FF Backfields to Avoid 2017

[Maulers1973 117]

Ok, so the Charles thread got me thinking about various RB committees and backfields that are or could be a nightmare to figure out. My list so far is:

 

Patriots

 

Broncos

 

Lions

 

Eagles

 

Bucs

 

Bengals

 

Saints

 

Ravens

 

49ers

 

Redskins

 

Chiefs

 

The running back landscape is as uncertain today as it's ever been. True, we are seeing less sure-things to enter the league the past couple of years and the game has a substantial emphasis on the pass these days. Though, this year it seems like there are potential RB1 or RB2 all over the place. The uncertainty escalates the uneasiness of the drafting in FF for this position. Hopefully, some guys will emerge as the clear #1 on the depth chart of a few of these teams prior to week 1.

[Showboat 145]

Bengals??? I think I'd rather bet that Mixon becomes the workhorse than wade into situations you don't even list like the Giants, Jets, Seahawks, Packers, Vikings and Titans.

 

The shorter list is the teams with a true 3-down feature back (and most of those have plenty of question marks).

Off the top of my head:

Cowboys

Cardinals

Steelers

Chargers

Bills (McCoy is starting to get long in the tooth - is this the year the wheels fall off?)

Dolphins/Texans (just hard to trust those Os)

Rams/Bears (will they still stink?)

Raiders (What are the chances that Marshawn can still be a beast on the wrong side of 30)

Jaguars (Rookie in a questionable offense)

[weepaws 2,460]

I'm not in agreement about the Texans.

 

I think there's another Rb in town that might push Miller for playing time.

 

And i just don't see Lynch holding up and or being old beast mold.

 

It's a great list Maulers.

 

I also think that the Bengals could be the team to find their way of that list with Mixon.

 

I also think the same about the Redskins, Perine should beat out Kelley.

[Showboat 145]

I'm not in agreement about the Texans.

 

I think there's another Rb in town that might push Miller for playing time.

 

And i just don't see Lynch holding up and or being old beast mold.

 

 

Kind of proves my point. At most there are only a handful of teams (Cowboys, Cardinals, Steelers, Chargers, and Bills) that have a consensus 3-down feature back. The rest are RBBC and/or to be avoided. Of course, you may take a gamble that one guy will emerge or overcome a bad team situation.

 

The only other teams not mentioned in this thread so far:

Browns - yuk!

Colts - The rookie will probably eventually be the guy, but Gore/Turbin will still vulture some goal line touches.

Falcons - two-headed (though both were viable last season).

Panthers - I see a 50-50 split between JStew and McCaffrey.

[weepaws 2,460]

I agree with your statement.

 

It does prove your point , and thanks for the reply.

[Showboat 145]

I would categorize the teams as follows:

 

Solid 3-down feature back (4)

Cowboys, Cardinals, Steelers, Chargers

Aging feature back (2)

Bills, Raiders

Probable feature back, but no sure bet (5)

Dolphins, Texans, Rams, Bears, Jaguars

Two-headed RBBC where both could be viable (3)

Falcons, Titans, Panthers

RBBC - could have one guy emerge (9)

49ers, Lions, Packers, Browns, Giants, Vikings, Bucs, Bengals, Redskins

RBBC and likely staying that way (9)

Jets, Seahawks, Patriots, Broncos, Eagles, Saints, Ravens, Chiefs, Colts,

[weepaws 2,460]

Yeah I do think both Ajayi and Gurley could become a three down back, Gurley did have 58 targets last season.

 

But Dunbar might take away a few of those.

[weepaws 2,460]

Think Mixon will emerge and be the Bengals go to Rb 1. And he's good in the passing game.

[DrG 94]

I see an argument for the time tested strategy of handcuffing your rbs from prolific offenses

[Maulers1973 117]

 

I would categorize the teams as follows:

 

Solid 3-down feature back (4)

Cowboys, Cardinals, Steelers, Chargers

Aging feature back (2)

Bills, Raiders

Probable feature back, but no sure bet (5)

Dolphins, Texans, Rams, Bears, Jaguars

Two-headed RBBC where both could be viable (3)

Falcons, Titans, Panthers

RBBC - could have one guy emerge (9)

49ers, Lions, Packers, Browns, Giants, Vikings, Bucs, Bengals, Redskins

RBBC and likely staying that way (9)

Jets, Seahawks, Patriots, Broncos, Eagles, Saints, Ravens, Chiefs, Colts,

 

 

I disagree. I think all of your probables should be in the first category. They may not be pro bowlers, but they are feature backs. Plus, the Browns had a RB with 1271 all purpose yards behind a garbage OL and with a craptastic passing game. The OL is greatly improved and the passing game should be at least a little better. Crow is the guy in Cleveland with spot relief offered by Duke. I also think C Mc will be the feature back in Carolina in short order, by week 3.

[weepaws 2,460]

I would agree, I think Crowell last season did indeed emerge has the Browns rb1 and his 53 targets shows his improvement in the passing game.

 

And I agree about the Panthers Rb situation, I think Mccaffery will over take Stewart and not just based on performance but also because Stewart has in the past missed so much time due to injury

[Ray_T 591]

I would agree, I think Crowell last season did indeed emerge has the Browns rb1 and his 53 targets shows his improvement in the passing game.

 

And I agree about the Panthers Rb situation, I think Mccaffery will over take Stewart and not just based on performance but also because Stewart has in the past missed so much time due to injury

Yeah, Crowell was at least Adequate.

 

I got him as a RB3 in all of my leagues last year, and he put up solid RB2 numbers most of the year. of course when the QB situation became a mess his numbers declined a bit when defenses realized the pass wasnt a legitimate threat and began to key on the run.

 

That being said, I wasnt asking him to be an RB1 and I was very happy with what I got when you considered what I paid for him (almost nothing)

[Showboat 145]

 

I disagree. I think all of your probables should be in the first category. They may not be pro bowlers, but they are feature backs. Plus, the Browns had a RB with 1271 all purpose yards behind a garbage OL and with a craptastic passing game. The OL is greatly improved and the passing game should be at least a little better. Crow is the guy in Cleveland with spot relief offered by Duke. I also think C Mc will be the feature back in Carolina in short order, by week 3.

Maybe, but Gurley should have taught us that being an unquestioned feature back does not necessarily translate into fantasy results. So, I don't see those "probables" as any more of a sure thing than taking a gamble on someone like Mixon or Abdullah. Also, Crowell had an abysmal stretch during fantasy crunch time last season (only 1-100yd game and 0TDs in weeks 9-15) - not exactly what I would consider feature back output.

[Ray_T 591]

Maybe, but Gurley should have taught us that being an unquestioned feature back does not necessarily translate into fantasy results. So, I don't see those "probables" as any more of a sure thing than taking a gamble on someone like Mixon or Abdullah. Also, Crowell had an abysmal stretch during fantasy crunch time last season (only 1-100yd game and 0TDs in weeks 9-15) - not exactly what I would consider feature back output.

on that team I'd say Crowell did well. No legitimate QB, and with the exception of LT, the line was subpar.

 

NO, he's not an RB1. And an RB1 will put up those 100 yard games along with a TD on most nights.

 

He is an RB2 who will occasionally put up RB1 numbers when the matchup is right and will occasionally put up a stinker.

 

You are looking at 60-80 yards most nights and one out of every 2-3 games he will get a TD.

 

If the Defense improves (and I think it will) and if the team gets some improvement at the QB position, his numbers may get a bit better, but I think that is most likely something to expect for the year after this one.

 

This year, I just think the D will be better, so the team will have some shorter fields on offense. Yardage will be roughly the same, but I'd expect an extra TD or two compared to last year.

[weepaws 2,460]

Yeah Crowell did put up better ff numbers than I thought so.

 

I know I wasn't high on drafting him last season, I was truly wrong.

 

He had a good sold rb2 season.

 

And now I'm on the wagon and don't see any reason he can't repeat it.

[redsrback 30]

on that team I'd say Crowell did well. No legitimate QB, and with the exception of LT, the line was subpar.

 

NO, he's not an RB1. And an RB1 will put up those 100 yard games along with a TD on most nights.

 

He is an RB2 who will occasionally put up RB1 numbers when the matchup is right and will occasionally put up a stinker.

 

You are looking at 60-80 yards most nights and one out of every 2-3 games he will get a TD.

 

If the Defense improves (and I think it will) and if the team gets some improvement at the QB position, his numbers may get a bit better, but I think that is most likely something to expect for the year after this one.

 

This year, I just think the D will be better, so the team will have some shorter fields on offense. Yardage will be roughly the same, but I'd expect an extra TD or two compared to last year.

Not sure in todays game a RB1 is a 100 yards and a td, unless your adding receiving yards otherwise the list will be so few people. Gone are the days where just about all teams had 1.

[jaxjag 43]

You can't avoid 1/3 of the teams in the league. Target the "more talented" guy from a committee (easily Mixon in Cincy). Or the younger guy in keeper/dynasty formats. Or the receiving back in PPR.

 

I've built teams around stud WRs for a long time. This strength has allowed me to carry fewer WRs and to burn an extra roster spot or two on flyer RBs. The problem is this was once a contrarian approach but is now much more common.

[Ray_T 591]

You can't avoid 1/3 of the teams in the league. Target the "more talented" guy from a committee (easily Mixon in Cincy). Or the younger guy in keeper/dynasty formats. Or the receiving back in PPR.

 

I've built teams around stud WRs for a long time. This strength has allowed me to carry fewer WRs and to burn an extra roster spot or two on flyer RBs. The problem is this was once a contrarian approach but is now much more common.

Yes, So much more common that its hard to gain an advantage with this strategy unless you draft extremely well.

 

If everyone does that strategy it's really tough to make it work

[stonewall 647]

 

And i just don't see Lynch holding up and or being old beast mold.

 

 

 

 

Actually, that Freudian slip might be the perfect name for him and his comeback.....

[DrG 94]

I think there is no one best strategy but there is the one that one is most comfortable with.

[ralphster 274]

Actually, that Freudian slip might be the perfect name for him and his comeback.....

#winning

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

Tampa will NOT have a committee. When back from suspension, Martin WILL be the lead back.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

Tampa will NOT have a committee. When back from suspension, Martin WILL be the lead back.

Idk. Didn't they sour on him last year before he even got hurt? Maybe they didnt. It just felt like the team lost confidence in him. When Martin is giving a shlt, he is obviously their best option. I think contract time is coming again, since he may be cut after this year. So we get good Martin right?

 

One of the more impressive seasons I have seen from a rb was two years ago from Martin. He put it all on the line every carry for that big contract. There wasn't much around him either.

[redsrback 30]

Maybe, but Gurley should have taught us that being an unquestioned feature back does not necessarily translate into fantasy results. So, I don't see those "probables" as any more of a sure thing than taking a gamble on someone like Mixon or Abdullah. Also, Crowell had an abysmal stretch during fantasy crunch time last season (only 1-100yd game and 0TDs in weeks 9-15) - not exactly what I would consider feature back output.

So you picked the weeks that fit your point, and they were weeks where he was given 6-9-8-16-bye-10-8 as far as attempts? I could agree with Cleveland always being down and forced to pass, but ditching Crowell does not add up.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

Idk. Didn't they sour on him last year before he even got hurt? Maybe they didnt. It just felt like the team lost confidence in him. When Martin is giving a shlt, he is obviously their best option. I think contract time is coming again, since he may be cut after this year. So we get good Martin right?

 

One of the more impressive seasons I have seen from a rb was two years ago from Martin. He put it all on the line every carry for that big contract. There wasn't much around him either.

 

Not really. He was getting the workload. In week 1, he had 18 carries and Sims only had 4... Winston had 4 as well and 2 other receivers had one each, but it was Martin who was really taking the hand offs. In week 2 vs AZ, they got blown out, though Martin did get dinged up. He split carries the next game, but in 3 of the next 4, he got 20+ carries. The only one he didn't was where he got hurt in the 3rd Q vs the Chargers. In the last game he played (vs Dallas), he got 16 of the 19 carries.

 

They'll give him the ball, that won't be the problem... what will be the problem is, how long will he hold up before he gets hurt. When healthy, he's an elite RB... but that's only really 40% of his career to this point. The organization does believe in him and will give him every chance to be great because he's done it (twice), before. That said, this will be his last chance. I don't believe they'll enter the 2018 season with the perception that Martin will be the bell cow.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,584]

this discussion is the reason why I go RB in the first no matter what this year

 

there are far better WR's in the 2nd and 3rd, then crap shoot RB's

[weepaws 2,460]

I've been doing some mock drafts, and I'm starting to agree with the above poster.

 

Playing in ppr leagues for some time has made be believe going wr is the best way.

 

But seems to me that the diffrence in ff points scored between a Rb1 and a Rb2 is much greater than it is with a Wr1 and a Wr2.

 

So in these mocks I'm coming away with a better team going with a Rb first and even in the second round than going Wr first.

[redsrback 30]

I've been doing some mock drafts, and I'm starting to agree with the above poster.

 

Playing in ppr leagues for some time has made be believe going wr is the best way.

 

But seems to me that the diffrence in ff points scored between a Rb1 and a Rb2 is much greater than it is with a Wr1 and a Wr2.

 

So in these mocks I'm coming away with a better team going with a Rb first and even in the second round than going Wr first.

yea and 1 injury and a shared role and your stuck with no great players. RBs get injured far more then WRs unless the guy is known to pull a hammy every year.

[Ray_T 591]

yea and 1 injury and a shared role and your stuck with no great players. RBs get injured far more then WRs unless the guy is known to pull a hammy every year.

to some extent you are correct.

 

Late in drafts, I make sure I have more than adequate depth at the RB position.

 

You dont need a #5 or #6 WR if your top 3 are typically healthy and your #4 WR is decent. Furthermore, it is more typical than not that a couple of WR's emerge during the season as good options. By that time, at least one of your starting or depth RB's will have an injury or will play poorly to a point where you can dump them. At that point you can pickup another WR if you feel you really need one.

 

I would rather have the extra roster spots going to the RB position..

[Ray_T 591]

FYI, I also dont EVER commit to going RB or WR in the first 2 rounds.

 

I take what the draft gives me.

 

so if 8 of the first 10 picks selected are WR's, then I'm more likely to go with a RB if I'm picking at 11.

 

if 6 or 7 of the first 10 are RB's then I'm more likely to go WR.

 

saying you are going WR or RB in round 1 no matter what is kind of a fools errand unless you are drafting in the top 3 or 4 spots.

 

In that situation you should generally know who is going to be available and have one player picked out along with a backup plan in case your player(s) are gone.

[TBayXXXVII 2,117]

FYI, I also dont EVER commit to going RB or WR in the first 2 rounds.

 

I take what the draft gives me.

 

so if 8 of the first 10 picks selected are WR's, then I'm more likely to go with a RB if I'm picking at 11.

 

if 6 or 7 of the first 10 are RB's then I'm more likely to go WR.

 

saying you are going WR or RB in round 1 no matter what is kind of a fools errand unless you are drafting in the top 3 or 4 spots.

 

In that situation you should generally know who is going to be available and have one player picked out along with a backup plan in case your player(s) are gone.

 

I pretty much agree with this. I will say that if I'm 50/50 between a few players, I'm going to error on the side of the RB more than the WR. Odds are that I can get a WR more similar in the next round than I am a RB, just based on quantity alone.

[Ray_T 591]

 

I pretty much agree with this. I will say that if I'm 50/50 between a few players, I'm going to error on the side of the RB more than the WR. Odds are that I can get a WR more similar in the next round than I am a RB, just based on quantity alone.

yeah, the quality depth players run out quick for the RB position.

 

For WR, There is almost always at least one WR in any given week who is not rostered that can give you a one week fill in if you need it.

 

You cant say that for the RB position.

[weepaws 2,460]

Exactly was I'm seeing in the mocks right now.

 

You can get a wr in the second round and the avg drop off in avg points scored is less then It is with Rbs.

 

Been using it in ppr mocks and liking the outcome.

 

Making me rethink my draft strategy.

[cousinal111 57]

A lot of so called experts are predicting Gillislee to take over the role Blount has had in New England the last few seasons. Wouldn't that make him a must start every week in 2017?

[weepaws 2,460]

If you trust that to indeed be the case.

 

And the Patriots might not be done with Blount either.

[ralphster 274]

Well the Pats tendered Blount, signed Burkhead (and Gilislee) and already have White & Lewis. That backfield is more of a mess than it ever was.

[Ray_T 591]

Well the Pats tendered Blount, signed Burkhead (and Gilislee) and already have White & Lewis. That backfield is more of a mess than it ever was.

The backfield is always a mess. This last year was the first year in a long time that a Pats RB put up draftable numbers. But the Pats had some key injuries that forced them to run with Blount almost exclusively. Normally they like to use a committee. That is the way of the Pats. Draft at your own peril.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

5 rbs makes no sense. Lewis has to be gone. That still leaves 4 with an array of skill sets. Gillislee is also not as much of a bruiser as Blount. He came out of college at 208 pounds. Maybe he has gained some?

[cousinal111 57]

5 rbs makes no sense. Lewis has to be gone. That still leaves 4 with an array of skill sets. Gillislee is also not as much of a bruiser as Blount. He came out of college at 208 pounds. Maybe he has gained some?

Burkhead is 210, Gillislee listed 218

[cousinal111 57]

Apparently the latest Blount news was the Pats being pissed off and somewhat blackballing him. It's out of my league to explain what I heard on the radio but it wasn't good news for Blount.