The Changing Landscape at RB (RBBC Becoming More Pervasive) (1 Viewer)

[Bob_Magaw]

with so many teams employing RBBC like DAL with jones & barber, does this change strategy dramatically going forward...

are the few true feature RBs even that much more valuable...

are RBBC RBs becoming more marginalized relative to other positions, such as QB & WR?

this is a little vague, but was wondering if dynasty owners expect a shift in the future where stud QBs & WRs become increasingly in vogue as there are less & less feature RBs?

* one thing i always liked about stud WRs in dynasty format is they can potentially have longer careers, as it isn't as violent an occupation...

 

[patrickmcgroin]

Great post. I could see more leagues moving to 1 RB postion only, instead of having to start 2.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Off the top of my head, RBBC teams:

Patriots

Jets

Colts

Jaguars

Broncos

Bears

Saints

Giants

Cowboys

I don't really count teams like Houston who don't have any good RB's so they all just take turns sucking. I think these teams specifically employ a RBBC on purpose.

So just funny - 9 teams, 7 of them made the playoffs. Jacksonville and the Broncos are the two teams that didn't, and both came pretty close - Broncos lost out on a tie to Kansas City.

Another interesting note: of the four teams that made it to the Conference finals, all of them were on that list (ie use a RBBC).

And of course, the two teams in the Super Bowl are on that list.

Just FWIW.

 

[DAG]

Hey guys,

I am new to FBG but I've been playing FF for about 7 years and I've been posting on a different service for almost that long. I've been lurking (and learning a lot from the posts) for a while but thought I'd post for the first time on this thread, since this has become a favorite topic for me.

With flex lineups and ppr becoming more popular, I think the RBBC trend adds another positive layer of strategy to drafting. In a dynasty format, I've taken to the idea of grabbing top WRs anyway, since they have longer careers; of course there's a lot of turnover in the top 10, and guys become top prospects out of nowhere, but the real studs seem stable enough to be sound investments. It seems like QBs fall into a similar category, and for similar reasons, especially since both WRs and QBs take a little longer to contribute than RBs in most cases.

As for the RBs, I think a lot of the value past the top 3-4 guys (say, LT, Jackson, LJ, Gore) depends on what part of the committee you're getting. Marion Barber III was extremely valuable last year because he got all of the goal line carries and all of the 3rd down action; in a high performance scoring system, those responsibilities normally translate into steady production. I also think guys like Reggie Bush, who fits into the game plan in a way where you're guaranteed either receiving or rushing numbers every week, take on additional value.

In a dynasty league with flex lineup options, my tendency, especially now, would be to grab one RB in my first two picks, and then wait a little longer than I used to if the value is there at WR or maybe even QB.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

Hey guys,I am new to FBG but I've been playing FF for about 7 years and I've been posting on a different service for almost that long. I've been lurking (and learning a lot from the posts) for a while but thought I'd post for the first time on this thread, since this has become a favorite topic for me. With flex lineups and ppr becoming more popular, I think the RBBC trend adds another positive layer of strategy to drafting. In a dynasty format, I've taken to the idea of grabbing top WRs anyway, since they have longer careers; of course there's a lot of turnover in the top 10, and guys become top prospects out of nowhere, but the real studs seem stable enough to be sound investments. It seems like QBs fall into a similar category, and for similar reasons, especially since both WRs and QBs take a little longer to contribute than RBs in most cases.As for the RBs, I think a lot of the value past the top 3-4 guys (say, LT, Jackson, LJ, Gore) depends on what part of the committee you're getting. Marion Barber III was extremely valuable last year because he got all of the goal line carries and all of the 3rd down action; in a high performance scoring system, those responsibilities normally translate into steady production. I also think guys like Reggie Bush, who fits into the game plan in a way where you're guaranteed either receiving or rushing numbers every week, take on additional value. In a dynasty league with flex lineup options, my tendency, especially now, would be to grab one RB in my first two picks, and then wait a little longer than I used to if the value is there at WR or maybe even QB.

great inaugural post...

 

[David Yudkin]

Long post short because I don't have the time . . .

It depends on scoring systems and personal beliefs. In a 0 PPR league, I think full workload RBs have more value. In PPR leagues, it may depend on what level WR we are talking about.

Overall, I think WR vary too much from year to year with the exception of a very small handful of guys. And I also think that you are more likely to find palatable WRs than uncover a mystery RB.

Off the cuff, I suspect that a top tier RB will have a 5 year span of good to great numbers. While many WR may have a longer tenure of decent numbers, I would think that other than the Top tier of WR that the rest would not really be more valuable in fantasy terms.

For example, in terms of value from the PFR site (remember no PPR) . . .

Warrick Dunn has had a total value score of 243 in 10 seasons = 24.3 per year.

Keyshawn Johnson in 11 years scored 193 = 17.5.

Had I had Dunn for his career over Johnson, I would have been happier. But in a PPR league, Johnson probably fared a lot better.

I thank my lucky stars that in the dynasty leagues I've been in I have had the good fortune to have an uber stud at RB coupled with a full compliment of top WRs (say some combo of SSmith, D-Jax, CJohnson, RMoss, Walker, etc.)

Overall, I would always recommend identifying who the big scorers are in each individual league and scoring system and exploit from there.

 

[Couch Potato]

The NFL is a copycat league, and with the success of the final four teams using RBBC most of the year...

TJones -- Benson

McAllister -- Bush

Addai -- Rhodes

Dillon -- Maroney -- Faulk

... I see more of it from other teams. From a FF standpoint, this makes identifying the 300 carry RBs harder, and puts a greater premium on having them. So, fewer RBs at the top but more valuable vis-a-vis the rest, then a better mix of WRs and RBs than there used to be.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Hey guys,I am new to FBG but I've been playing FF for about 7 years and I've been posting on a different service for almost that long. I've been lurking (and learning a lot from the posts) for a while but thought I'd post for the first time on this thread, since this has become a favorite topic for me. With flex lineups and ppr becoming more popular, I think the RBBC trend adds another positive layer of strategy to drafting. In a dynasty format, I've taken to the idea of grabbing top WRs anyway, since they have longer careers; of course there's a lot of turnover in the top 10, and guys become top prospects out of nowhere, but the real studs seem stable enough to be sound investments. It seems like QBs fall into a similar category, and for similar reasons, especially since both WRs and QBs take a little longer to contribute than RBs in most cases.As for the RBs, I think a lot of the value past the top 3-4 guys (say, LT, Jackson, LJ, Gore) depends on what part of the committee you're getting. Marion Barber III was extremely valuable last year because he got all of the goal line carries and all of the 3rd down action; in a high performance scoring system, those responsibilities normally translate into steady production. I also think guys like Reggie Bush, who fits into the game plan in a way where you're guaranteed either receiving or rushing numbers every week, take on additional value. In a dynasty league with flex lineup options, my tendency, especially now, would be to grab one RB in my first two picks, and then wait a little longer than I used to if the value is there at WR or maybe even QB.

great inaugural post...

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I'll throw my own opinion in here, and add on.

I've thought about the RBBC, and it does appear that there are RBs that are drafted deeper in fantasy leagues that are big contributors.

I'm working on an article for next summer (yes, I know, I need a vacation) that looks at RBBC. I ran the Historical Data Dominator for the past 11 years to look at RB touches, and found interesting trends.

I'll post some of the info here, but you'll have to wait for the good stuff (and hopefully insightful analysis) for a few more months.

The data trend I found was rather remarkable. RBs with 320 or more touches (20 per game) averaged out to be just over 11 per season, with 2005 (16) and 2006 (16) above average. The lowest was 1997 with just 7 backs, but most years were 11-17.

The more interesting numbers came at 160, or 10 touches per game. The answer - 30-39 RBs touch the ball in each and all of the past 11 seasons. Seems like a tight range. 2006 was the peak at 39, but 2001 was at 37.

I think I'll have to dig deeper with the help of Doug Drinen to correlate some of this with touches per game and/or injuries.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'll throw my own opinion in here, and add on.I've thought about the RBBC, and it does appear that there are RBs that are drafted deeper in fantasy leagues that are big contributors. I'm working on an article for next summer (yes, I know, I need a vacation) that looks at RBBC. I ran the Historical Data Dominator for the past 11 years to look at RB touches, and found interesting trends.I'll post some of the info here, but you'll have to wait for the good stuff (and hopefully insightful analysis) for a few more months.The data trend I found was rather remarkable. RBs with 320 or more touches (20 per game) averaged out to be just over 11 per season, with 2005 (16) and 2006 (16) above average. The lowest was 1997 with just 7 backs, but most years were 11-17. The more interesting numbers came at 160, or 10 touches per game. The answer - 30-39 RBs touch the ball in each and all of the past 11 seasons. Seems like a tight range. 2006 was the peak at 39, but 2001 was at 37.I think I'll have to dig deeper with the help of Doug Drinen to correlate some of this with touches per game and/or injuries.

This pretty much is what I have tracked as well, and it does not really appear like there is a major shift in guys getting major carries. I am also looking at the number of backs that hit certain fantasy milestones, as that's where we hang our hats on.I can't format for beans, but here are how many backs sored in each level over the past 10 seasons:300 points: 1,2,2,2,1,3,4,1,4,3250 points: 3,5,4,5,4,9,7,7,5,6200 points: 7,10,9,17,9,17,12,11,10,9150 points: 18,18,19,25,19,24,21,26,22,26100 points: 35,29,31,30,33,37,37,36,34,39The 200 and 2002 seasons were out of whack on the high side for RB production (specifically in the 200 point category) and 2004 was a little light on the elite guys, but overall I don't see anything truly noteworthy.You may be right that HOW guys are used to get these results might be migrating, but I don't see anything that jumps out at me as being highly unusual.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

thanx jeff & david... maybe the more things change, the more they stay the same...