billay Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 (edited) This year, more than any I remember, seems to have a large number of successful RBBC's. For the purpose of this discussion, let's define a "successful" RBBC, wherein a team's #2 RB is putting up a respectable number of fantasy points on regular enough basis to warrant a startong spot on your roster, even when the #1 RB is playing. Such cases may be presented as evidence: Dominic Rhodes and Joseph Addai Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones-Drew Corey Dillon and Lawrence Maroney Ladanian Tomlinson and Michael Turner Clinton Portis and Ladell Betts Julius Jones and Marion Barber Deuce McAllister and Reggie Bush and to a lesser degree Deshaun Foster and DeAngelo Williams Michael Vick and Jerious Norwood Thomas Jones and Cedrick Benson Such a situation also existed in DEN for the first few games and Justin Vargas may represent the emergence of another in OAK. Somebody with more patience and more time on their hands might do a statistical analysis on this concept to see if it actually pans out mathematically. The entire crux of the RB argument in fantasy football is based upon players not listed above. Players such as LT, SA, Priest Holmes, Marshal Faulk were all the focal points of their respective offenses and as such, had ample opportunities to score points for your team. For the players listed above, however, they do not have the same opportunity. They score regularly, but to a lesser degree. So why should any of these players be valued more than any other position in FF? Also, if more teams are running a successful RBBC that means that there are actually more RB's in the player pool and therefore one can afford to wait to draft them until later rounds. Is the general value of RB's in FF going down? Edited October 12, 2006 by billay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I the general value of RB's in FF going down? in a word...yes and if i typed more poeple would start to talk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 The writing was definately on the wall this year. A large influx of new talented rookies made this a unique year and one where RB-RB was not necessary IMO. After seeing the preseason mocks, I figured on a later-round grab at multiple RBs for my #2 and bye week guy. After drafting Cadillac in round 1, I ended up with Addai, McCallister, White, and Deangelo Williams on my team. In that redraft league, I went RB-WR-WR-TE-RB. I'm playing with Addai and Deuce McCallister more than Brokeadillac. I paid early with some Caddy-related struggles, but I'm competitive at 3-2 and 4th in points. By the end of the year, hopefully one of those later-round guys is a stud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 There are more committees now and it's regrettable from a FF standpoint but it does create more worthwhile RBs so it does have an upside as well. What is different is that historically RBBC was done with two different sort of runners (ie. "Thunder and lightning") but now it just takes two similar backs and rotates them. I can see it from a team perspective if there is talent in two players. They keep fresher legs and realistically, the lower you hold down individual performances, the less they make you pay. There is an economic benefit from having two good backs instead of one great one. Everything is cyclical in the NFL and it will eventually go away from it, but for now it is here to stay. The downside that I strongly contend is that unless you give a back 20+ carries in a game, he won't get into a groove at all and won't run nearly as effectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crispirons Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 i don't think it devalues rb's, it makes the ones who get 25 looks a game more valuable in fact. mcgahee, chester, etc.....guys who don't get spelled often could become gems/compared to higher picked rb's. granted those two are just examples and neither is a top 5 at the moment. just thought i'd offer a counterpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm Rick James Bitch Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Yes, the RBBC is here to stay. Makes one wonder if the rules will change in fantasy football to some kind of team rushing points. I think that only 2-5 RB's in the entire league have escaped the RBBC effects. Probably more like 2-3. I think that if you don't have an early pic to nab one of those Super Stud RB's during the draft, you might as well trade down 10 spots or so and watch as everybody else overpays. I did exactly that this year and it's worked out beautifully. Picking 10th in a 10 team league, I picked Manning and traded the #11 overall for the 20th and the 40th. At 20, I grabbed Holt, at 30 I grabbed Westy, at 31 Ward, at 40 D. Davis(damn) at 50 Dillon, at 51 Foster then added DeAngelo and Maroney in the later rounds. Even though I suffered the seasons first big injury (DD) and didn't draft my first RB til 30th, I lead my league in rushing. With the extra pic (40) and a well drafted team full of good but not great players, I was able to handle the injury, and really work some of the struggling teams that had put all their eggs in the RB RB draft basket. A few shrewd trades later and my backfield looks pretty damn good (see below). I think that people will continue to believe that the 9th best RB is still much better than the best player in other positions for at least a couple of years and I plan on taking advantage accordingly. When they figure it out, I think I will draft RB RB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gd74 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I agree that it devalues the the running back position...especially in those leagues that have to start 3 WRs... I actually went WR-WR in my draft this league and pickedup Julius Jones in the third round. Granted I missed some late rd picks in my draft.... ie Thinking Cedric Benson would win out the starting spot in Chicago or thinking J. Lewis had something left in the tank....but I am happy with the route I took. Secondly I think it makes you actually coach your team more... have to look at matchups...trends...and those who dont do there homework will suffer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 there are trends of increase in TEs...point is football is a copycat sport and when it is effective on one team more teams will use it. I really do think this is just a trend as RBs need time and chemistry (with O Line) so rotating them in the long run may hurt the team. JMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Secondly I think it makes you actually coach your team more... have to look at matchups...trends...and those who dont do there homework will suffer. Exactly. The idea of team RB, or team anything is moranic. Everyone's playing by the same rules, so just adjust your strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTed46 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Exactly. The idea of team RB, or team anything is moranic. Everyone's playing by the same rules, so just adjust your strategy. +1 (without insults) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 In some of my leagues, starting 1 rb and 3 wr's is starting to look better than 2 rb's, 2 wr's . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.