Big Dogs Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Ok, I know we have been seeing a bunch more teams moving to a RBBC this year, which has been frustrating all of us as fantasy players........... my fear is that this trend will continue with more and more teams as we move foward for the following reason: If you look at the final 4 teams in the playoffs, ALL of them have RBBC situation they are playing from: Colts: Rhodes & Addai Pats: Dillon & Maroney Bears: Jones & Benson Saints: McAllister & Bush Also, if you look at the path each of these teams have taken to get to their respective championships, all of them have beaten teams with a primary back to get here.. Colts vs: LJ in game 1 & Jamal Lewis in game 2 Pats vs: Leon Washington in game 1 & LT in game 2 Bears vs: Alexander Saints vs: Westbrook These RBBC final 4 teams also seem to have much fresher RB's throughout the game due to the extra rest. Because of this, I unfortunately believe we are beginning to see a trend of many coaches going to this approach to keep their backs fresher as they make a run down the playoffs......... I'd like to see other huddlers opinion of this and more importantly, how fantasy draft strategies should be adjusted accordingly based on more RBBC's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Get your point but I would argue the Jets were anything but a one back team. Signed, Past Owner of LEON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Dogs Posted January 18, 2007 Author Share Posted January 18, 2007 Get your point but I would argue the Jets were anything but a one back team. Signed, Past Owner of LEON Ok, that one was weak, but still somewhat valid, and LT wasn't a pushover with 130+ & 2 TD's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocNiner52 Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 In the past starting rb's have been the foundation on which fantasy rosters have been built. Seems to me these 1 feature back teams are dwindling and the rbbc teams are growing. If this alarming trend continues, which I suspect it will, I think it's going to have a negative impact on being able to have a stable of stud rb's on your fantasy roster. Most leagues start 2 rb's and it could become difficult fielding two backs each week who are going to get the lion's share of their respective teams' carries. Fantasy owners are gonna have to look to draft two rb's from the same team to assure themselves of having a starter. If owners are having to start rb's that have another back taking away carries that's going to affect the scoring and I for one won't be happy about that. What do you do though?Should leagues look at the possibility of changing to drafting team rb's? I just think that with more NFL teams using two backs that fantasy football is gonna be the big loser here. Anyone else have thoughts on this situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 In the past starting rb's have been the foundation on which fantasy rosters have been built. Seems to me these 1 feature back teams are dwindling and the rbbc teams are growing. If this alarming trend continues, which I suspect it will, I think it's going to have a negative impact on being able to have a stable of stud rb's on your fantasy roster. Most leagues start 2 rb's and it could become difficult fielding two backs each week who are going to get the lion's share of their respective teams' carries. Fantasy owners are gonna have to look to draft two rb's from the same team to assure themselves of having a starter. If owners are having to start rb's that have another back taking away carries that's going to affect the scoring and I for one won't be happy about that. What do you do though?Should leagues look at the possibility of changing to drafting team rb's? I just think that with more NFL teams using two backs that fantasy football is gonna be the big loser here. Anyone else have thoughts on this situation? who cares? it's the same for everyone so just. draft accordingly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 FF owners that do their homework will reap the benefits of this situation. I'm not saying I'm one of those though as I have been known to slack-off. Some RBBC aren't so bad and could be a devastating combo such as MJD/Taylor and McAllister/Bush. I wasn't sold on Bush early but, with the way they're approaching the situation in N.O. with both the backs I think it complements both and will keep Bush healthy. That was my real concern with Bush and it looks like I was wrong given how the Saints are using him. These two teams may be the exception to the rule right now but I think many will follow suit. There was a time when every team was RBBC when fullbacks were used to carry the ball more in games. Team R/Bs, seems like a hard thing to do especially in larger leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 In the past starting rb's have been the foundation on which fantasy rosters have been built. Seems to me these 1 feature back teams are dwindling and the rbbc teams are growing. If this alarming trend continues, which I suspect it will, I think it's going to have a negative impact on being able to have a stable of stud rb's on your fantasy roster. Most leagues start 2 rb's and it could become difficult fielding two backs each week who are going to get the lion's share of their respective teams' carries. Fantasy owners are gonna have to look to draft two rb's from the same team to assure themselves of having a starter. If owners are having to start rb's that have another back taking away carries that's going to affect the scoring and I for one won't be happy about that. What do you do though?Should leagues look at the possibility of changing to drafting team rb's? I just think that with more NFL teams using two backs that fantasy football is gonna be the big loser here. Anyone else have thoughts on this situation? I think it will push more towards auction, since the single stud backfields are boiling down to less than 5 by design - ie Rudi Johnson was primarily a single back this year, but due to Perry's injury and Watson's inability to pick up the slack. Had Perry not been injured all year, this backfield would have been near RBBC since Rudi would have seen fewer 3rd downs. The same I suppose with Miami, who missed Ricky W from their plan and had to use Brown primarily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I doubt there will be enough primary RBs in 2007 to go around in the first round of the draft. One thing worth considering is starting both RBs from a run-happy RBBC team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 We'll live through it. We just have to adjust how we draft are teams and setup our rosters. Now if teams start going to WRBC, then we are in trouble... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 RBBC 2006: 13 teams. RBBC 2005: 14 teams. RBBC 2004: 12 teams. Some teams have injuries, some teams find ways to use the talents they have on their rosters. We were 3 FG away from having Tomlinson, Alexander, and Westbrook playing this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd1 Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 It is trending upwards though and this is a copy cat league. For one, I hope to add GB to that list next year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocNiner52 Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 FF owners that do their homework will reap the benefits of this situation. I'm not saying I'm one of those though as I have been known to slack-off. Some RBBC aren't so bad and could be a devastating combo such as MJD/Taylor and McAllister/Bush. I wasn't sold on Bush early but, with the way they're approaching the situation in N.O. with both the backs I think it complements both and will keep Bush healthy. That was my real concern with Bush and it looks like I was wrong given how the Saints are using him. These two teams may be the exception to the rule right now but I think many will follow suit. There was a time when every team was RBBC when fullbacks were used to carry the ball more in games. Team R/Bs, seems like a hard thing to do especially in larger leagues. So the rb situation in N.O. and Jax isn't really so bad for any of the backs(if Fragile Freddy stays healthy) and I guess because of situations like this some leagues may start to employ the flex position on starting rosters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Ummm... If it hasn't been said, go for the backs on a 1 back offense and try to get their back-ups. I do see a couple of these situations playing out differently next year though. I see Maroney as a primary back next year with top 5 potential. I see Addai as a primary back next year, also with top 5 potential. I do not envision Thomas Jones on the Bears next year, making Benson a primary back with top 10 potential. My crystal ball's been wrong before, but I think come fantasy draft day next year, there will still be enough situations with a clear starter for you to put together a backfield consisting of two feature backs. I hope so anyway. We do an auction, so I can get that for sure if I wanna pay the freight. Hopefully my crystal ball works and it won't be that expensive to get the kind of backfield I described. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNOWBOUND33 Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Ummm... If it hasn't been said, go for the backs on a 1 back offense and try to get their back-ups. I do see a couple of these situations playing out differently next year though. I see Maroney as a primary back next year with top 5 potential. I see Addai as a primary back next year, also with top 5 potential. I do not envision Thomas Jones on the Bears next year, making Benson a primary back with top 10 potential. My crystal ball's been wrong before, but I think come fantasy draft day next year, there will still be enough situations with a clear starter for you to put together a backfield consisting of two feature backs. I hope so anyway. We do an auction, so I can get that for sure if I wanna pay the freight. Hopefully my crystal ball works and it won't be that expensive to get the kind of backfield I described. I hope you are right since I can keep Addai and Benson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 I see Maroney as a primary back next year with top 5 potential. I see Addai as a primary back next year, also with top 5 potential. I do not envision Thomas Jones on the Bears next year, making Benson a primary back with top 10 potential. Agreed about Jones and Addai (IIRC, Rhodes becomes a free agent in a few months). NE's situation is less clear with Dillon still playing at a high level. If the Pats aren't strapped for cap room, I think that Belichick keeps Dillon and they stay RBBC for another year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlas Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 I adjusted in this year's draft. I grabbed MB III considerably after JJ was taken by someone else. Turned out to be a profitable move! 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.