Who is more valuable in a PPR Dynasty (1 Viewer)

[Max Power]

Reading over some of the Dynasty threads, I have seen a few posters say they favor the young WRs over the young RBs. Main reason being that top of the line RBs typically don't last as long as top notch WRs. Running backs make people nervous around the 29-30 mark, while a good percentage of WR's can remain productive into the mid-30's.

Coming from a long line of Redraft background, I've always bought into the "you need stud RB's to win" theory. Semi new to dynasty, but now the turnover from year to year at RB seems more obvious.

Lets take for example younger elite players at each position. Say a guy like Jones-Drew for Fitz, Marion Barber for Andre Johnson or Marshawn Lynch for Greg Jennings swap. I'm not looking for a value gauge on each player, just curious if tactically this is a good or bad Idea. I'd love to get opinions.

Anyone have anything to add that I'm missing here?

 

[-OZ-]

IMO, a large portion of the value of each position depends on the lineup requirements, not just the scoring system.

I play in one league where you don't actually have to start any RBs, but can start 2. In this format it's quite possible to do well without any stud RBs if you have a good QB and good WRs. In other leagues, you have to start 2 and can start up to 4, this increases the value of RBs above WRs.

Of course, you also have the longevity aspect, if your goal is to establish a long term dynasty, I think it's best to get the stud WR and acquire RBs later. Not only will the WRs generally last longer, RBs can be found on the wire and produce better as rookies in general. The top RB this year wasn't considered a top 20 by many heading into the year, and we had Pierre Thomas, Leon Washington, KFaulk, Rhodes, Ward, McClain, and Dunn who were either WW fodder or could be had cheap yet were startable. Bryant, Walter, Moore, and Breaston were WRs who stepped up, so this might just be perception, but it sure seems like you can get productive RBs easier in any given year and there's greater turnover.

 

[Tornacl]

IMO, since most teams seem to share the workload to some degree with their running backs, the 3-down backs are pretty hard to find, making them very valuable. So those very few stud RBs are still worth a lot, but they aren't expected to last nearly as long and seem to be far more likely to have a major injury.

When you have a 25 year old stud WR (i.e. Fitz, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson), you know that they will be elite for the next 10 years, and those guys are virtually untouchable.

For example, Chris Johnson, Forte and Steve Slaton were the three most productive RBs to come out this year. Normally, in dynasty that would make them gold. I bet if you offered them of them for Fitz, Megatron, or AJohnson, you'd possibly get laughed at.

When I did my PPR dynasty start-up draft four years ago, the guys taken in the first round were: LT, SAlexander, W.McGahee, PManning, DMcAllister, EJames, JLewis, Kevin Jones, RMoss, and Julius Jones. 8 RBs, 1 QB, and 1 WR. The second round was very similar with guys like Tiki Barber, Priest Holmes, Rudi Johnson, and Dominick Davis. They were all supposedly good picks at the time. Guys like Fitz, Boldin, Andre Johnson, Owens, Harrison, Steve Smith, and Reggie Wayne were all taken in the third round or later (most after the 4th). Those guys were all considered elite receivers at the time, but they sat there while everyone tried to get any RB with potential. In the first two rounds, out of 20 players taken, there are at least 11 RBs that are either out of the league or producing far less than what was expected.

I haven't done another startup dynasty since, but if I were to do one now, depending on my draft order, I'd consider taking the young stud WRs in the first two or three rounds. Or at least take two of them in the first three rounds. It is easier to draft a rookie RB that contributes than it is to get a young WR.

 

[renesauz]

As somebody already said, it depends heavily on starting lineup requirements.

But somebody else was well off base. If the league has deep rosters, you will NEVER find a RB on the waiver wire you can start (barring catastrophe to some NFL team...and then you need to be high on the waiver priority list!), but you can almost always find a WR or 2 worthy of a spot start.

Carrying 2 or 3 stud WR's will ensure you remain competitive for a long time...but chances are you'll still need one or two stud RB's to win a title. The very best RB's remain slightly more valuable then the top WR's because their production is a bit more consistant week to week, and the position is harder to fill with a good player (in MOST leagues).

It's easier to find a good RB in the rookie draft though.........so in intitial startups, there's something to be said for loading up on top WR's and taking some shots at RB. If you miss, you'll still have a great WR corps and shouldn't have too hard a time finding decent RB's within a year or two, either via the draft or by trade (or even both!)

 

[CaGamblers]

As somebody already said, it depends heavily on starting lineup requirements.

But somebody else was well off base. If the league has deep rosters, you will NEVER find a RB on the waiver wire you can start (barring catastrophe to some NFL team...and then you need to be high on the waiver priority list!), but you can almost always find a WR or 2 worthy of a spot start.

Carrying 2 or 3 stud WR's will ensure you remain competitive for a long time...but chances are you'll still need one or two stud RB's to win a title. The very best RB's remain slightly more valuable then the top WR's because their production is a bit more consistant week to week, and the position is harder to fill with a good player (in MOST leagues).

It's easier to find a good RB in the rookie draft though.........so in intitial startups, there's something to be said for loading up on top WR's and taking some shots at RB. If you miss, you'll still have a great WR corps and shouldn't have too hard a time finding decent RB's within a year or two, either via the draft or by trade (or even both!)

I agree with you - I have built my dynasty PPR team around stud WRs (see current roster below - I recently cut my defenses and kickers because I will draft them in the May 09' FA/Rookie draft)Because of my depth at WR would you trade GJennings and Pierre Thomas for MJD - I also have the 1.1 pick in the draft which I can draft Crabtree, Moreno or Wells.

Player YTD Pts Bye Drafted

Cutler, Jay DEN QB 341 8 FA

Favre, Brett NYJ QB (Q) 251 5 FA

Schaub, Matt HOU QB 208 2 FA

Arrington, J.J. ARI RB 68 7 FA

Booker, Lorenzo PHI RB 9 7 FA

Grant, Ryan GBP RB 153 8 FA

Hightower, Tim ARI RB ® 138 7 4.05

Jackson, Brandon GBP RB (Q) 67 8 FA

Jones, Julius SEA RB 91 4 FA

Mendenhall, Rashard PIT RB ® (I) 7 6 1.02

Morris, Maurice SEA RB 79 4 FA

Thomas, Pierre NOS RB (Q) 171 9 FA

Tomlinson, Ladainian SDC RB (Q) 222 9 FA

Bryant, Antonio TBB WR 194 10 FA

Jennings, Greg GBP WR 204 8 FA

Johnson, Calvin DET WR 207 4 FA

Marshall, Brandon DEN WR 208 8 FA

Morgan, Josh SFO WR ® 48 9 FA

Moss, Santana WAS WR 174 10 FA

Davis, Vernon SFO TE 68 9 FA

Scheffler, Tony DEN TE 101 8 FA

21 Total Players

 

[Tornacl]

As somebody already said, it depends heavily on starting lineup requirements.

But somebody else was well off base. If the league has deep rosters, you will NEVER find a RB on the waiver wire you can start (barring catastrophe to some NFL team...and then you need to be high on the waiver priority list!), but you can almost always find a WR or 2 worthy of a spot start.

Carrying 2 or 3 stud WR's will ensure you remain competitive for a long time...but chances are you'll still need one or two stud RB's to win a title. The very best RB's remain slightly more valuable then the top WR's because their production is a bit more consistant week to week, and the position is harder to fill with a good player (in MOST leagues).

It's easier to find a good RB in the rookie draft though.........so in intitial startups, there's something to be said for loading up on top WR's and taking some shots at RB. If you miss, you'll still have a great WR corps and shouldn't have too hard a time finding decent RB's within a year or two, either via the draft or by trade (or even both!)

I don't think anybody said that you'd be able to find a suitable RB on the waiver wire. RBs are easier to find with rookie draft picks, and older RBs are often traded during the year, because their owners are afraid of the dropoff with age. Its pretty easy to get a guy like Thomas Jones or Jamal Lewis during the year.The fact is, it doesn't matter where you get your points from, but WRs and QBs tend to be reliable for a lot longer. If I were doing another PPR dynasty draft, I'd focus on them, as it gives a longer window of being competitive.

 

[renesauz]

As somebody already said, it depends heavily on starting lineup requirements.

But somebody else was well off base. If the league has deep rosters, you will NEVER find a RB on the waiver wire you can start (barring catastrophe to some NFL team...and then you need to be high on the waiver priority list!), but you can almost always find a WR or 2 worthy of a spot start.

Carrying 2 or 3 stud WR's will ensure you remain competitive for a long time...but chances are you'll still need one or two stud RB's to win a title. The very best RB's remain slightly more valuable then the top WR's because their production is a bit more consistant week to week, and the position is harder to fill with a good player (in MOST leagues).

It's easier to find a good RB in the rookie draft though.........so in intitial startups, there's something to be said for loading up on top WR's and taking some shots at RB. If you miss, you'll still have a great WR corps and shouldn't have too hard a time finding decent RB's within a year or two, either via the draft or by trade (or even both!)

I agree with you - I have built my dynasty PPR team around stud WRs (see current roster below - I recently cut my defenses and kickers because I will draft them in the May 09' FA/Rookie draft)Because of my depth at WR would you trade GJennings and Pierre Thomas for MJD - I also have the 1.1 pick in the draft which I can draft Crabtree, Moreno or Wells.

Player YTD Pts Bye Drafted

Cutler, Jay DEN QB 341 8 FA

Favre, Brett NYJ QB (Q) 251 5 FA

Schaub, Matt HOU QB 208 2 FA

Arrington, J.J. ARI RB 68 7 FA

Booker, Lorenzo PHI RB 9 7 FA

Grant, Ryan GBP RB 153 8 FA

Hightower, Tim ARI RB ® 138 7 4.05

Jackson, Brandon GBP RB (Q) 67 8 FA

Jones, Julius SEA RB 91 4 FA

Mendenhall, Rashard PIT RB ® (I) 7 6 1.02

Morris, Maurice SEA RB 79 4 FA

Thomas, Pierre NOS RB (Q) 171 9 FA

Tomlinson, Ladainian SDC RB (Q) 222 9 FA

Bryant, Antonio TBB WR 194 10 FA

Jennings, Greg GBP WR 204 8 FA

Johnson, Calvin DET WR 207 4 FA

Marshall, Brandon DEN WR 208 8 FA

Morgan, Josh SFO WR ® 48 9 FA

Moss, Santana WAS WR 174 10 FA

Davis, Vernon SFO TE 68 9 FA

Scheffler, Tony DEN TE 101 8 FA

21 Total Players

Quickly if the other guy would take it. Top 5 Rb's are still a bi#$@% to aquire, and you have to grab them when you can. It's difficult to build WR's via the rookie draft though, because you usually have to wait 3 years before you know whether you hit gold or not. With top RB's, you will often know in year 1, and rarely need to wait past year 3.Then, I would look to trade some of the RB depth and see if you can aquire a reliable reciever. There's plenty of Grant believers out there who might give you a Curtis or Berrian type you can rely on.

 

[EBF]

If you're looking for long term results then stability should be an important consideration. RBs aren't stable investments. They get hurt more often than WRs and they have less longevity potential. You might get lucky and find the rare Portis/LT type who can handle 300+ carries every season like clockwork, but you're just as likely to end up with Larry Johnson, Kevin Jones, Laurence Maroney, or Shaun Alexander.

People will say that RBs have more value since they're harder to get, but I don't know if I agree with this. I actually think good RBs are pretty easy to acquire if you look in the right places. RB is the only major FF positions where rookies routinely make top 10-20 type contributions. Moreover, there are always some underhyped veteran RBs who step into starting roles and produce immediately. DeAngelo Williams, Thomas Jones, Derrick Ward, and Pierre Thomas did it this season. In previous seasons we've seen players like Reuben Droughns, Earnest Graham, Ladell Betts, Justin Fargas, and Rudi Johnson emerge from obscurity and produce. This notion that you need to pay through the nose to get a productive RB simply isn't accurate.

Certain league formats force you to hoard RBs, but in general I'd rather build around QB/WR and have a revolving door at RB.

 

[Rodeojones]

Good stuff here...

 

[jonboltz]

I'd much rather have Pierre/Jennings in a PPR league, unless its a 2rb 2wr league or something.

 

[Max Power]

Some good posting in here. While it seems there is no black and white answer, the constant seems to be where each owner thinks they can find more production from the WW or Draft.

My league has is a 2RB/2WR & flex which does add more value to the RB spot. 12 team 22 roster spots, so it pretty hard to find any RB talent on the WW during the season. Off the top of my head... Benson, Hillis, Jerome Harrison, Green-Ellis were guys that were added during the season who held value at one point or another.

While on the other hand guys like... Lance Moore, Bess, Bradley, Gage, Koren Robinson, Issac Bruce, Camarillo (sp?) and Muhammed were all WR adds during the season who represent more value than any of the above mentioned RBs.

 

[doubletrouble]

If you're looking for long term results then stability should be an important consideration. RBs aren't stable investments. They get hurt more often than WRs and they have less longevity potential. You might get lucky and find the rare Portis/LT type who can handle 300+ carries every season like clockwork, but you're just as likely to end up with Larry Johnson, Kevin Jones, Laurence Maroney, or Shaun Alexander.People will say that RBs have more value since they're harder to get, but I don't know if I agree with this. I actually think good RBs are pretty easy to acquire if you look in the right places. RB is the only major FF positions where rookies routinely make top 10-20 type contributions. Moreover, there are always some underhyped veteran RBs who step into starting roles and produce immediately. DeAngelo Williams, Thomas Jones, Derrick Ward, and Pierre Thomas did it this season. In previous seasons we've seen players like Reuben Droughns, Earnest Graham, Ladell Betts, Justin Fargas, and Rudi Johnson emerge from obscurity and produce. This notion that you need to pay through the nose to get a productive RB simply isn't accurate.Certain league formats force you to hoard RBs, but in general I'd rather build around QB/WR and have a revolving door at RB.

Interesting thought there EBF ( I have the same thoughts ), even though I don't play in a ppr league, I think wrs are much more stable than rbs...people in my league hord all the rbs and over value the rookies..I have 4 first next year and plan on upgrading my 3rd wr (homes/burress) and getting depth at all positions...

 

[Tornacl]

A lot will depend on the starting lineup requirements as many have said. A lot also depends on where you'll be drafting and the draft type (serpentine vs double serpentine, etc). If I'm drafting in the first few spots, I'll take one of the stud RBs. But if I have a late position, rather than getting an older RB or a 2nd tier RB, I'd rather take the best WR. If its a double serpentine, where I'll have an early 2nd and 3rd round pick, I may take a second stud WR, knowing that the dropoff between the RBs that are left won't be as big as the drop between the elite WRs and the second tier. (Its better to start a run than to get caught by one and feel like you're forced to follow the herd. I always try to dictate the flow of the draft to some degree.)

If its not a double snake, I may take the RB, knowing that there will be a lot of picks between my second and third.

If my draft pick was right in the middle, I'd consider moving down in the 1st if I could move up in the 2nd and 3rd, depending on who's been taken. If I wasn't crazy about the RBs left.

Looking back at the draft from 4 years ago (in a previous post), most of the elite WRs are still elite, while most of the RBs drafted in the first couple or rounds are either done or far less productive than they were at the time.

 

[-OZ-]

But somebody else was well off base. If the league has deep rosters, you will NEVER find a RB on the waiver wire you can start (barring catastrophe to some NFL team...and then you need to be high on the waiver priority list!), but you can almost always find a WR or 2 worthy of a spot start.

Depends on your league I guess. Sure, if it's a deep league, finding a RB on waivers is difficult, but in one of mine with 800 players rostered (it is IDP), guys like Willie Parker, Earnest Graham and Le'Ron McClain were available on the wire. None of the top 30 WRs were available this year, and the only one I remember in the past is Housh. Depends on the league though, we hoard WRs.

 

[DropKick]

It depends, each year, on my existing roster, draft position and the actual depth of the draft class. There is a lot to consider there including an honest evaluation of your dynasty team and a good understanding of how your league mates draft.

I've reaped the benefit of over emphasis on RBs in PPR leagues by grabbing blue chip WR prospects late in the first round after higher picks are wasted on RB reaches. I've also used high picks for the likes of Calvin Johnson. However, my preference is to grab a RB, especially if I think he the best player available. This is simply a supply/demand decision.

Overall, with an extremely strong group of WRs, I've been able to use an extra roster spot or two on backup RBs and, in some cases, have landed valuable players ala Michael Turner.

 

[UnknownCoach]

The issue of longevity is virtually equal in both dynasty formats IMO. Where its not a major issue is in a redraft.

Stud RBs are simuliarly more valuable in both dynasty (and redraft) formats IMO. I actually think a top PPR league stud RB is noteably more valueable than a top non-ppr league stud RB. I think the difference you are trying to refer to comes from the average and lesser RBs. Those non stud RBs have much more value in the non-ppr format than the ppr format. This is both a blessing and a curse for PPR. By giveing points per reception to RBs, you vastly inflate the value of an RBs receiving ability vs his rushing ability. Those RBs who both run well and catch well have the fantasy value of a god in a PPR league compared to any other type of player. A lot of high talent RBs who dont catch a lot of balls are also less valuable than lower quality RBs who do as well. In exchange, those mid and lesser tier PPR RBs are not as valueable as high quality WRs. Where as in a non-PPR league, those mid tiered RBs are just as valueable as all but a handful of WRs and the lower tiers are stilll high commodities even though they are weaker tiers of their position. PPR vs non-PPR has been debated a million times. It comes down to your personal preference. What is more important to you?

When PPR first started becomeing popular, I spoke of the negatives to RBs and said that I have no problem giveing points for receptions to receivers but I dislike leagues that reward it to RBs. That was a number of years ago and that's still my opinion. Unfortunately for me, PPR for all positions became a popular format and PPR for receivers only never really happened.

 

[stevegamer]

That's a very tough question. I'm in a deep dynasty league with 540 rostered players in-season (624 from draft to opening day), but it is IDP, with 11 IDP starters.

You can find RB's on the wire in this league - if they come out of nowhere. I got Willie Parker as a FA at one point - when the first rumors were out there. The DEN RB situation was always good for a guy off waivers, and guys like McClain this year or other FB presed into duty - Nick Goings & the ilk - were FA grabs as well.

On the flip side, you can find a spot start WR on waivers pretty much any week. It might be a team's #2-3 WR who is older, but they will see snaps. And if you get lucky, you can hit on a very productive WR the same season off waivers - Drew Bennett, Antonio Bryant, etc.

I thinkit depends on what you have, and where you are in the success cycle you are. If you're a contender, the RB has more value generally, as their value is shorter term. Rebuilding, make the move for the WR.

 

[fsufan]

Great topic

I have been playing the dynasty format for 10 years put never in a PPR league till this past year. PPR does change the value of WRs.

 

[Jerry Lawler]

Tornacl's dynasty startup draft from 4 years ago illustrates pretty well how quickly RB's lose value. Most of those RB's only had 1 big season for their owners, with the exceptions being Tomlinson and Manning. Even the teams in his draft who tried to anticipate this by drafting RB's who were younger than 26 were ultimately burned, as McGahee, Julius Jones, and Kevin Jones had disappointing careers. McGahee was startable for most of 2 seasons, but the other two were rarely more than flex plays over the past 4 years.

I took a look at my league's startup auction from 3 years ago (summer of '06) and found that a number of the RB's have retained value to this point. The guys who commanded the top 12 auction payments, in order: Tomlinson, Larry Johnson, Alexander, Ronnie Brown, Portis, Reggie Bush, Edge, Steven Jackson, Lamont Jordan, Steve Smith, Chad Johnson, Rudi Johnson. Several of these RB's are more valuable than Chad Johnson at this point, but 2 of the RB's have never produced much for their owners (Alexander and Jordan), and Edge hasn't been more than an RB2 in any season. At least Chad Johnson produced 2 good seasons. Keep in mind that this is only 3 seasons after the draft. In another year, I'm guessing only 2-3 of the 10 RB's will have more value than either WR.

Starting requirements are key. The league above was 1 RB, 2 WR, 2 flex, PPR. The thing that stands out to me is that, while Alexander cost $61, Smith, Johnson, Owens, Fitzgerald, and Boldin were the top 5 WR's and cost between $34 and $39. To the extent that this accurately reflects trade values, it's tough to justify paying through the nose for stud RB's unless you've got the depth to afford upgrading to one in a trade.

One final note: I find it incredibly difficult to identify a future star at WR and need to rely on acquiring obvious stars through trade, while I find it relatively easy to replenish the RB position by acquiring undervalued veterans, injured players, and unproven younger players.

 

[Cowboys#1]

Young stud WR's should be untouchable in dynasty. Guys like Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Boldin, Jennings, Marshall and to a slightly lesser degree, Colston are gold.

I would gladly take Calvin Johnson over AP in a ppr dynasty.

On the other hand young pass catching backs are also much more valuable, guys like Jackson, Bush, Slaton all get a bump because of their receiving abilities. These guys, theoretically, should be very expensive in dynasty.

 

[Tornacl]

Tornacl's dynasty startup draft from 4 years ago illustrates pretty well how quickly RB's lose value. Most of those RB's only had 1 big season for their owners, with the exceptions being Tomlinson and Manning. Even the teams in his draft who tried to anticipate this by drafting RB's who were younger than 26 were ultimately burned, as McGahee, Julius Jones, and Kevin Jones had disappointing careers. McGahee was startable for most of 2 seasons, but the other two were rarely more than flex plays over the past 4 years.I took a look at my league's startup auction from 3 years ago (summer of '06) and found that a number of the RB's have retained value to this point. The guys who commanded the top 12 auction payments, in order: Tomlinson, Larry Johnson, Alexander, Ronnie Brown, Portis, Reggie Bush, Edge, Steven Jackson, Lamont Jordan, Steve Smith, Chad Johnson, Rudi Johnson. Several of these RB's are more valuable than Chad Johnson at this point, but 2 of the RB's have never produced much for their owners (Alexander and Jordan), and Edge hasn't been more than an RB2 in any season. At least Chad Johnson produced 2 good seasons. Keep in mind that this is only 3 seasons after the draft. In another year, I'm guessing only 2-3 of the 10 RB's will have more value than either WR.Starting requirements are key. The league above was 1 RB, 2 WR, 2 flex, PPR. The thing that stands out to me is that, while Alexander cost $61, Smith, Johnson, Owens, Fitzgerald, and Boldin were the top 5 WR's and cost between $34 and $39. To the extent that this accurately reflects trade values, it's tough to justify paying through the nose for stud RB's unless you've got the depth to afford upgrading to one in a trade.One final note: I find it incredibly difficult to identify a future star at WR and need to rely on acquiring obvious stars through trade, while I find it relatively easy to replenish the RB position by acquiring undervalued veterans, injured players, and unproven younger players.

A much higher percentage of the top 15 or so WRs from four years ago are still top 15 compared to the top 15 RBs. Looking back at that draft, everyone drafting knew that guys like Fitzgerald, Boldin, Owens, etc. were great WRs, the only reason they stayed around was because everyone was busy picking the RBs clean. Everyone wanted to get the "next" RB - so guys like JJ Arrington were picked ahead of most of those WRs.Looking back at my picks, I could've had Manning, Westbrook, Andre Johnson, Fitz, and either Boldin or Steve Smith as my top 5 picks only by changing my 4th and 5th round picks. In the 4th, I reached for JJ Arrington and in the 5th I took Curtis Martin - both because I was desperate for another RB. Hindsight is 20/20, I won't make that mistake again.

 

[Max Power]

I would gladly take Calvin Johnson over AP in a ppr dynasty.

On the other hand young pass catching backs are also much more valuable, guys like Jackson, Bush, Slaton all get a bump because of their receiving abilities. These guys, theoretically, should be very expensive in dynasty.

Really?I wish I could come to terms on this issue, but the whole stud RB theory sits heavy with me these days.

 

[CalBear]

Here are the top 10 rookie RBs by fantasy points from 2000-2007:

Portis

Mike Anderson

Adrian Peterson

MJD

LT

McGahee

Lewis

Addai

Rhodes

Domanick Davis/Williams

That's a pretty strong sample; with the exception of Anderson and Rhodes, who were fill-ins their rookie years, everyone went on to be a very good fantasy player. Three rookies this year make the cut.

Here's the same list for WRs:

Boldin

Michael Clayton

Colston

Lee Evans

Roy Williams

Dwayne Bowe

Chambers

Fitz

A.Johnson

Bryant

Now, there are some great talents on that list, but it's clearly not as strong as the RB list. So it looks like a running back who's strong out of the gate is likely to be a solid asset to your fantasy team for at least a few years, while a WR with a good rookie season looks a little more dicey. The WR may have a longer career, but less consistent production (unless you hit on the Boldin/Fitz jackpot).

 

[Wadsworth]

I know that a lot fantasy is looking for trends, but this a case where trends can hurt you. The short answer is that it depends on the RB and the WR. You've got to look at each case on it own and assign value. In dynasty talent is more important long term than situation. Situations can change, but barring injury talent should endure. All things being equal I'll lean towards the WR(usually if you think all things are equal you need to do more research, but for arguments sake).

What's you scoring system, who's already on your roster, where do you pick in the next rookie draft, who is likely to be available, what NFL team is likely to pick them, how is that situation, who could you likely trade for if you need a quick fix, how to the other owners in your league value RB versus WR, and on and on and on. All of this stuff to me is more important than a vague evaluation RBs vs WRs in dynasty. You've got to look at each case on it's own.

 

[renesauz]

An awful lot of this is argued in hindsight, when foresight is what's required.

In fantasy, most league setups require (at least) very good players in every lineup spot in order to compete for a title. In most leagues, you can't win it all with chumps at RB. Nor can you win it all with chumps at WR.

How many serviceable (non-chump) WR's are there at any given time? RB's? How many (of either) break out in a given year?

I could make the argument that it's the turnover itself that helps make RB's so valuable when they are actually performing. Knowing you probably need to have an alternative to your stud RB within a year or two, you MUST draft young unknown RB's. Since everyone else must do the same, the cost goes up. You know the 4 key receivers on your fantasy squad are likely to be OK at worst for the next five years, so there's no pressure to aquire young WR prospects. Thus, WR prices go down, particularly since it often takes longer for them to develope then you can typically afford to wait on them. Simple supply and demand.

Initial dynasty drafts have a slightly different dynamic, and younger high reception WR's will (and likely should) go early.

 

[puckalicious]

The issue of longevity is virtually equal in both dynasty formats IMO. Where its not a major issue is in a redraft.

Stud RBs are simuliarly more valuable in both dynasty (and redraft) formats IMO. I actually think a top PPR league stud RB is noteably more valueable than a top non-ppr league stud RB. I think the difference you are trying to refer to comes from the average and lesser RBs. Those non stud RBs have much more value in the non-ppr format than the ppr format. This is both a blessing and a curse for PPR. By giveing points per reception to RBs, you vastly inflate the value of an RBs receiving ability vs his rushing ability. Those RBs who both run well and catch well have the fantasy value of a god in a PPR league compared to any other type of player. A lot of high talent RBs who dont catch a lot of balls are also less valuable than lower quality RBs who do as well. In exchange, those mid and lesser tier PPR RBs are not as valueable as high quality WRs. Where as in a non-PPR league, those mid tiered RBs are just as valueable as all but a handful of WRs and the lower tiers are stilll high commodities even though they are weaker tiers of their position. PPR vs non-PPR has been debated a million times. It comes down to your personal preference. What is more important to you?

When PPR first started becomeing popular, I spoke of the negatives to RBs and said that I have no problem giveing points for receptions to receivers but I dislike leagues that reward it to RBs. That was a number of years ago and that's still my opinion. Unfortunately for me, PPR for all positions became a popular format and PPR for receivers only never really happened.

The dynasty league I commish wants to add some form of PPR. When I go through the stats for 2008, if I add 1 PPR to WRs only it makes the top-12 scorers all WR except for 2 RBs. The top-24 is all WR except for 7 RBs. This appears to grossly overvalue WRs, I think my league will use 1 PPR for everyone with a stepped introduction of .5 PPR for the first year to ease into it.With 1 PPR in my league (starting 2RB/2WR/1 flex) the top-12 has 4 WRs, and the top-24 has 12 WRs so it looks pretty balanced.

 

[puckalicious]

An awful lot of this is argued in hindsight, when foresight is what's required.

In fantasy, most league setups require (at least) very good players in every lineup spot in order to compete for a title. In most leagues, you can't win it all with chumps at RB. Nor can you win it all with chumps at WR.

How many serviceable (non-chump) WR's are there at any given time? RB's? How many (of either) break out in a given year?

I could make the argument that it's the turnover itself that helps make RB's so valuable when they are actually performing. Knowing you probably need to have an alternative to your stud RB within a year or two, you MUST draft young unknown RB's. Since everyone else must do the same, the cost goes up. You know the 4 key receivers on your fantasy squad are likely to be OK at worst for the next five years, so there's no pressure to aquire young WR prospects. Thus, WR prices go down, particularly since it often takes longer for them to develope then you can typically afford to wait on them. Simple supply and demand.

Initial dynasty drafts have a slightly different dynamic, and younger high reception WR's will (and likely should) go early.

This is something I will need to get used to.

 

[Max Power]

I've been thinking about this thread since I started it a year and a half ago. Its still a very good issue to debate, but at least now I some experiance to add to this... Thanks to Renesauz, who looking back on it had some great info to offer.

I was brought into this game under the impression that RBs are king, and all other positions take a back seat. While I still think this is the case, obviously the RBBC teams are using these days have really limited the amount of "kings" there are. Its also become apparent that the vast majority of owners start to "devalue" RBs around the age of 28. They all know the magic age of 30 is right around the corner for those players and won't pay what they are worth in a trade.

Breaking this whole issue down to the most simple terms... It appears like you wont be constantly competative without a solid WR core year to year, but you wont win championships without stud RBs.

IMHO, youth is overrated. But when its overrated by all, it really make it market value.

I'd still like more to chime in as I think this came be a very valuable thread for others...

 

[plyka]

If you're looking for long term results then stability should be an important consideration. RBs aren't stable investments. They get hurt more often than WRs and they have less longevity potential. You might get lucky and find the rare Portis/LT type who can handle 300+ carries every season like clockwork, but you're just as likely to end up with Larry Johnson, Kevin Jones, Laurence Maroney, or Shaun Alexander.People will say that RBs have more value since they're harder to get, but I don't know if I agree with this. I actually think good RBs are pretty easy to acquire if you look in the right places. RB is the only major FF positions where rookies routinely make top 10-20 type contributions. Moreover, there are always some underhyped veteran RBs who step into starting roles and produce immediately. DeAngelo Williams, Thomas Jones, Derrick Ward, and Pierre Thomas did it this season. In previous seasons we've seen players like Reuben Droughns, Earnest Graham, Ladell Betts, Justin Fargas, and Rudi Johnson emerge from obscurity and produce. This notion that you need to pay through the nose to get a productive RB simply isn't accurate.Certain league formats force you to hoard RBs, but in general I'd rather build around QB/WR and have a revolving door at RB.

This is probably the homer in me , but i see you put Shaun Alexander as your RB who only lasted a couple years. I remember Alexander being a premier back for 5+ years minimum. I'm not sure why you stuck him in your flash in the pan section. Alexander for 5 years in a row had 14tds to 27!!TDs and rushed for a minimum of 1668 all the way up to 2000 yards. I'm not sure how you claim a back that rushed for 1600+ yards and at least 14 TDs (up to 2000 yards and 27 TDs in his last high quality year) in 5 consequetive years, as a flash in the pan. In retrospect, i would have drafted Shaun #1.Regarding the topic of this post, it really depends on your specific situation. If you play in a non-ppr league (i don't know why anyone would quite frankly, non-ppr leagues completely overvalue RBs to ridiculous levels) then i would build around top notch RBs. If you play in a PPR league, then i would build around the WR. It of course also depends who is available. If you have the 12/13 turn this year in a start up dynasty league (i had those picks in my ppr keeper where we keep 6 players at no cost and we can keep them for as long as we want) and you have Fitz and Calvin available, then you take those two even though Turner or Sjax may slip to you (this actually happened to me and i had to think long and hard, but stuck with my guns and took Fitz/Calvin). However, what if somehow MJD slipped to you due to his injury concerns? Well then i may have gone MJD/Fitz or Calvin. This is off topic, but in this same draft, Best fell to me at 36 and i took Crabtree at 37. Perhaps i reached for Crabtree, and i should have went with Mccoy in retrospect ending up with WR/WR and RB/RB with my first 4 picks. But i have extremely high hopes for Crabtree, and think he will turn into an absolute beast in the future. So i ended up going WR/WR and RB/WR with my first 4 picks. I think this sets me up nicely going into the future. In retrospect, I probably should have taken Mccoy instead of Crabtree since i was very high on him as well, but hindsight is 20/20, and at the time i think i made the correct decision.

 

[plyka]

Here are the top 10 rookie RBs by fantasy points from 2000-2007ortisMike AndersonAdrian PetersonMJDLTMcGaheeLewisAddaiRhodesDomanick Davis/WilliamsThat's a pretty strong sample; with the exception of Anderson and Rhodes, who were fill-ins their rookie years, everyone went on to be a very good fantasy player. Three rookies this year make the cut.Here's the same list for WRs:BoldinMichael ClaytonColstonLee EvansRoy WilliamsDwayne BoweChambersFitzA.JohnsonBryantNow, there are some great talents on that list, but it's clearly not as strong as the RB list. So it looks like a running back who's strong out of the gate is likely to be a solid asset to your fantasy team for at least a few years, while a WR with a good rookie season looks a little more dicey. The WR may have a longer career, but less consistent production (unless you hit on the Boldin/Fitz jackpot).

Your argument is only valid if you're talking about rookie drafts not dynasty start ups. The reason is obviously because it takes WRs quite a while to mature, usually 2-4 years before you know what you have while RBs are usually studs right out of the gate. But in a dynasty startup you know what you have with your WRs because you're talking about Fitz, Calvin, etc., young stud WRs. You're not talking strictly rookies. In a rookie dynasty draft i would tend to agree with you for the reasons stated.