Safer play at Flex - RB or WR? (1 Viewer)

[LittlePhatty]

Let's say you have a choice between a running back and a receiver to insert at the flex position, and the factors for both players seem to be equal in every possible aspect - matchup, player history/stats, projected points, etc.

Who do you think is the "safer" bet to have a good game?

In the past I would always try to carry more RBs on my team and use them at flex whenever possible. But I think my opinion has changed this year and I'm going to try to start loading WRs in at flex unless it's just an obvious matchup call in favor of the RB. The NFL is seeing more committee backfields and even teams with less-than-stellar offenses seem to be airing it out (or trying).

 

[CalBear]

Start the one you think will score more points. There is no measurable difference in reliability between RBs and WRs at a given scoring tier.

 

[reprisal]

both players seem to be equal in every possible aspect - matchup, player history/stats, projected points, etc.

Coin flip by definition.In general tho, at draft I try to plan such that I have 3 startable RBs such that I'll be able to plug one in the flex most of the time. Its pretty hard to have 3 or 4(depending on set up) solid receivers every week.

 

[hook014]

Dont know if you're PPR or not and that can make a difference. I am and targeted Bradshaw as my flex, so far so good.

Subject to change, but it's more about drafting the right players ( Duh, we know) but FWIW the team chasing me has Collie as his flex so there's no magical formula.

I spent much more time on figuring out my mid round picks this year than the first 4. IMO that's where you have to hit. Listening to good sources here predraft helped alot.

I read Waldman and Bloom and value them far above anyone else. But I make the final decision on who I draft and that means my own personal eyeball test. Years ago I decided to win or lose based upon my own personal grade out. And have been happier and more successful than ever before.

Something to think about next August.

 

[hook014]

both players seem to be equal in every possible aspect - matchup, player history/stats, projected points, etc.

Coin flip by definition.In general tho, at draft I try to plan such that I have 3 startable RBs such that I'll be able to plug one in the flex most of the time. Its pretty hard to have 3 or 4(depending on set up) solid receivers every week.

The easiest flex to start is a RB that is getting a lot of passing love. Those guys are gold on draft day.

 

[brindrod]

That's why drafted Gates as my TE.

Dallas Clark as my FLEX.

Created a shortage of Tes in my league.

Now 4-0.

 

[the UFFRM]

Which ever player averages more touches/targets or who you think will for that particular game. If it's a flex you just want the ball IMO.

 

[metal]

That's why drafted Gates as my TE. Dallas Clark as my FLEX. Created a shortage of Tes in my league. Now 4-0.

fascinating. when can I look forward to the informational DVD set?

 

[fsufan]

That's why drafted Gates as my TE.

Dallas Clark as my FLEX.

Created a shortage of Tes in my league.

Now 4-0.

fascinating. when can I look forward to the informational DVD set?

why

 

[yrforyg]

Let's say you have a choice between a running back and a receiver to insert at the flex position, and the factors for both players seem to be equal in every possible aspect - matchup, player history/stats, projected points, etc.

If you're truly projecting the same points for both players, then flip a coin. Otherwise, start the one who is projected to score more points.

 

[the_taint]

Let's say you have a choice between a running back and a receiver to insert at the flex position, and the factors for both players seem to be equal in every possible aspect - matchup, player history/stats, projected points, etc.

If you're truly projecting the same points for both players, then flip a coin. Otherwise, start the one who is projected to score more points.

If you could prove that all factors are exactly equal (never happens), I would probably want the RB because although projections are just projections and anything can happen, at least they would still be in line for possible goal line looks. There can always be a passer interference call that puts the ball at the 1 yd line and that is the easiest TD your guy will get. WR's are a little more reliant on having their number called in the right time in the right situation, and then reliant on the QB delivering successfully. Plenty of times a WR is open for a TD, but missed by the QB. This is unless your RB is in a time share, and is the part of the time share that does not get the goal line looks. Then I may look more at the WR or TE options, unless they are strictly long TD, hot and cold guys (Mike Wallace) or lined up against a stout CB. Bottom line, no situation is going to be exactly equal (especially between two different positions), there are plenty of ways you can utilize a tie breaker to increase your odds of success ... the above ways, coaches tendencies, weather, SOS, scheme, historical evidence or stats, injuries, injuries to teammates, injuries to opposing team, etc, etc. The list could go on forever. Just analyze and go with best chances to succeed. But if you are really looking for an answer to a strictly hypothetical question, give me the running back for the 1 yd plunge possibility, and the fact you know they will get their touches.

 

[dmac37]

I had many tight decisions this past weekend. I looked at the top scoring 30 players for the year in my league (PPR) and RB's were represented a lot more than WR's so I used this as a tie breaker.

Coin flip situation:

RB > WR

 

[MIMN]

Of course it depends on where the projections are but I tend to find RBs more reliable. Red zone targets is a good tie breaker since the one with more red zone activity is more likely to get that bonus TD that you weren't expecting.

In deep leagues (which I don't play in) I could see a WR have more likelihood of a jackpot day. In every one of my leagues RBs tend to score more than WRs and more reliably. Therefore, I tend to value WRs less than RBs.

I just started playing in a PPR league and that may be shaking things up a bit.

 

[richn]

Start the one you think will score more points. There is no measurable difference in reliability between RBs and WRs at a given scoring tier.

PERFECTLY SAID!!!

 

[Glatty]

All things being equal, and barring injury, I still think a RB would be the "safer" play. WRs can disappear any given Sunday. Just look at Hines Ward, J.Maclin, Mike Williams (TB), or either Moss this past weekend. They were projected (in my league) for 10+ pts each, but wound up with under 2. With RBs, on the other hand, you know they're getting at least a certain number of touches per game. Production *should* be more consistent.

*Edit to add: Remember, the OP was about a "safer" play, not the most points. Trying to pick the highest scorer, by definition, requires risk-taking. I haven't run the numbers (maybe I will today), but I would be very surprised if the variance of starting WR ppg wasn't significantly more than starting RB ppg.

 

[Cenobite]

That's why drafted Gates as my TE. Dallas Clark as my FLEX. Created a shortage of Tes in my league. Now 4-0.

fascinating. when can I look forward to the informational DVD set?

No need for that. Drafting Gates and Clark was an excellent plan and other people may be interested in using that strategy. Our league does not allow TE flex to avoid a team from cornering the TE market.

 

[LittlePhatty]

Start the one you think will score more points. There is no measurable difference in reliability between RBs and WRs at a given scoring tier.

With "all things being equal" I meant that I am projecting both players for about the same # of points.It technically should be a coin flip then. I've always felt that a RB is a "safer bet" to meet or exceed expectations.But this year my late-round WRs are outperforming my mid-round RBs. Maybe it's just the players I have, because the poll is 32 to 1 in favor of RBs.

 

[steelwind]

Traditionally RB is better at flex play. But this has been a bad year for RBs. Grant, McCoy, Moreno, Rice, P. Thomas, S. Jackson, Best just to name a few already dealing with injuries. So now you have backup RBs next on the depth chart filling in. What this means is NFL teams are now more willing to go to the air. Think GB, Balt and Denver. The talent pool of WRs is now greater than RBs. I think for 2010 it's okay to use WRs as a flex more than a RB.

 

[Donsmith753]

All things being equal, and barring injury, I still think a RB would be the "safer" play. WRs can disappear any given Sunday. Just look at Hines Ward, J.Maclin, Mike Williams (TB), or either Moss this past weekend. They were projected (in my league) for 10+ pts each, but wound up with under 2. With RBs, on the other hand, you know they're getting at least a certain number of touches per game. Production *should* be more consistent.

*Edit to add: Remember, the OP was about a "safer" play, not the most points. Trying to pick the highest scorer, by definition, requires risk-taking. I haven't run the numbers (maybe I will today), but I would be very surprised if the variance of starting WR ppg wasn't significantly more than starting RB ppg.

To be fair no-one in TB was fantasy relevant this week.

 

[CalBear]

Start the one you think will score more points. There is no measurable difference in reliability between RBs and WRs at a given scoring tier.

With "all things being equal" I meant that I am projecting both players for about the same # of points.It technically should be a coin flip then. I've always felt that a RB is a "safer bet" to meet or exceed expectations.But this year my late-round WRs are outperforming my mid-round RBs. Maybe it's just the players I have, because the poll is 32 to 1 in favor of RBs.

As a general rule, WR production below the top tier is easier to get than RB production, because people over-value RBs in flex leagues. (As this poll indicates).

 

[CalBear]

All things being equal, and barring injury, I still think a RB would be the "safer" play. WRs can disappear any given Sunday. Just look at Hines Ward, J.Maclin, Mike Williams (TB), or either Moss this past weekend. They were projected (in my league) for 10+ pts each, but wound up with under 2. With RBs, on the other hand, you know they're getting at least a certain number of touches per game. Production *should* be more consistent.

*Edit to add: Remember, the OP was about a "safer" play, not the most points. Trying to pick the highest scorer, by definition, requires risk-taking. I haven't run the numbers (maybe I will today), but I would be very surprised if the variance of starting WR ppg wasn't significantly more than starting RB ppg.

At a given scoring tier, the variance looks pretty identical.http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2007/07guest_holub1.php

RBs in general score more, but for an RB and a WR who are about equivalent in scoring, their variance is about the same. And in general, it's easier to find WR production at lower tiers than RB production.

 

[footballnerd]

Whoever is getting more touches. If its a close to a fulltime RB I'd go with him. If its a RB that spells another RB, I'd look at the WR. Also look at DEF matchups the RB is facing. You don't want to be the guy that sat Hillis for Ocho in WK3.

 

[steelwind]

All things being equal, and barring injury, I still think a RB would be the "safer" play. WRs can disappear any given Sunday. Just look at Hines Ward, J.Maclin, Mike Williams (TB), or either Moss this past weekend. They were projected (in my league) for 10+ pts each, but wound up with under 2. With RBs, on the other hand, you know they're getting at least a certain number of touches per game. Production *should* be more consistent.

*Edit to add: Remember, the OP was about a "safer" play, not the most points. Trying to pick the highest scorer, by definition, requires risk-taking. I haven't run the numbers (maybe I will today), but I would be very surprised if the variance of starting WR ppg wasn't significantly more than starting RB ppg.

At a given scoring tier, the variance looks pretty identical.http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2007/07guest_holub1.php

RBs in general score more, but for an RB and a WR who are about equivalent in scoring, their variance is about the same. And in general, it's easier to find WR production at lower tiers than RB production.

Great read. Thanks.

 

[LittlePhatty]

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2007/07guest_holub1.php

Nice read, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I guess what I'm seeing this year is based on my particular RBs sucking it up and my waiver-wire WRs out-producing expectations.

 

[Glatty]

Did my own quick 'n dirty analysis. My setup was to use FBG weekly rankings for weeks 1-4 (so as to eliminate injured players and changing roles). I assumed 2 Starting RBs, 2 Starting WRs, and a Flex RB/WR (because that's how my league has it set up). Since we're only talking about Flex players, I used the 25-40, logic being that the first 24 would already be starting.

On the whole, there was not much difference between RBs and WRs for the entire range. RB had an avg of 7.88 with std.dev of 5.95 ppg, while WRs had an average of 8.93 and a std.dev of 6.76 ppg.

The interesting thing I found, and I realize this could be moot because of the small sample, was that actual points for RBs 27-29, averaged much higher than 25,26,30-40. RBs 27-29 avgd 13.65 ppg with a std.dev 5.9, while RBs 25,26,30-40 avgd only 6.5 ppg with a std.dev of 5.3.

For WRs, the "sweet spot" is 36-38, averaging 12.16 ppg with std.dev of 5.1, while WRs 25-35,39,40 are averaging 8.1 ppg with a std.dev of 6.

So, by my most-likely flawed logic, it's a coin-flip on whether to choose a RB or WR, but if you can, try to choose RB #27,28,29 or WR#36,37,38 based on FBG standard scoring.

 

[Spaces Lines and Laces]

Assuming both are top of the depth chart, I would probably go RB. Unless of course, the WR is just clearly outscoring the RB on a regular basis. If it's close, I'd go RB no question. The receiver has to depend on the QB to get him the ball. (I know, the qb hands it to the rb too). But it's easier to hand it off than it is to get it to a receiver in coverage. The rb is a lock to get touches, and the receiver should, but likely ends up with less.

You're also having to consider the defense they face. Is it a HORRIBLE pass defense? You don't want to throw your flex back out there against the Ravens or Steelers, but don't miss out on the Bills!

 

[LittlePhatty]

That's why drafted Gates as my TE. Dallas Clark as my FLEX. Created a shortage of Tes in my league. Now 4-0.

Ouch. Both injured now. Were you able to find anyone on the waiver wire, or was there a TE "shortage"?

 

[barista]

Without any other variables I consider touches... rb.

 

[Saint]

Without any other variables I consider touches... rb.

Bingo. Give me the guy that is going to get the opportunities.

 

[BigDave]

I HAD Gates as myFlex and didn't have any worries until last week

I think it's a coin toss in this day and age of RBBC

 

[solorca]

My draft strategy is always to draft running backs so that I can start them in the flex. This season, it hasn't exactly worked out because Spiller, Barber, and Cadillac were all busts (it sure looked good to have those three as my RB3-5 on draft day). Maybe it's just me, but I have found that over the years, my winning percentage is MUCH lower when I start 4 WR's than when I start 3 RB (My league starts 2RB, 3WR, and a flex).

This year I have a pretty good receiving group of Austin, Jennings, Ward, Gaffney, Mike Thomas, and Mike Williams, along with some guys that I've traded off along the way to try to help my backs...but I still prefer the 3rd RB when it's a reasonable start.