What's new
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.

Stud Rb Theory Is A Sham. (1 Viewer)

Smoo

Fear the Beaver
Bear with me for a second here, because it's true.Picture a league, doesn't matter how big, where you start 2 RB's. Now imagine that every person in that league was a zealous follower of the stud RB theory. What would happen? You'd have two rounds of everybody drafting two RBs. Then the rest of the draft would start. How silly is that?If stud RB'ers agree that that is silly, then I submit that you are not really a stud RB'er, you're a VBD'er. If you think the above scenario seems sensible, then I envy the people in leagues with you. At it's pure core, stud RB is a self-defeating principle that only truly works against people who draw their draft picks from a hat.That was my only point, really. Please disperse, nothing else to see here.

 
How does your analysis change if the league started 3 RB's instead of two?
Well now that's just silly. No self-respecting league would ever do that.But, hypothetically, it wouldn't. It's still a sham. Sham sham sham.
 
If Stud RB theory = drafting a RB in rounds 1 and 2, then it's a sham.If Stud RB theory = drafting two RBs that finish in the top 5 to 7 (for RBs), then it works.

 
Now imagine that every person in that league was a zealous follower of the stud RB theory. What would happen? You'd have two rounds of everybody drafting two RBs. Then the rest of the draft would start. How silly is that?
Why is that silly? It's kind of the reverse of everybody taking a defense in the last round. This may or may not be silly, but I don't think its silliness is self-evident.
 
If Stud RB theory = drafting two RBs that finish in the top 5 to 7 (for RBs), then it works.
So, then, if all people are trying to draft two RB's from the top 5 or 7, then, by YOUR (2nd) DEFINITION, nobody is going to be using Stud RB. Since all seven of those RBs would likely be gone before the first round ends. I think your first definition is the only one that's logically consistent and therefore will be the one I use, and therefore my conclusion that it's silly holds.
 
Why is that silly? It's kind of the reverse of everybody taking a defense in the last round. This may or may not be silly, but I don't think its silliness is self-evident.
Ah, good sir Tremblay. I'm not sure how wise it is to disagree with you, as I'm sure you'll manage to tear apart whatever defence I try and muster, but I'll give it a shot anyway.Its silliness is self-evident to me for several reasons, but I'll give the most basic. The most basic is that the guy in draft position 1, the last guy drafting in that second round, should immediately realize that his taking of a second RB at this point is unnecessary and wasteful. Assuming that the other teams do not immediately take a third RB, his exact same RB target should be available for him again at the next turn.

Even if some others do take a third RB, he should still realize that the amount he loses by dropping a few RB targets is less than the amount he would gain by starting a new positional run.

This same reasoning can be extrapolated and applied to the other draft positions as well, demonstrating the potential silliness of the theory at those positions, and the limit of this reasoning as wisdom approaches infinity is pure VBD.

I believe that's inherent enough, and also nicely reinforces an offshoot of my original point suggesting that Stud RB is actually just simplified VBD for people that hate math, only nobody wants to admit it. And I still think it's inherently self-defeating.

 
Its silliness is self-evident to me for several reasons, but I'll give the most basic.  The most basic is that the guy in draft position 1, the last guy drafting in that second round, should immediately realize that his taking of a second RB at this point is unnecessary and wasteful.  Assuming that the other teams do not immediately take a third RB, his exact same RB target should be available for him again at the next turn.
I don't know if a perfect draft strategy exists, but I think a sliding-baseline VBD approach is probably close in some respects.Under a sliding-baseline VBD approach, the last guy in round two would not want to select an RB if he thought there wouldn't be any other RBs selected before his next pick (meaning his 4.12 pick, not his 3.01 pick). In that case, the drop-off in RBs from this pick to next would be zero, so he may as well select a kicker instead of another RB. (Which demostrates that a sliding-scale VBD approach, in its usual form, isn't perfect after all. However lame you think it would be to take an RB at the end of round two, surely it's less lame than taking a kicker.)

I agree with you on this point.

I believe that's inherent enough, and also nicely reinforces an offshoot of my original point suggesting that Stud RB is actually just simplified VBD for people that hate math, only nobody wants to admit it.
Yes. It's sort of an approximation of VBD for the first few rounds if the X-Values of the top RBs tend to be higher than the X-Values for the top guys at other positions -- which I believe is the case to a greater extent than a lot of people realize (because a lot of people don't realize that their projections will likely be less accurate for QBs and WRs than for RBs).
And I still think it's inherently self-defeating.
In the case of the last pick in the second round, I agree. But in a more general sense, I don't think I do. In fact, it may even be self-reinforcing.Under a sliding-baseline VBD approach, the fact that everybody else in your league is using the Stud RB theory means that you have to as well, at least in the first round. Since everyone between your first and second picks will be taking a RB, RB is the position that will have the steepest drop-off between those picks. In fact, it's the only position that will have any drop-off at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Under a sliding-baseline VBD approach, the fact that everybody else in your league is using the Stud RB theory means that you have to as well, at least in the first round. Since everyone between your first and second picks will be taking a RB, RB is the position that will have the steepest drop-off between those picks. In fact, it's the only position that will have any drop-off at all.
Okay, you got me on that one. :grumble grumble: :DHowever, I will add the footnote that your example specifies that you are using sliding-baseline VBD, and not Stud RB. So while it may not be as self-defeating as I originally claimed, I still claim it is inherently still a sham.
 
Under a sliding-baseline VBD approach, the fact that everybody else in your league is using the Stud RB theory means that you have to as well, at least in the first round. Since everyone between your first and second picks will be taking a RB, RB is the position that will have the steepest drop-off between those picks. In fact, it's the only position that will have any drop-off at all.
Maurile,I think this justifies drafting a RB with your first round pick, but I agree with Smoo that it does not justify your second round pick. Under your scenario, yes, using dynamic VBD you would draft a RB in the first round since the dropoff would be the steepest between your 1st and 2nd picks. However, your second round pick could easily lean towards one of the "Big 3" WRs depending on who was taken in between your 1st and 2nd round slots and who you are projecting to be taken in between your 2nd and 3rd round slots. This is where I believe Smoo (and definitely myself) has an issue with a static 2 RB in the first 2 rounds drafting theory. If there is significant value on the board (i.e. a top 3 WR or maybe a top QB) a sliding baseline would lead you towards drafting one of these players rather than a 2nd tier RB if the majority of players in your league had drafted RBs in the first round and in the second round before your pick.

Now there will be some that say, I'm a Stud RB guy but draft 2 in the first 3 rounds. Well again, this is doing the VBD math in your head that this is the best value and it is not Stud RB in it's pure form.

I would gather that unless you are drafting in the first couple of slots, drafting RB/RB will not yield the most value for your team.

 
Under a sliding-baseline VBD approach, the fact that everybody else in your league is using the Stud RB theory means that you have to as well, at least in the first round. Since everyone between your first and second picks will be taking a RB, RB is the position that will have the steepest drop-off between those picks. In fact, it's the only position that will have any drop-off at all.
Okay, you got me on that one. :grumble grumble: :DHowever, I will add the footnote that your example specifies that you are using sliding-baseline VBD, and not Stud RB. So while it may not be as self-defeating as I originally claimed, I still claim it is inherently still a sham.
great...i try to jump onto your side and you're backpedaling before i can even get my first post off. :D
 
I think this justifies drafting a RB with your first round pick, but I agree with Smoo that it does not justify your second round pick.
Yes, I agree with Smoo on that as well.
This is where I believe Smoo (and definitely myself) has an issue with a static 2 RB in the first 2 rounds drafting theory.
I don't think any static draft strategy is a good idea. Good drafting is much more of an art than a science, IMO, and remaining flexible enough to shift gears at any time in response to what other people are doing is essential.However, I think one of the more common mistakes in FF is -- or at least used to be -- undervaluing the top RBs and overvaluing the top QBs. So if an FF newbie asks for some advice, and he doesn't want to get into the math of VBD, recommending that he take several RBs early would probably be helpful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
However, I think one of the more common mistakes in FF is -- or at least used to be -- undervaluing the top RBs and overvaluing the top QBs.
i would agree with this...however, there can be some who have now taken it too far to the extreme the other way.sliding baseline is the only way to draft IMO.

 
I think Smoo was getting at this: All Stud Theories are silly and VBD is the best way to go. Your arguments could be used for the Stud WR theory just as well. However I like the stud RB theory and here's what I think of your arguments. If you were to follow VBD for next years Draft, wouldn't most of the top 24 picks be RBs? (I haven't calculated this lately and I'm assuming standard scoring and a league that starts 2RBs.)Of all of the picks in the first two rounds, most of them are RB's. In every Mock Draft, Dynasty Draft or Consensus draft I've seen this year, at least 75% of the players taken in the first 2 rounds are RBs. (18Rbs, 3WRs, 3QBs are right around what I have been seeing.) I don't think all of the people who took 2 Rbs are using a stud RB theory but just trying to take the best player and I think VBD would agree with this. I think the stud RB theory gets silly when it's the third round, you already have 2 RBs, and instead of drafting a top QB or WR or a RB you feel is a 2nd rounder, you grab someone like Trung Canidate, Amos Zeroue, or Kevin Barlow because you have to have 3Rbs. The Stud RB theory could also be silly if Marvin Harrison and Terrel Owens are available but you grab Tiki Barber or Michael Bennett cuz you have to take 2 RBs with your first 2 picks. It usually ends up that the top WR scores as many points as the 9th best RB. So if I see that my top 9 Rbs are gone I might as well take the best WR. This isn't VBD but it's a good exception to the stud RB theory. To me, the Stud RB theory is to try and get 3 "stud RBs." A stud RB to me is someone who will perform worth of a first or second round pick. I'll take one of these in the first, one in the second, and if one's still available in the third, I'll take him too. If one's not there in the 3rd I'll take another position and wait on my next RB when he's more valuable. I really don't think you can call taking 2RBs in the first 2 Rounds a "stud RB theory" because for most draft picks that's just the best position to take.

 
great...i try to jump onto your side and you're backpedaling before i can even get my first post off. :D
B) Sorry, not backpedalling. Just conceding that even if you do not want to use stud RB, being in a league with stud RB devotees should force your 1st-round pick to be an RB also whether you want to or not.It makes me sad that no draft system is perfect. I like crunching numbers and turning mock drafts into optimization problems. Unfortunately, real people have a distracting tendency to be so darned unpredictable. Bah!
 
People don't stop drafting RBs just because they have their 2 starters, they often keep taking them until the good ones are gone. It would be silly to assume that no one would take any RBs between 3.02 and 4.n-1.Another thing to consider is that due to what seems to be a high amount of injury at the RB position (feel free to disprove me on that if you wish), even if you are only a "start 2" league, that third and fourth RB have value as well because they, in all likelihood will start several games for you. Therefore, delaying your RB2 pick also has the potential to push your RB3 and RB4 picks out as well, and when you get out that far, you start seeing the big drop off in value between the reliable starters and non-factor rbs.

 
I'll take this on from a slightly different perspective. I think the Stud RB theory works if everyone else ISN'T using it! From my limited (2 years, 3 leagues) experience, there are all SORTS of draft theories out there, very few of my opponents used that theory (about 5 of the 36 teams).I agree it probably won't work worth a darn if everyone is attempting to draft RBs in rounds one and two, but if that were happening, I'd look for a different strategy fast (hmm, Harrison, Owens and Moss on the same team?). :yes:

 
If Stud RB theory = drafting a RB in rounds 1 and 2, then it's a sham.If Stud RB theory = drafting two RBs that finish in the top 5 to 7 (for RBs), then it works.
I agree with Unlucky on this point...grabbing two RBs for the sake of having them does not guarantee you victory. Getting two of the top 8 really helps your cause. You really need to see where the drop off is on the RBs scoring and the next group. I love using tiering (or bucketing) in my drafts. Usually that first group includes the top RBs and the three top WRs.As for the point about using 3 RBs Smoo, many leagues do play more than just the traditional lineup. With three starting RBs, you know at least 30 RBs are automatically drafted. One of my leagues start two QBs, Three RBs, Four WRs, one TE, Two K, and Two Defenses.Plus, I think the Stud RB theory is mainly a redraft theory anyway...Do you guys think it applies to Dynasty Leagues? I mean you want to get those stud RBs, but many are already on another team. I was fortunate to get my stud RBs all there rookie years.
 
However I like the stud RB theory and here's what I think of your arguments. If you were to follow VBD for next years Draft, wouldn't most of the top 24 picks be RBs? (I haven't calculated this lately and I'm assuming standard scoring and a league that starts 2RBs.)

...

I really don't think you can call taking 2RBs in the first 2 Rounds a "stud RB theory" because for most draft picks that's just the best position to take.
Exactly, sort of. You're saying what I was trying to say, but signals got crossed somewhere.Yes, following VBD will likely cause you to draft a few RBs early... however you're still giving yourself the flexibility. There are people out there who will rigidly take an RB no matter what the situation. To me, that's foolish. I think we're in agreement on this point.

As for the second half of you quote, that depends on the motivation for making those picks. For some, they'd have picked the two RBs because that's where the best value was perceived to be. Verdict: :yes: For others, they made those picks because they believe that drafting 2 RBs right off the bat, no matter what else is going on, is the road to success. Verdict: :yes:

As for the Stud-anything is bad suggestion, sure, I can agree with that. But I think stud WR has a bit of a different theoretical system behind it than Stud RB and isn't quite as blind, and I've never heard of a Stud-anything else theory besides those two. I wanted to target Stud RB, not so much because it's bad (which it is), but because at its heart it's really just a dumbed-down VBD with inherently limited potential. Good for newbies, maybe, but this is the Shark Pool. B) :yes: ;)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I haven't read every single post in this thread, but what I think is underlying your point Smoo is that if everyone in a draft tends to follow stud RB theory, then no one is really getting an edge as everyone is doing the same thing, subject always to the roles luck, injuries and being the better guesser/predictor play. Basically, stud RB theory (or any other theory for that matter) only works if others in the league don't follow it or go with another idea. Then maybe you get an advantage. Otherwise a computer might as well pick the first two rounds for everyone and then let the humans come in.Having said all of the above, you probably won't win your league without two decent (not necessarily stud) RBs. The rest of your team will need to be balanced obviously, which is how I have won and finished runner up in my league the last couple of years.I am probably supporting the VBD model, without saying as much. B)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
. . . even if you are only a "start 2" league, that third and fourth RB have value as well because they, in all likelihood will start several games for you.
Indeed, every good RB has value because they're the easiest guys to get value for in a trade. One reason I like to stockpile RBs during the draft is that I like to have a spare good RB (or two) to trade in the early weeks of the season after it becomes evident which QBs are looking good. Before the season starts, it's usually harder for me to identify who the top QBs will be than it is to identify who the top RBs will be. So I'll spend a bunch of early draft picks on RBs, then trade one for a QB once I've got a better handle on which QBs are looking studly.Somebody always ends up with 2 good QBs on his roster, and that person usually needs a good RB.

 
Having said all of the above, you probably won't win your league without two decent (not necessarily stud) RBs. The rest of your team will need to be balanced obviously, which is how I have won and finished runner up in my league the last couple of years.I am probably supporting the VBD model, without saying as much. B)
I think your second statement (that your team needs to be balanced) is more true than your first. Part of that balance will include serviceable and reliable RBs, but I don't believe they need to be studs. It helps, sure, but it's not the be-all and end-all as some would have you believe.And yes, you are. :yes:
 
and so begins the VBD vs AVT vs Stud RB vs GUT theory debates.Someone go get me a root beer. This is gunna be a long summer I think!

 
and so begins the VBD vs AVT vs Stud RB vs GUT theory debates.Someone go get me a root beer. This is gunna be a long summer I think!
:yes: :yes: I love those debates. (Ulterior motive? What ulterior motive?) :yes:
 
Ahh, some theory talk.... the off season is great. Here's my bit of change:The problem with the stud RB theory is when you (the drafter) take two running backs that don't represent the best value available at the time they were picked. The object of fantasy football is to outscore the team you are playing week to week. The stud running back theorist throws this logic out the door when they take these players regardless of who is left on the board. Stud running back theory doesn't care how many points a fantasy player is going to score; it's much more important to have two good running backs all season even if that theory causes the owner to lose every week.If it wasn't already obvious, I hate the stud running back theory, and I'm a ninja. :yes: BTW, very cool that the ninja emoticon spells out fear. (ph34r)

 
Stud RB theory might make sense if your league scoring was set up in such a way that made RBs particularly valuable. I could imagine setting up a league where it would make sense for the first 24 picks all to be RBs.

 
Stud running back theory doesn't care how many points a fantasy player is going to score; it's much more important to have two good running backs all season even if that theory causes the owner to lose every week.
I guess you could say the same about the "Don't Draft A Defense In The First Round Theory." Those kinds of "theories" aren't supposed to be set in stone. They're just supposed to be good general advice that will hold true in most drafts in most years. They're rough approximations of VBD's likely results; they're not meant to trump VBD.
 
Stud running back theory doesn't care how many points a fantasy player is going to score; it's much more important to have two good running backs all season even if that theory causes the owner to lose every week.
I guess you could say the same about the "Don't Draft A Defense In The First Round Theory." Those kinds of "theories" aren't supposed to be set in stone. They're just supposed to be good general advice that will hold true in most drafts in most years. They're rough approximations of VBD's likely results; they're not meant to trump VBD.
I agree, and I understand that as a guide. My problem with these theories is when drafters do use them to trump VBD
 
Stud RB theory might make sense if your league scoring was set up in such a way that made RBs particularly valuable. I could imagine setting up a league where it would make sense for the first 24 picks all to be RBs.
then this would again be vbd. if the scoring system was so skewed that it favored rbs that heavily, vbd would point towards rbs being the most valuable, and hence would be drafted earlier.a bit of a circular argument but i agree with your point that in any of these discussions, the scoring system ultimately determines a player's worth.
 
On an aside, how does smoo have like 70 posts in less than 2 days? That's crazy.
Dude, I doubt I'm even in the top 25. Check out the free-for-all, it's a MADHOUSE! There are people with over 200.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's assume everyone did draft 2 running backs...well then you better have a VBD to determine which 2 you would draft. All RB's are not equal. Your objective is for your 2 RB's to outperform the other team's 2 RB's. Let's not forget about the reserves. They can play a crucial role on bye weeks and injuries...and there will be injuries.Without a solid RB situation, you will not likely win a championship.

 
Let's assume everyone did draft 2 running backs...well then you better have a VBD to determine which 2 you would draft. All RB's are not equal. Your objective is for your 2 RB's to outperform the other team's 2 RB's. Let's not forget about the reserves. They can play a crucial role on bye weeks and injuries...and there will be injuries.Without a solid RB situation, you will not likely win a championship.
I see what you're getting at, but I'm going to take issue with some points anyway (naturally! B) ).You wouldn't be using VBD to determine which two you're drafting. Since you're focusing only on one position, your projections will handle that. VBD is used to compare players at different positions.Your reserves issue is interesting and one I've been putting thought into, so I'll use this opportunity to sort of tangent off here... many people have debated whether baselines should be set at worst starter, or worst backup, or any number of other places, included the dreaded (and impossible to calculate) "floating" baseline, but I've never heard anybody discuss variably-deep baselines based on prevalency of injuries (or other concerns, like consistency) at specific positions. Does (or would) anybody set their manual baseline at a position like RB deeper than others to account for injury? Not necessarily a higher injury rate, but due to the more devastating impact of an RB injury. Is this one place that Stud RB can accidentally stumble into success (injury-ridden seasons) because VBD does not properly account for it?
 
369 posts in a day! Wow! He certainly has a lot of free time on his hands :ph34r: As far as the Stud RB Theory goes, I used to be a huge backer of the system and used it for many years. However that was before it became so popular and I find in this day and age it is less effective than it once was. If everyone selects a RB in the first two rounds, it really benefits the guys at the top of the draft (slots 1 thru 5) because they are getting the true "Stud" running backs while the rest of the owners are playing catch-up to them.VBD is definitely the way to go but there are still some guidelines I follow...1) – Running backs are tweaked upwards in my rankings to reflect the scarcity of legitimate starting running backs.2) – Quarterbacks are tweaked downwards in my rankings because of the depth at the position. It is much easier to get a solid starting fantasy quarterback in round five of the draft than to try and find a starting running back in that stretch.3) -I leave defenses and kickers out of my rankings and wait towards the end of the draft to select them. Both are very tough to project year to year and I like having QB, RB, WR and TE filled with starters and at least 1 backup before looking at drafting a defense. Kickers I always take in the bottom 20 % of the draft. That is the only place a kicker truly has value.4) – If I do go quarterback in rounds 1 or 2, I will ignore the position altogether until at least round 8. There is no point burning another pick before the 8th round on a quarterback.5) – If I go through the first two rounds and do not pick a running back (i.e. – WR/WR or WR/QB) then it is imperative to get at least 3 RB’s in the next four rounds before all of the potential backs are gone.So to summarize, STUD RB is not the ultimate draft strategy it once was but running backs are still the most important aspect of your fantasy roster simply because there are less of them to go around.

 
Let's assume everyone did draft 2 running backs...well then you better have a VBD to determine which 2 you would draft. All RB's are not equal. Your objective is for your 2 RB's to outperform the other team's 2 RB's. Let's not forget about the reserves. They can play a crucial role on bye weeks and injuries...and there will be injuries.Without a solid RB situation, you will not likely win a championship.
I see what you're getting at, but I'm going to take issue with some points anyway (naturally! B) ).You wouldn't be using VBD to determine which two you're drafting. Since you're focusing only on one position, your projections will handle that. VBD is used to compare players at different positions.Your reserves issue is interesting and one I've been putting thought into, so I'll use this opportunity to sort of tangent off here... many people have debated whether baselines should be set at worst starter, or worst backup, or any number of other places, included the dreaded (and impossible to calculate) "floating" baseline, but I've never heard anybody discuss variably-deep baselines based on prevalency of injuries (or other concerns, like consistency) at specific positions. Does (or would) anybody set their manual baseline at a position like RB deeper than others to account for injury? Not necessarily a higher injury rate, but due to the more devastating impact of an RB injury. Is this one place that Stud RB can accidentally stumble into success (injury-ridden seasons) because VBD does not properly account for it?
I actually do this a little.Because it is tougher to acquire depth at the RB position, I often set my baseline for the position at 30 in a 12-team league as opposed to 24. I also tweak the quarterback baseline down to 10 usually just because I feel it is easier to draft quarterbacks later on in the draft.
 
Chris, is your "tweaking" done manually, based on gut, or automatically by adjusting the depth of the VBD baseline? I'm waffling over several systems to address the same intangibles you're talking about and am not convinced of which method is wisest.Edit - never mind, you just answered that. :D :ph34r:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would gather that unless you are drafting in the first couple of slots, drafting RB/RB will not yield the most value for your team.
i agree with most of what you've said, but not with this. i think stud RB works better when you are closer to the bottom of the first round. this way, you can get 2 mid-low first tier RB's. if you draft from the first couple of slots and take RB's the first 2 rounds, you get a top first tier RB and probably a mid second tier RB. you would get much more value taking a stud WR or maybe QB in the 2nd round if you are drafting from one of the first couple slots.
 
grabbing two RBs for the sake of having them does not guarantee you victory. Getting two of the top 8 really helps your cause. You really need to see where the drop off is on the RBs scoring and the next group. I love using tiering (or bucketing) in my drafts. Usually that first group includes the top RBs and the three top WRs.
I agree with this. I also use tiers but hope that I land 2 actual stud RB's. If I can't then I can't but let me add that most of my success over the years has been with at least to actual stud Rbs since the drop off at that position is greater then any other.
 
I'm a strong believer in the Stud RB theory. I play in a league with 16 teams, and although we only start 2, I make sure that I get 4 starters... 2 teams, at minimum, are out in the cold and have to start a backup each week.

 
I see a problem with not going stud RB...and it's evident in my FBAL dynasty league team.First pick in the draft...went RB (naturally...Ricky Williams)Second round (2:12)...went QB (Dante Culpepper)Third round (3:01)...went WR (Hines Ward)By the time my pick got to me in the fourth round, I was down to RBBC RBs. Best option at the time was Betts (this was before the Trung signing :thumbup: ), and I immediately followed that up with Duckett. (And this is a league with a flex RB/WR position. So chances are good that I'll be starting 4 WRs...unless Candidate, Dunn and/or Edge go down).Point is...you need two RBs early, else you'll be starting the wrong end of a RBBC.

 
Bear with me for a second here, because it's true.Picture a league, doesn't matter how big, where you start 2 RB's. Now imagine that every person in that league was a zealous follower of the stud RB theory. What would happen? You'd have two rounds of everybody drafting two RBs. Then the rest of the draft would start. How silly is that?If stud RB'ers agree that that is silly, then I submit that you are not really a stud RB'er, you're a VBD'er. If you think the above scenario seems sensible, then I envy the people in leagues with you. At it's pure core, stud RB is a self-defeating principle that only truly works against people who draw their draft picks from a hat.That was my only point, really. Please disperse, nothing else to see here.
At it's core. it's telling ya to take a solid contributor you can count on most weeks. Hardly self defeating quite simple too. Hard to mess up in the first two rounds(disregarding injury).What should be discussed more, or debated more(hint), is what to do AFTER the two studs.Pretty vanilla if ya ask meDoesn't matter if you get T.O. and Priest, Ahman and Edge, or Kurt and Marshall....at that point all the teams seem quite evenly matched.I enjoy listening to how folks handle things after the two RBs.Jump on a TE early to secure the best? "forget" about a K til the end? Go 3 WRs in a row? QBs very late... Any FBGtalk member theories floating around out there?
 
At it's core. it's telling ya to take a solid contributor you can count on most weeks.
EVERY theory should do that. If it doesn't, it's not much of a theory. Who takes sporadic contributors who may or may not help you in the first two rounds? (Fred Taylor owners sit down.)
 
I see a problem with not going stud RB...and it's evident in my FBAL dynasty league team.First pick in the draft...went RB (naturally...Ricky Williams)Second round (2:12)...went QB (Dante Culpepper)Third round (3:01)...went WR (Hines Ward)By the time my pick got to me in the fourth round, I was down to RBBC RBs. Best option at the time was Betts
Then go elsewhere Bebop.Get the best TE, K, WRs, Def....ya can't "settle" that early, it is NOT your best option.
 
Was wondering what your position would be if your projections had the top 3 wr's as Harrison, Ward, Horn?Let's say you have the 10 pick (12 teams) and Harrison just went, do you go with your projections and take Ward (whom you have projected above the next RB) or wait until the 3rd round and grab 2 RB's because all current indications lean toward Ward or Horn being available with your 3rd.I left off QB's because I think there are 12 who will do the job this year so will wait till 6th or later to get one. In a start 1QB/2RB/2WR/1TE and a flex RB/WR/TE it would be suicide for a team to draft 2 QB's before getting their starters at RB/WR/TE. Outside of leagues sweked towards the QB position I not clear on why any team would use a top 5 pick on the QB position this year.

 
Why is that silly? It's kind of the reverse of everybody taking a defense in the last round. This may or may not be silly, but I don't think its silliness is self-evident.
Its silliness is self-evident to me for several reasons, but I'll give the most basic. The most basic is that the guy in draft position 1, the last guy drafting in that second round, should immediately realize that his taking of a second RB at this point is unnecessary and wasteful. Assuming that the other teams do not immediately take a third RB, his exact same RB target should be available for him again at the next turn.Even if some others do take a third RB, he should still realize that the amount he loses by dropping a few RB targets is less than the amount he would gain by starting a new positional run.
Well, "in theory" I can understand some of your reasoning, but in the real FF world, trying to predict whats going to happen between your picks in a serpentine draft is impossible due to various theories being used and the noobs going off in strange directions. Also, individual league scoring systems and league and roster sizes are keys in this debate.I'm the kind of "stud RB" owner that most likely disrupts this draft theory, since last year (in a 16 team league) I greedily took 4 rbs in the first 4 rounds: Ahman (underperformed), Deuce (overperformed), Freddy (slightly overperformed considering 3rd round), and Jamal Lewis (overperformed). I was able to win my league with a qbbc and stud rb draft because I was able to overcome Ahman's lack of consistent scoring and I sat on Jamal Lewis till he got going and traded him (along with Galloway) for TO mid season - so I still ended up getting my "stud wr" anyway.

The stud rb theory comes down to simple math IMO. No one can deny that there's a higher premium on solid "starting" rbs that are available in any given season. Injuries and rbbc's can skew the #s a bit, but realistically, there's 32 of em or - a few who get injured or benched for lack of performance (forcing a key backup into action). THEREFORE, rbs are simply worth more, especially the (proven or potential) studly ones. If for no other reason than to keep some decent trade bait on your roster early on, so when the need arises to help your team elsewhere you have some negotiating leverage.

Mid range qbs (since you only start 1 and carry 2) and wrs (typically 3 viable starters on every NFL team) are a dime a dozen, and won't get you much via trade when you need to make a move, so it makes sense (at least to me), to stock up on the rbs early and look for upside or value picks at qb/wr later (which is pretty much always possible if your projections are on). When you try to wait for the #2/3 rb till the 4th round, you're almost guaranteed scraps - not true for the rest of the positions if you do your homework. Also, in most cases, the differential between the mid range qbs and wrs is minimal, especially compared to the rbs where the dropoff can be huge once you get past the #10/15 guys.

And, starting a run on another position in the 3rd? What exactly are we talking about here? TE's, Kickers? D's? Surely some qbs and wrs will be off the board, so you'd most likely be looking at sub top 3 players anyway. What's the value of getting Gonzo last year in this sceanrio when he basically took a dump compared to his #'s in previous seasons?

Your theory is interesting, but not likely, since you can be assured that other owners will take (higher value) rbs, while you're waiting for your turn to come back around. Granted, you still need to make the right choices of studly to mid range rbs to have a shot, but that's why we all play the game.

 
...but I've never heard anybody discuss variably-deep baselines based on prevalency of injuries (or other concerns, like consistency) at specific positions. Does (or would) anybody set their manual baseline at a position like RB deeper than others to account for injury? Not necessarily a higher injury rate, but due to the more devastating impact of an RB injury. Is this one place that Stud RB can accidentally stumble into success (injury-ridden seasons) because VBD does not properly account for it?
Everyone who uses the VBD app's baselines does this, whether knowingly or unknowingly. The RB baseline is always more than last starter, while the WR baseline is always less than last starter. For example, in my league last year, the last starter (because of a flex spot) should have been RB28 and WR31. The actual baselines used were close to RB36 and WR29. They aren't any exact player, they are just a number that has been calculated by his formula. But the numbers have obviously been shifted to increase the value of RBs and to decrease the value of WRs in relation to one another.We can all speculate exactly what reasons Joe used to make his formula do this. But I'd be surprised if frequency of RB injury and the shortage of starting RBs vs the number we start, isn't a big part of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, "in theory" I can understand some of your reasoning, but in the real FF world, trying to predict whats going to happen between your picks in a serpentine draft is impossible due to various theories being used and the noobs going off in strange directions. Also, individual league scoring systems and league and roster sizes are keys in this debate.
Just because your prediction isn't perfect doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. This isn't any different than trying to figure out how each player will do next year. It is impossible to predict exactly how each player will do next year. But I doubt anyone would argue that you don't gain anything by trying and using what you come up with, over someone who doesn't try at all. I think we'd all say you are probably going to be better off going with your best, informed guess, than you are just randomly drawing a player out of a hat.People who predict player performance best will have an obvious advantage over those who do it poorly, and over those who don't do it at all. People who better predict who will be taken before they pick again have a similar advantage over those who don't try
The stud rb theory comes down to simple math IMO. No one can deny that there's a higher premium on solid "starting" rbs that are available in any given season
You're right, it does come down to simple math. That's the thing. Maurile just described the math. The same math that explains why the stud RB theory is generally a good theory. The stud RB theory is a description of a frequent result of the math. But at some point a team is better off taking the top QB or WR instead of taking a RB. If you go through the full steps, you're more likely to find out if you're the team that reached that point.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top