher)

There are 8 of them.

The next tier, RB2, is much bigger. I wouldn't feel comfortable with them as my lead back, but they make good to great second backs. They are (in no particular order):

Darren McFadden

Jamaal Charles

DeMarco Murray

Matt Forte

Marshawn Lynch

Adrian Peterson

Doug Martin

Ahmad Bradshaw

Darren Sproles (in a PPR)

Fred Jackson(one more year)

Michael Turner(one more year)

Frank Gore (one more year)

This tier goes 12 deep.

So I think there are 8 RB1s and 12 RB2s, which comes to a total of 20. This is why I don't like being forced to start 2 RBs in a 12 team league. There aren't really 24 RBs worth starting, and that's before the inevitable injuries. 1 RB league FTW

 

[Instinctive]

To simplify, another use of the term is a delineation of how many points they score.

In a 12 team league for example, a RB1 is pretty much the RBs who finish 1-12 at year's end. A RB2 is the next 12 RBs.

Now that's not always perfect, but it helps explain what the other guy refers to with "tiers" if you don't already get that part. Sometimes you really have like eight RB1s, then there's a large drop off in scoring so you have like 16 RB2s, even though it is a 12 teamer.

Injuries mess with year end rankings too. I'd radther have a stud RB1 for 9 games than an RB2 who plays all 16 and outscores him on the season, but not on a per game basis.

I think its a big mistake to look at rb1-rb2 etc. in terms of 1-12, 13-24 etc. just because there happen to be 12 teams in your league. First of all, the rb's are never divided up evenly amongst the teams. Its not like each team gets a guy from each tier of 12. Many teams have 2 or more guys from the first 12 and other teams dont have any. Secondly there is often a huge discrepency in scoring between say, the #2 guy and the #11. They arent equivalent caliber players and you cant expect the same results from both. So calling them both rb1's makes no sense and really doesnt help define what kind of player they are for your team

I think Pots had it correct in his post above when he defined them by their quality. I would take it a step further though and say that it's a player's ppg (points per game) average that tells you if he's an rb1 or rb2 and so on, rather than his total points on the season. Simply beacuse some guys miss alot of games and cant be relied on as a true rb1, even if he performs really well when he does happen to play.

Try to read a little bit better, because I think I covered both things you find "wrong" within my post...

As to the underlined portion: If I drafted a perfect team, I'd have a QB1, two RB1s, two WR1s, a TE1, and another RB/WR1 for my flex. If that makes any sense. It doesn't matter if Arian Foster is my 2nd RB behind Ray Rice...they're both RB1s.

Edit: If you can see what I did, the bold correlates to bold, and the italics to italics.

Also - to explain this post a bit better: In my ideal roster, I am starting a RB1 in my RB1 spot and a RB1 in my RB2 spot. The terms are just like words, they have different meaning depending on context.

 

[DropKick]

IMO, here are the current RB1s( in my order)LeSean McCoyArian FosterRay RiceRyan MathewsMaurice Jones-DrewChris JohnsonTrent RichardsonSteven Jackson (not valued nearly as highly and is old, but should have career year under Fisher)There are 8 of them.The next tier, RB2, is much bigger. I wouldn't feel comfortable with them as my lead back, but they make good to great second backs. They are (in no particular order)arren McFaddenJamaal CharlesDeMarco MurrayMatt ForteMarshawn LynchAdrian PetersonDoug MartinAhmad BradshawDarren Sproles (in a PPR)Fred Jackson(one more year)Michael Turner(one more year)Frank Gore (one more year)This tier goes 12 deep. So I think there are 8 RB1s and 12 RB2s, which comes to a total of 20. This is why I don't like being forced to start 2 RBs in a 12 team league. There aren't really 24 RBs worth starting, and that's before the inevitable injuries. 1 RB league FTW

With 32 teams, I think we could muster 24 legitimate RBs...

 

[zilladog]

To simplify, another use of the term is a delineation of how many points they score.

In a 12 team league for example, a RB1 is pretty much the RBs who finish 1-12 at year's end. A RB2 is the next 12 RBs.

Now that's not always perfect, but it helps explain what the other guy refers to with "tiers" if you don't already get that part. Sometimes you really have like eight RB1s, then there's a large drop off in scoring so you have like 16 RB2s, even though it is a 12 teamer.

Injuries mess with year end rankings too. I'd radther have a stud RB1 for 9 games than an RB2 who plays all 16 and outscores him on the season, but not on a per game basis.

I think its a big mistake to look at rb1-rb2 etc. in terms of 1-12, 13-24 etc. just because there happen to be 12 teams in your league. First of all, the rb's are never divided up evenly amongst the teams. Its not like each team gets a guy from each tier of 12. Many teams have 2 or more guys from the first 12 and other teams dont have any. Secondly there is often a huge discrepency in scoring between say, the #2 guy and the #11. They arent equivalent caliber players and you cant expect the same results from both. So calling them both rb1's makes no sense and really doesnt help define what kind of player they are for your team

I think Pots had it correct in his post above when he defined them by their quality. I would take it a step further though and say that it's a player's ppg (points per game) average that tells you if he's an rb1 or rb2 and so on, rather than his total points on the season. Simply beacuse some guys miss alot of games and cant be relied on as a true rb1, even if he performs really well when he does happen to play.

Try to read a little bit better, because I think I covered both things you find "wrong" within my post...

As to the underlined portion: If I drafted a perfect team, I'd have a QB1, two RB1s, two WR1s, a TE1, and another RB/WR1 for my flex. If that makes any sense. It doesn't matter if Arian Foster is my 2nd RB behind Ray Rice...they're both RB1s.

Edit: If you can see what I did, the bold correlates to bold, and the italics to italics.

Also - to explain this post a bit better: In my ideal roster, I am starting a RB1 in my RB1 spot and a RB1 in my RB2 spot. The terms are just like words, they have different meaning depending on context.

To be fair, I wasnt attacking you or your post, I was more or less just eloborating on your one sentence about viewing rb1's as being 1-12, etc. Sorry for the missunderstanding.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

To simplify, another use of the term is a delineation of how many points they score.In a 12 team league for example, a RB1 is pretty much the RBs who finish 1-12 at year's end. A RB2 is the next 12 RBs.Now that's not always perfect, but it helps explain what the other guy refers to with "tiers" if you don't already get that part. Sometimes you really have like eight RB1s, then there's a large drop off in scoring so you have like 16 RB2s, even though it is a 12 teamer.Injuries mess with year end rankings too. I'd rather have a stud RB1 for 9 games than an RB2 who plays all 16 and outscores him on the season, but not on a per game basis.

this is pretty much how I define it. When I describe someone I usually give a range. Like if I were to think a running back is going to be ranked between 9-16 I would say I expect him to be a 'low end RB1 high end RB2'. if I think a wide receiver is going to be from 32-39 I would say hes a low end wr2 high end wr3 . at least thats how I use the term

 

[3quinox]

To simplify, another use of the term is a delineation of how many points they score.In a 12 team league for example, a RB1 is pretty much the RBs who finish 1-12 at year's end. A RB2 is the next 12 RBs.Now that's not always perfect, but it helps explain what the other guy refers to with "tiers" if you don't already get that part. Sometimes you really have like eight RB1s, then there's a large drop off in scoring so you have like 16 RB2s, even though it is a 12 teamer.Injuries mess with year end rankings too. I'd rather have a stud RB1 for 9 games than an RB2 who plays all 16 and outscores him on the season, but not on a per game basis.

this is pretty much how I define it. When I describe someone I usually give a range. Like if I were to think a running back is going to be ranked between 9-16 I would say I expect him to be a 'low end RB1 high end RB2'. if I think a wide receiver is going to be from 32-39 I would say hes a low end wr2 high end wr3 . at least thats how I use the term

That makes sense. So how do you try to incorporate say a High end WR3 or RB3? Is a WR3 just for depth and a last resort option if injuries occur?

 

[sspunisher]

Honestly I've been playing fantasy for over 15 years and never use those terms. I could be wrong, but future potential isn't really considered when these terms are used. Many "inconsistent RBs" are thrown in the RB3 tier for example because there is a cluttered backfield or they're not starting yet. But when they get the starting job, they catapult to RB1 or RB2 status?

I just stay away from the terms to avoid confusion. When I tier my RBs, I usually tier them based on where I expect my league-mates will draft them, not so much how I expect them to produce. "Tier 2" isn't necessarily better than "Tier 3" the way I set my draft board up. I just expect a majority of the Tier 2 to get drafted before the Tier 3.

 

[zilladog]

Honestly I've been playing fantasy for over 15 years and never use those terms. I could be wrong, but future potential isn't really considered when these terms are used. Many "inconsistent RBs" are thrown in the RB3 tier for example because there is a cluttered backfield or they're not starting yet. But when they get the starting job, they catapult to RB1 or RB2 status? I just stay away from the terms to avoid confusion. When I tier my RBs, I usually tier them based on where I expect my league-mates will draft them, not so much how I expect them to produce. "Tier 2" isn't necessarily better than "Tier 3" the way I set my draft board up. I just expect a majority of the Tier 2 to get drafted before the Tier 3.

So you don't project anyone? How do you decide who you like better? I dont mean projecting exact stats but just a simple ranking list? Aren't those lists based on how you expect them to perform in the future?