Running back apprehensiveness...

[Cuda1337 1]

Over the last couple of years the consensus was first round RB. Get your top RB. Everyone slowly started to adopt this strategy and now its a mainstay. You could argue now, that with RBBC its even more important to get a stud RB. This year you have your top 4 RB's that everyone is says is leaps and bounds above the rest. The problem is... I just don't buy it.

 

 

I have a theory. I haven't compiled the statistics to back this up, but I'd really like to have a quality conversation about the reliability of running backs.

 

My theory goes something like this: Running backs are a major gamble. You are nearly as likely to get a top 10 running back drafted in the 6th round as you are one drafted in the 2nd round. Now, having a top 3 RB will greatly help your team, no one can argue about that. But wouldn't your early picks be better spent on more sure things. A top QB and top WR's that perform more consistently year over year. Then you save your later round picks to stockpile a bunch of RB's that could all be top 10-15 backs.

 

If your first few picks are busts, you are going to have a hard time fielding a good team. Would it be wise to avoid RB's in the first few rounds and load up on players you know you can count on?

 

 

 

Thoughts?

[treewarden 1]

What you are describing is "Do the Opposite" which can be very successful! It began in response to the 2 stud RB theory so prevelant a few years ago. Why would you want the #12 RB when you could select #1-3 QB/WR and then grab the #18-20 RB? It really all depends on your scoring and picking a few diamonds in the rough. With all the RBBC's, there are many RB's getting enough touches to make it easier to fill in your roster.

[Cuda1337 1]

What you are describing is "Do the Opposite" which can be very successful! It began in response to the 2 stud RB theory so prevelant a few years ago. Why would you want the #12 RB when you could select #1-3 QB/WR and then grab the #18-20 RB? It really all depends on your scoring and picking a few diamonds in the rough. With all the RBBC's, there are many RB's getting enough touches to make it easier to fill in your roster.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

I am going back and forth here. I generally am one of the best drafters in my league, but I also have been pretty straight forward.

 

This year, with the help of a few draft pick trades, I am picking 1.01 and 1.11 in a 12 team PPR league, 6 pts for QB TD's. I don't have a 3rd or 5th rounder, but I have two 8's and two 10's. I am seriously considering taking Moss #1 overall and then the best QB available at 1.11. I'll load up on RB's in 4/6/8/10.

 

 

It seems like a ridiculous strategy. Stupid. Totally against the grain. But I'm seriously considering it.... agh.

[treewarden 1]

Exactly.

 

 

I am going back and forth here. I generally am one of the best drafters in my league, but I also have been pretty straight forward.

 

This year, with the help of a few draft pick trades, I am picking 1.01 and 1.11 in a 12 team PPR league, 6 pts for QB TD's. I don't have a 3rd or 5th rounder, but I have two 8's and two 10's. I am seriously considering taking Moss #1 overall and then the best QB available at 1.11. I'll load up on RB's in 4/6/8/10.

 

 

It seems like a ridiculous strategy. Stupid. Totally against the grain. But I'm seriously considering it.... agh.

 

With 1.01 you have to take either CJ or AP;

1.11 either a top 3 QB/WR

2nd round pick will be tricky since you don't have a 3rd rounder; if you took a top 3 QB then it almost has to be a WR, if you took a WR then it could be another WR or RB and then wait for QB/TE in 4th round.

 

The key will be to stay flexible in your approach (hard for someone who has gone by the books before). Try a few mock drafts to get use to doing the opposite and see what your teams look like...

[Cuda1337 1]

With 1.01 you have to take either CJ or AP;

1.11 either a top 3 QB/WR

2nd round pick will be tricky since you don't have a 3rd rounder; if you took a top 3 QB then it almost has to be a WR, if you took a WR then it could be another WR or RB and then wait for QB/TE in 4th round.

 

The key will be to stay flexible in your approach (hard for someone who has gone by the books before). Try a few mock drafts to get use to doing the opposite and see what your teams look like...

 

 

 

See that's the thing. I don't want CJ or AP. Not at all. I subscribe to the camp that thinks RB's who have had significant amount of touches. CJ had way to many last year. AP it has been a cumulative amount over the last 3 years.

[Gang23Greene 0]

See that's the thing. I don't want CJ or AP. Not at all. I subscribe to the camp that thinks RB's who have had significant amount of touches. CJ had way to many last year. AP it has been a cumulative amount over the last 3 years.

 

if you want moss as your first rounder, then i'd suggest trading down from the 1 spot to 8-10, wherever you think you're still guaranteed to land moss. and you could come away with the guy you wanted and an extra pick somewhere in the draft.

[jls8421 3]

if you want moss as your first rounder, then i'd suggest trading down from the 1 spot to 8-10, wherever you think you're still guaranteed to land moss. and you could come away with the guy you wanted and an extra pick somewhere in the draft.

 

 

 

 

Have to agree here. There are plenty of people drooling over the number 1 spot. Shouldn't be hard to do.

[jerryskids 5,206]

I disagree with your theory, for the first pick anyway. Barring injury, you can pencil in 100 and a TD every week for CJ, AP, MJD. A guy like Moss gets you 150 and 2 TDs one week, 1 catch for 13 the next.

 

Like others said, trade down if you want Moss.

[Giants Fan 85]

It all comes down to your scoring system. Last year I had the 10th pick, and was really unhappy about it, but figured I'd take Chris Johnson because he was there. I took Brees in the second round. Rounds 6+ I picked Ray Rice, Ahmad Bradshaw, Ricky Williams (got laughed at). Finished the season first in points.

 

I often take a QB early. As a matter of fact, I once took P. Manning with the 2nd overall pick. League scored passing TDs @ 6 points. Seemed like a no brainer to me. Kicked serious ass that year (however having Colston as a TE was a huge bonus).

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,590]

if you really want Moss shop that pick and get back a 3rd, Im not really saying I am against your strategy but taking Moss no 1 overall is just plain dumb.

 

Drop down to 7-8 get an extra 3rd, take Moss or Andre, take Rodgers or Brees, and go from there

[Cuda1337 1]

if you really want Moss shop that pick and get back a 3rd, Im not really saying I am against your strategy but taking Moss no 1 overall is just plain dumb.

 

Drop down to 7-8 get an extra 3rd, take Moss or Andre, take Rodgers or Brees, and go from there

 

 

I am actively trying to trade down right now. But assuming I can't find a trade partner.... hmm. From a reliability standpoint, I still can't help but wonder if I'd be better off taking moss or AJ.

[Flgatorguy87 160]

if you really want Moss shop that pick and get back a 3rd, Im not really saying I am against your strategy but taking Moss no 1 overall is just plain dumb.

 

Drop down to 7-8 get an extra 3rd, take Moss or Andre, take Rodgers or Brees, and go from there

 

 

Bingo!! No matter how much you like a guy or even if you are a freaking psychic and know he is going off this season, if you over pay its still stupid. The number one pick is too valuable to waste, you have to get something for it and then roll with it after that, I like the strategy, pull the trigger.

 

 

Go big or Go home

[Bills04 46]

I'd have to be all over at least CJ and Ray Rice. ADP is now without S. Rice; MJD has a crappy QB - I can shoot 2 of the Top-4 down.

 

Moss f'ing DISAPPEARED FOR A MONTH LAST YEAR... And, HOU QB has played 16 games in ONE season (last year). WRs have their own traps / downfalls, too - remember!

 

Moss in Wks 11-14: 5/34/1; 3/67; 2/66/1; 1/16...

 

===========

 

I am actively trying to trade down right now. But assuming I can't find a trade partner.... hmm. From a reliability standpoint, I still can't help but wonder if I'd be better off taking moss or AJ.

[Bones40 0]

Your theory is solid, I have used it quite effectively for awhile, but you are taking it too far. The rule I go by is if I'm in the top 4 I have to take one of the top running backs (this could change from year to year to top 2, top 6 etc. depending on how many stud RB's it looks like there are). If I'm not in that top portion of the draft, I usually always trade down to as close as the bottom as possible and draft top WR/QB in rounds one and two. The truth is, if you don't have a shot at one of those top backs (this year I would consider being in the top 6 to be needing to take RB), then the RB you can get in round 3 has pretty much the same chance at being a stud as you would have gotten in the bottom half of the first round...but now you have a stud QB and stud WR.

[Cuda1337 1]

Alright, so I have been scouring through stats from the last couple of seasons. I ranked the top 50 running backs from last year and then went back to 2006 and ranked them for each year.

 

 

Of the top 5 running backs of a given year. Only 50% of the time (6 out of 12) did they perform in the top 10 the following year. (I didn't want to rank top 5 in top 5 again, because in some instances they performed close the the previous year.

 

 

Next I looked at RB's in the top 10 one year and whether or not they were in the top 20 the previous year. In 11 out of 24 instances, a RB in the top 10 one year was not in the top 20 the previous year. This goes to show you that often times the top running backs in the league come out of nowhere.

 

 

I would like to look at more aspects of this. I think there is a lot more volatility at the RB position than any other position on the field.

[c9h13no3 0]

To quote a great article by Chase Stuart

 

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/fantasy-drafting-how-to-maximize-value-by-position-and-by-round/

 

Running backs have a higher R-Squared than wide receivers, despite the fact that some view wide receivers as more stable from year to year. The truth is, both positions are pretty stable, but running backs are more consistent because of the sheer volume of touches they accumulate....

 

Quarterbacks tend to be much less consistent (and therefore harder to predict) than running backs, wide receivers and tight ends.

[Cuda1337 1]

To quote a great article by Chase Stuart

 

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/fantasy-drafting-how-to-maximize-value-by-position-and-by-round/

 

 

 

Great article, thanks. I would like to play devils advocate for a moment though. That article analyzes data from the past 10 years. That may skew the results. Running backs 10 years ago are totally different then they are today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but RBBC is MUCH more prevalent now than it was 5-6 years ago and certainly 10 years ago.

 

That simple factor totally changes the reliability factor of RB's, no?

[FlaHawker 24]

I disagree with your theory, for the first pick anyway. Barring injury, you can pencil in 100 and a TD every week for CJ, AP, MJD.

Not true. Last year CJ 8 times with BOTH 100+ yards & a TD, AP 2 times, and MJD 5 times.

[deefree93 0]

I am actively trying to trade down right now. But assuming I can't find a trade partner.... hmm. From a reliability standpoint, I still can't help but wonder if I'd be better off taking moss or AJ.

 

 

If you want consistency and are afraid of a high mileage back, why not consider Ray Rice? Seriously, go check his game log, the consistent production is unparalleled. Bank on nearly 2k total yards and 8 tds with upside if Willis don't repeat with 12 tds (he wont), with a back that only has 350 career carries, no injury history, and on an up and coming offense.

 

PS

During the last 12 weeks of the 2009 season, Rice had 42 red zone touches while Willis McGahee had 16.

[FeelingMN 273]

Great article, thanks. I would like to play devils advocate for a moment though. That article analyzes data from the past 10 years. That may skew the results. Running backs 10 years ago are totally different then they are today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but RBBC is MUCH more prevalent now than it was 5-6 years ago and certainly 10 years ago.

 

That simple factor totally changes the reliability factor of RB's, no?

 

Maybe, but the back you could take at 1.1 is more similar to other backs the past decade because they're workhorses. Ain't no RBBC in JAX/TEN/MIN. So your argument is a moot point.

[Cuda1337 1]

Maybe, but the back you could take at 1.1 is more similar to other backs the past decade because they're workhorses. Ain't no RBBC in JAX/TEN/MIN. So your argument is a moot point.

 

 

I see your point. But the idea behind RBBC is that there are plenty of guys drafted in the 20-35 range that *could* produce top 10 #'s. Whereas, back before RBBC there weren't enough RB's that got that opportunity.

[jgcrawfish 232]

opportunity usually equals more pts....guys like Johnson, Peterson, Jones-Drew and Ray Rice (and Gore to a slightly lesser extent) don't ever have to leave the game. Yes the turnover is higher in the top 10 for RB than for any other position, but scarcity of guys like those 5 makes them more valuable. look at the drop off in pts after the 5th ranked RB last year compared to the drop off after the 5th ranked WR...and imagine if that RB (Gore) hadn't missed 3 games. Honestly, if I'm outside the top 5, I'm probably taking WR or even QB with my 1st pick, because I'd rather have a #1 or 2 at one position than a #6 or later at the one everyone wants.

[FeelingMN 273]

I see your point. But the idea behind RBBC is that there are plenty of guys drafted in the 20-35 range that *could* produce top 10 #'s. Whereas, back before RBBC there weren't enough RB's that got that opportunity.

 

My league has the same exact format as yours. No-ppr, only yards and TDs.

 

Here's the top 10 backs from last year in my league:

 

CJ

AD

MJD

Rice

Thomas Jones

Frank Gore

Ricky Williams

Ryan Grant

Joseph Addai

Steven Jackson

 

See a pattern there? Most of those guys are workhorses....they're not sharing time with anyone else. And the RBBC backs who did make the list, did so because of injury to the other back.

 

Committee backs could post top 10 numbers. Absolutely. But I think you should target guys who are going to get the majority of carries on their teams. Opportunity underlies success. And historically speaking, workhorse backs find themselves in the top 10.

 

It's your team....and if you're not sold on the top backs, you shouldn't pick 'em. It's your team. You should run it the way you want.

[enjoi525 0]

So you feel you can get a top 10 RB in the later rounds. This may be true. As you stated earlier, there are only a few workhorse backs. So, say those few can put up 300 fantasy points and there is a good chance they will. Now, the real question is if those other guys who are rbbc who may crack the top 10 going to put up anywhere near as many points as the workhorses? Probably not.

[jerryskids 5,206]

Not true. Last year CJ 8 times with BOTH 100+ yards & a TD, AP 2 times, and MJD 5 times.

Don't be obtuse. You are only counting rushing yards; MJD for instance had 7 games with 100+ total yards and at least 1 TD, and an eighth that was close. CJ had two games with 150+ yards and no TDs. Didn't look at AP's stats. Obviously they don't get it every game; the point is that for those types of studs, a dud game is few and far between.

[Boston Three Party 6]

Bingo!! No matter how much you like a guy or even if you are a freaking psychic and know he is going off this season, if you over pay its still stupid. The number one pick is too valuable to waste, you have to get something for it and then roll with it after that, I like the strategy, pull the trigger.

 

 

Go big or Go home

 

Damn straight. If you owned Ray Rice or CJIII last year, even with minimal WR2's and QB2's - you were golden if you managed RIGHT.

[FlaHawker 24]

Obviously they don't get it every game;

[da_mane_man 1]

i feel the same exact way!!

 

after the first few picks, i don't want any of these running backs. i feel like i can get a guy with similar production in the 6th, 7th round or beyond. i'd much rather have a stud receiver or two. ryan mattews? shonn greene? in the first round???? no thanks! i'm not even touching those guys. they have a lot to prove before i will consider them first round picks.

[c9h13no3 0]

I see your point. But the idea behind RBBC is that there are plenty of guys drafted in the 20-35 range that *could* produce top 10 #'s. Whereas, back before RBBC there weren't enough RB's that got that opportunity.

They may score top 10 numbers, but you're focusing on the rank too much. The top 4-5 backs are vastly more valuable than their peers, and they give you the biggest edge to win in fantasy football.

[phlegmish 4]

They may score top 10 numbers, but you're focusing on the rank too much. The top 4-5 backs are vastly more valuable than their peers, and they give you the biggest edge to win in fantasy football.

 

 

Exactly.

 

Add to this point that the entire next two tiers of RBs (ranks from 5-16 or so) are still guys with 200-250 carries and the potential is higher for them to score 200+ in a standard scoring league. How many WR had that point total LY in your league....4, maybe. Wait until rnd 5-6 and you end up stuck with HOPES of getting the 2-3 guys that might be gold AND who rely on circumstances or opportunity to dictate it happening. Grab Portis/Barber if you want as a RB1 but I'd way rather be taking Rivers/Witten or Nicks/Crabtree in those rnds.

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

It's equal risk and largely depends on your league starting lineup and scoring system.

The league i'm in uses a flex where we can choose between a WR/RB/TE. Historically, WR are less consistent in scoring then RB simply because of number of touches they get and RB scores a higher percentage of TD. In my league, the top 10 RB averaged 260 points, compare that with WR which averaged 189. That is a HUGE drop off.

[Skinny_Bastard 154]

Take it a bit further, the next level of RB 10-20 averaged 180 points while the WR averaged 159.

The discrepancy is huge between the top 10 RB and the next set (70 points) while only 30 points for WR.

 

A staring lineup of

team A

RB,RB,RB,WR,WR (assuming you have 2 top 10 RB)

 

team b

RB,RB,WR,WR,WR (assumign you have 2 top 10 WR)

 

Team A would trump team B in every way.

[cheesesteaks 0]

The only way this strategy could work is if you guess right on those #2 and #3 RBs. Either way you have to shuffle between them for each week and you might end up guessing the wrong RB. The biggest factor is to consider the difference between getting a QB in round 1 or 2 (Brees, Rodgers, Manning) compared to the next 3 (Romo, Schaub, Brady) who are available in rouds 3-4 and then to the next set who are available in rounds 5-6.

[Joey Gladstone 33]

Damn straight. If you owned Ray Rice or CJIII last year, even with minimal WR2's and QB2's - you were golden if you managed RIGHT.

 

I had them along with Marshall and Andre. I was far and away the league leader in points, but I got edged out of the playoffs before the title game and finished 3rd.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,590]

so if you dont want CJ or ADP, and are stuck in the no 1 slot, take them anyways, make the best out of your draft, then try to work out a post draft day trade, I guarantee if you offer CJ to the Moss owner you can get more then just Moss

[c9h13no3 0]

How many WR had that point total LY in your league....4, maybe.

In my league, the top 10 RB averaged 260 points, compare that with WR which averaged 189. That is a HUGE drop off.

This depends on your scoring system. Also, google "value based drafting". Scoring a lot of points doesn't necessarily mean that the player is more valuable. What matters most is how much a player outscores his peers.

 

And in just about every scoring system, the top 4-5 RB's outscore their peers by a LOT. The most of any player in the league. CJ2K was retardedly so much better than the 24th ranked running back, it was ridiculous.

 

If it was just about scoring fantasy points, then the first round of your draft should be Aaron Rodgers 1st, Brees 2nd, Manning 3rd, ect. QB's score the most points in just about every scoring system, but that doesn't matter for sh!t if they ALL score a lot of points.

[Spec7ral 6]

so if you dont want CJ or ADP, and are stuck in the no 1 slot, take them anyways, make the best out of your draft, then try to work out a post draft day trade, I guarantee if you offer CJ to the Moss owner you can get more then just Moss

 

 

 

This is correct. If you can't trade down, just draft them anyways. Take CJ or AP (I would personally take CJ, as he will have a better first week I would think since it's at home vs RAiders and AP has to go to NO) and offer them to the player with Moss (or AJ or CJ for that mater) and ask for a late round flier that team has that you like. Shouldn't be too tough.

[Curt Sminkey 0]

2 year ago i used this same strategy and took home the championship, last year i went for the more traditional drafting method of targeting RB's mostly because we get 6 points for all TD's so the QB's went early (6 in the first round last year). Long story short, my RB's bombed for me (I thought LT2 was going to have a bounce-back year, I was dead wrong). I'm going back to going for a QB in the 1st then go for some of my targeted RB's a little later (4th-6th rounds), otherwise I'll stock on WR's until some of my targeted RB's in the early middle rounds.

 

If you can get those diamond in the rough RB's in the later rounds, which you should be able to easily find with some homework, then I think you're getting the best value.

 

I want my first 2 or 3 picks to be as low-risk as possible and getting a top QB is pretty low risk. Plus, I feel that WR's are so unpredictable, so I want to get the ones at the top to minimize risk. Then i'll gamble on the RB's because they can perform almost just as good as the ones at the top if you get the right ones.

 

But if i can draft one of the top 4 RB's I'll go that direction and hope for a decent QB in the 2nd.

 

I also like to target those handfuff'd RB's in the later rounds (after the 8th) in case the starter gets hurt (which is a pretty good gamble).

[enjoi525 0]

2 year ago i used this same strategy and took home the championship, last year i went for the more traditional drafting method of targeting RB's mostly because we get 6 points for all TD's so the QB's went early (6 in the first round last year). Long story short, my RB's bombed for me (I thought LT2 was going to have a bounce-back year, I was dead wrong). I'm going back to going for a QB in the 1st then go for some of my targeted RB's a little later (4th-6th rounds), otherwise I'll stock on WR's until some of my targeted RB's in the early middle rounds.

 

If you can get those diamond in the rough RB's in the later rounds, which you should be able to easily find with some homework, then I think you're getting the best value.

 

And why would I trust this advice? Why couldn't you just do your homework and draft the right RB in the first round? I'm sure sure CJ was available last year when you picked LT. Now, I don't disagree with taking a QB or WR if your leagues scoring promotes it more.

[giraldi02 470]

It all depends on the scoring system and roster makeup of your league. In MOST cases, it is better to have legitimate running backs over great wide receivers. You MIGHT strike gold with a late flier RB (Ray Rice), but you're more likely to strike it big with a mid round WR (last season, see Sidney Rice, Miles Austin, DeSean Jackson) as last season showed us.

 

In my league, were it's PPR...10 yds rushing, 15 receiving, 1 PPR, 50 yds per return yards the top 25 W/R/T broke down like this:

 

12 RB

11 WR

2 TE (Clark and V. Davis)

 

The next 25 went:

11 RB

10 WR

4 TE

 

Now, the gap between the TOP RB and the 23rd RB was 379 - 179 (4 players 300+ points, 10 players 200+ points)

The gap between the TOP WR and the 21st was 266 - 178 (14 players 200+ points)

 

Really...it just depends on the league and the format. I'd rather start three RB's...but the points dont lie...as long as you can draft well that is......