Thanks RBBC. Thanks for changing the landscape of

[cliaz]

/rant on

 

 

It seems the single RB (main ball carrier) is going the way of the Dodo bird. How is this impacting your leagues right now?

 

 

It seems the fantasy teams that have been making the playoffs each year are the ones who have the primary ball carriers on their teams. And the teams with backs stuck in this mire we call RBBC are hurting more and more.

 

Either leagues like my main one (12 teams) need to expand their league by 2+ more teams to dilute the player pool or condense the teams 10 - 8 to add more players to the player pool to balance this out.

 

Has this had a drastic impact to your leagues over the past 4 years?

 

Personally I find it more of a challenge come draft day. I've suffered the past 3 years because of QB and primary RB issues (thanks rudi/Perry and carson) but look forward to getting those late rounders and hoping they can be plugged in as a 3rd RB. It just sucks to see the same teams (LT, LJ) in the championship games.

 

/rant off

 

 

 

This rant is brought to you by the Raiders in conjunction with the New York Football Giants.

[NAUgrad]

Next year in a keeper league, things are looking really good so far. LT, Benson, Jacobs, and Norwood. Can only keep 3, and I'm hoping Dunn gets the ax. Although it is true that more and more RBBC are poping up, some teams may actually end up with a single focus that didn't have one last year. Indy, NYG, Patriots, Denver all come to mind.

[Big Country]

I like the added challenge. You can always adjust the lineup/scoring rules to try balance things out a bit more. Such as adding PPR or rather than the "traditional 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE set go with 1 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE and a flex or some other such combination. This by default pushes WRs up in value and pushes RBs down as now teams can start just one RB and replace them with a potentially productive WR.

[Bronco Billy]

I like the added challenge. You can always adjust the lineup/scoring rules to try balance things out a bit more. Such as adding PPR or rather than the "traditional 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE set go with 1 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE and a flex or some other such combination. This by default pushes WRs up in value and pushes RBs down as now teams can start just one RB and replace them with a potentially productive WR.

 

 

Agreed. FF used to be dominated by owners who managed to either by greater experience or shear luck to have 2 stud RBs in their backfields.

 

FF owners looking for something more than such a predictable playout through the league season started adding positions like IDPs and/or creating scoring that made other players more valuable in relation to RBs like ppr. That spreads the value of players around as well as negating the inherent advantage that a 2 stud RB FF team had.

 

Now with all the RBs that are getting work in the NFL, it dilutes the talent base even more, which means different strategies can win leagues other than the prevailing 2-stud RB theory. That makes for more challenging FF, which is a lot more fun, IMO.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[irish]

Agreed. FF used to be dominated by owners who managed to either by greater experience or shear luck to have 2 stud RBs in their backfields.

 

FF owners looking for something more than such a predictable playout through the league season started adding positions like IDPs and/or creating scoring that made other players more valuable in relation to RBs like ppr. That spreads the value of players around as well as negating the inherent advantage that a 2 stud RB FF team had.

 

Now with all the RBs that are getting work in the NFL, it dilutes the talent base even more, which means different strategies can win leagues other than the prevailing 2-stud RB theory. That makes for more challenging FF, which is a lot more fun, IMO.

 

 

I think the changes in the NFL in regard to multiple RBs being used by more teams allows even the people in redrafts who like things simple and don't use S/T, Def, whether IDP or Team, special rules (lineup or scoring), etc. a little change that can spice things up and make drafting, WW moves and trades more competitive and fun.

[Jackass]

don't get the complaining part to be honest. it's the same for everyone. only downside i see is it makes the top few picks that much more valuable.

[The Wolf]

I think the changes in the NFL in regard to multiple RBs being used by more teams allows even the people in redrafts who like things simple and don't use S/T, Def, whether IDP or Team, special rules (lineup or scoring), etc. a little change that can spice things up and make drafting, WW moves and trades more competitive and fun.

 

 

Agreed! Make the moves to lock up your top backs, RBBC's etc. To me, this makes FF more of a year-round activity and that is a good thing!

[Shorttynaz]

It's changing how you draft espicially in re-draft leagues. ESPECIALLY in the PPR leagues. It puts a stronger emphasis on WR's and keeps it more balanced IMO

[cliaz]

I agree with what everyone said here. The problem is this:

 

 

On my main league I'm the commish. I've put in a vote for the last 3 years on these: (understand we use a standard performance scoring with line up of 1QB, 2WB, 2WR, 1Flex either RB, WR, TE, 1 Kicker, 1 D)

 

 

1. To add a position for TE - passed

2. Points per reception - failed again

3. Limiting RB position by 1 - failed again

4. IDP - failed again

5. Auction style drafted - failed again

 

 

And that's all cool because this is how they want the league. It makes it more fun for them this way. Fine. But sometimes it gets under your skin when some of them complain.

[irish]

I agree with what everyone said here. The problem is this:

On my main league I'm the commish. I've put in a vote for the last 3 years on these: (understand we use a standard performance scoring with line up of 1QB, 2WB, 2WR, 1Flex either RB, WR, TE, 1 Kicker, 1 D)

1. To add a position for TE - passed -This should've been.

2. Points per reception - failed again- This should be.

3. Limiting RB position by 1 - failed again- I like having 2.

4. IDP - failed again - makes it too complicated.

5. Auction style drafted - failed again- serpentine drafts are awesome.And that's all cool because this is how they want the league. It makes it more fun for them this way. Fine. But sometimes it gets under your skin when some of them complain.

 

 

I hear you. I have one guy in my league who is never happy and he just happens to be my best friend, so... He's always looking to start a fire and will purposely vote gainst how he truly feels just to piss people off.

Edited March 9, 2007 by irish

[PantherDave]

I still stand by my statements of a year ago, and DMD provided some interesting data on this subject, but in short, today's DT players are so big, fast and strong that the majority of RB's just can't handle the abuse placed on them for 16 outta 17 weeks. Their are very few that can be the "sole" stud RB. We love and cherish the "stud RB" but the fact is there just are'nt that many out there, and when you go 12+ teams deep ya better handcuff the back-up or have some more in your stable.

Edited March 9, 2007 by PantherDave

[i_am_the_swammi]

I like some of the ideas presented here, but the one easy one that no one has mentioned is the opposite of what some have presented: rather than go from 2 starting RBs to just 1, perhaps you should go from 2 RBs to 3.

 

In years past (before the phenomenon of RBBC), there were essentially 32 RBs worth having (1 from each NFL team). Now, there are perhaps 50-60 RBs that arguably could produce decent stats each and every week.

 

So rather than start just 2, why not start 3 RBs? Expand your roster to allow for more RBs, and allow each team in your league to start 3 RBs every week.

 

It would eliminate the headache of trying to decide who to start from the RBBCs of the world, and allow everyone a chance to draft both players from a given team. For instance, everyone may have shyed away from the Denver RB situation last year. But if you owned both Bells, you could have started them both, with no fear of wondering which one would produce. This solution would have worked for owners of RBBCs in NE, IND, NYG, MIA, NO, DAL, CHI, and so on.

 

Just my

[Cunning Runt]

I was thinking about this yesterday and I don't know that I agree that the single RB is going bye-bye.

 

It seems with a number of the free-agent moves and cuts that have been made, it's really cleared up a lot of these situations. Granted, this isn't to say that other guys won't step in and become that 2nd guy, but it would seem on face that more than a few situations appear to be single back scenarios.

 

Thomas Jones appears to be a near lock to be a primary back. Yes houston and washington will get some touches, but nowhere near what I'd call RBBC.

 

Laurence Maroney will be the guy for sure. Kevin Faulk will be a change of pace and third down guy, but make no mistake, Maroney will be the man and IMO a top 5 back.

 

Joseph Addai is clearly the man as well. The Colts will have James Mungro back, but he won't be splitting carries. Maybe a breather, but that's about it.

 

Cedrick Benson will be the guy. Adrian Petersen will certainly get some touches, but highly doubt it will be enough to be considered a RBBC unless Benson falls on his face.

 

 

I don't know - I just don't have this gloom and doom outlook on the RB situation.

[i_am_the_swammi]

I was thinking about this yesterday and I don't know that I agree that the single RB is going bye-bye.

 

It seems with a number of the free-agent moves and cuts that have been made, it's really cleared up a lot of these situations. Granted, this isn't to say that other guys won't step in and become that 2nd guy, but it would seem on face that more than a few situations appear to be single back scenarios.

 

Thomas Jones appears to be a near lock to be a primary back. Yes houston and washington will get some touches, but nowhere near what I'd call RBBC.

 

Laurence Maroney will be the guy for sure. Kevin Faulk will be a change of pace and third down guy, but make no mistake, Maroney will be the man and IMO a top 5 back.

 

Joseph Addai is clearly the man as well. The Colts will have James Mungro back, but he won't be splitting carries. Maybe a breather, but that's about it.

 

Cedrick Benson will be the guy. Adrian Petersen will certainly get some touches, but highly doubt it will be enough to be considered a RBBC unless Benson falls on his face.

 

 

While some of those situations appear "cleared up", just as many have become muddled:

 

OAK--used to be just Lamont, but now with Rhodes, clearly an RBBC scenario.

 

BUF--Jauron stated yesterday on Sirius that they may acutally use THREE RBs (for lack of a true #1)

 

WAS--who really has faith in the forgotten man, Clinton Portis? 12 months ago, he was a lock as a primary ball carrier...now?

 

NE--don't count your chickens with Maroney yet. I think his dreadful playoff performance scared the heck out of them, and in no way are they certain he will be able to handle 25 carries a game, every game. The signing of Sammy Morris for pretty decent money says a lot.

 

CHI--Cedric Benson?? I don't think anyone this side of sane believes 100% he is capable of being "the man", even if they have passed him the torch.

 

I'd say, when all is said and done, there may be 8-10 teams that use a clear #1....which is a far cry from what the landscape looked like 4-5 years ago.

 

Unless you have LT, LJ, SJax, Gore, Westbrook, Parker, Addai, Brown, Alexander or Edge, you could be in for a head-scratching year.

[PantherDave]

Dear Coach Fox-please start DeAngelo Williams and make sure he gets 25 totes per game, and I promise you-you will have your coveted "running game". The "Positive Waves for DeShaun" campaign is now officially over.

[Cunning Runt]

While some of those situations appear "cleared up", just as many have become muddled:

 

OAK--used to be just Lamont, but now with Rhodes, clearly an RBBC scenario.

 

BUF--Jauron stated yesterday on Sirius that they may acutally use THREE RBs (for lack of a true #1)

 

WAS--who really has faith in the forgotten man, Clinton Portis? 12 months ago, he was a lock as a primary ball carrier...now?

 

NE--don't count your chickens with Maroney yet. I think his dreadful playoff performance scared the heck out of them, and in no way are they certain he will be able to handle 25 carries a game, every game. The signing of Sammy Morris for pretty decent money says a lot.

 

CHI--Cedric Benson?? I don't think anyone this side of sane believes 100% he is capable of being "the man", even if they have passed him the torch.

 

I'd say, when all is said and done, there may be 8-10 teams that use a clear #1....which is a far cry from what the landscape looked like 4-5 years ago.

 

Unless you have LT, LJ, SJax, Gore, Westbrook, Parker, Addai, Brown, Alexander or Edge, you could be in for a head-scratching year.

 

 

Fair enough. I'll agree to disagree. I don't think it'll be nearly what you think it will when all is said and done.

[Big Country]

I like some of the ideas presented here, but the one easy one that no one has mentioned is the opposite of what some have presented: rather than go from 2 starting RBs to just 1, perhaps you should go from 2 RBs to 3.

 

 

This would have the opposite affect and boost the value of those select few stud RBs.

 

If you have to start 3 RBs, and one team has a guy like Tomlinson that by himself outproduces two typical RBs, you are at a sever disadvantage as RBs just don't produce huge numbers.

 

IN a standard scoring league (6 per TD, 1 per 10 yards rush/rec, NO PPR) Tomlinson scored 412 points. The no. 2 RB, Larry Johnson, scored 321 points, a 91 point, or 5 PPG difference, just between the #1 and #2 guy. The #36 guy, Leon Washington, had 103 points. SO, even with just Tomlinson, you need the #2 RB plus another top 36 back just to MATCH the production this owner gets from one back. Giving the LT owner the #35 and #36 backs, based on last years production results in 618 pts... The combined score for the $7, #8 and #10 RB was 625 points.. so, to match the production of LT plus essentially 2 throw in RBs could require having 3 top 10 RBs on your team. By cutting the required RB to 1 (but leave the flex), you allow an owner to fill that extra spot with a potentially productive player at another position (generally WR, especially in PPR) rather than force them to start a player on the bad end of an RBBC situation.

[cliaz]

I like some of the ideas presented here, but the one easy one that no one has mentioned is the opposite of what some have presented: rather than go from 2 starting RBs to just 1, perhaps you should go from 2 RBs to 3.

 

In years past (before the phenomenon of RBBC), there were essentially 32 RBs worth having (1 from each NFL team). Now, there are perhaps 50-60 RBs that arguably could produce decent stats each and every week.

 

So rather than start just 2, why not start 3 RBs? Expand your roster to allow for more RBs, and allow each team in your league to start 3 RBs every week.

 

It would eliminate the headache of trying to decide who to start from the RBBCs of the world, and allow everyone a chance to draft both players from a given team. For instance, everyone may have shyed away from the Denver RB situation last year. But if you owned both Bells, you could have started them both, with no fear of wondering which one would produce. This solution would have worked for owners of RBBCs in NE, IND, NYG, MIA, NO, DAL, CHI, and so on.

 

Just my

 

 

 

That doesn't work. We currently have that with our flex position. The guy that had LT also had both Fred Taylor and DeAngelo Williams. Yeah. he went 12-1 and won our superbowl just on those three guys there.

 

I had LT would outscore my RBs most weeks (Rudi Johnson, McGahee, M. Bell).

 

If we put in PPR (which I want) LT's value shoots through the roof.

 

Now I'm not crying about it because that's the way it works. This team got the 1st over all pick when all of the keeper players were put back into the pool, he got LT for 2005, 2006 and 2007. He goes back in the pot after this season. Same with the guy who owns LJ. Take a while guess out of the last 4 superbowls the teams that made who their running backs were?

 

LT and LJ.

 

Do those two split time?

 

I'm willing to bet that if you polled just CBS sportsline you would find that 65% of all teams that played in their super bowl owned one or the other.

Edited March 9, 2007 by cliaz

[i_am_the_swammi]

This would have the opposite affect and boost the value of those select few stud RBs.

 

If you have to start 3 RBs, and one team has a guy like Tomlinson that by himself outproduces two typical RBs, you are at a sever disadvantage as RBs just don't produce huge numbers.

 

IN a standard scoring league (6 per TD, 1 per 10 yards rush/rec, NO PPR) Tomlinson scored 412 points. The no. 2 RB, Larry Johnson, scored 321 points, a 91 point, or 5 PPG difference, just between the #1 and #2 guy. The #36 guy, Leon Washington, had 103 points. SO, even with just Tomlinson, you need the #2 RB plus another top 36 back just to MATCH the production this owner gets from one back. Giving the LT owner the #35 and #36 backs, based on last years production results in 618 pts... The combined score for the $7, #8 and #10 RB was 625 points.. so, to match the production of LT plus essentially 2 throw in RBs could require having 3 top 10 RBs on your team. By cutting the required RB to 1 (but leave the flex), you allow an owner to fill that extra spot with a potentially productive player at another position (generally WR, especially in PPR) rather than force them to start a player on the bad end of an RBBC situation.

 

 

I can see your point, but assume the following:

 

Based on your points above, LT garners about 25 points per week (416/16 games), and assuredly will be the #1 pick next year in almost all formats.

 

If I am picking #10-12, I am most likely getting Parker/Edge/Brown/etc....at approx. 250 points (?), I get an average of 15 points per week. So I am already at a huge disadvantage if I only get to start one RB. I have to make up an average of 10 points every week!

 

By getting to start 3 RBs, if I am draft-savvy, I can reduce the gap the LT creates by drafting the RBBC of my choice. Rather than start Julius Jones and hope for the best, I can draft Jones and MBIII and start them both.

 

Of course, so can the LT owner, but if I am a better owner than the LT owner, and identify and start the better RBBC over the one he elects to draft, I can make up some serious ground.

 

LT against anyone else is a no-win situation. Anyone picking #1 takes him, whether they are a good owner or not. LT and two marginal RBs against my three decent RBs gives me a fighting chance to make up some ground.

[Big Country]

I can see your point, but assume the following:

 

Based on your points above, LT garners about 25 points per week (416/16 games), and assuredly will be the #1 pick next year in almost all formats.

 

If I am picking #10-12, I am most likely getting Parker/Edge/Brown/etc....at approx. 250 points (?), I get an average of 15 points per week. So I am already at a huge disadvantage if I only get to start one RB. I have to make up an average of 10 points every week!

 

By getting to start 3 RBs, if I am draft-savvy, I can reduce the gap the LT creates by drafting the RBBC of my choice. Rather than start Julius Jones and hope for the best, I can draft Jones and MBIII and start them both.

 

Of course, so can the LT owner, but if I am a better owner than the LT owner, and identify and start the better RBBC over the one he elects to draft, I can make up some serious ground.

 

LT against anyone else is a no-win situation. Anyone picking #1 takes him, whether they are a good owner or not. LT and two marginal RBs against my three decent RBs gives me a fighting chance to make up some ground.

 

 

This is okay if all you start is RBs.... but, you start many other positions and that is how you can create a value balance in the league.

 

(Pulling some of this from an article I am working on)

 

Using the average of the last 3 years of stats, the top RB in the standard scoring system (and a 1/2/3/1/1/1 starting lineup requirement) I described above has a value of 212 pts. The top QB has a value of 103 points (which is good for 7th overall in value), the top WR has a value of 121 points (good for 5th overall in value). There is a significant dropoff however in RB value after the 7th RB (RB7=88pts, RB8=71 pts) compared to the dropoff at WR (WR2 thru 9 are valued between 99 pts and 75 pts). QB2 averages to 78 point, and the drops are marginal from 3 on, showing that the thory about waiting for QBs is a fairly solid one.

 

Your top 20 players are comprised of 1 QB, 8 RB, 10 WR and 1 TE.. with 6 of the top 10 being RBs.

 

Make 3 required RB starters and the top 20 are 1 QB, 12 RBs, 6 WRs and 1 TE with 9 of the top 10 being RBs.

 

Go with 1 RB and your top 20 are made of 2 QBs, 6 RBs, 10 WRs and 2 TEs with 4 of the top 10 being RBs.

 

What this shows is that there is indeed a very significant dropoff in "value" at the RB position very early on, while the other positions remain relatively flat after that initial run. This in turn drives the run on RBs up as generally speaking good value WRs, and definitely QBs will fall to later rounds as everyone tries to snap up those RBs that can help you.

 

Adding more RBs to the required list HELPS the LT owner, as he gains more in the added value that comes from forcing more RBs to be started by each team, and makes it a lot harder for teams to make up that value from the other positions like WR, QB and TE. More required starters from a position means higher relative value for the players in that position that score.

 

Let' s go with your example of LT plus two marginals against your 3 decent RBs... you admit this is about a wash. Well, in order for that to happen, the LT owner is forgoing RBs early and taking player sfrom other positions... higher value players from those positions. So, while you are grabbing 3 RBs to make up the LT ground, the LT owner is grabbing top producers at other positions increasing his advantage as you play catch up. Now, if he could only start one RB, or one RB plus a flex, the RBs would last longer asthere are less required starters, you could get a high value WR early on and get an RB a round or two later that very likely gives similar production (based on the value anlaysis, we see this is likely), so, in the end you can gain an advantage over the LT owner by having higher value players at other positions.

 

Now, looking at making one minor modification to the above, that is adding PPR, no other changes. Lineup reqs are the same. The top RB comes in with a value of 223, a slight increase over the 212 of the standard, but #2 is up to 196, cutting the difference between 1 and 2 to about 1 PPG. QB values are unchanged, so the #1 QB is still at a value of 103 (good for a tie at 16th overall), the #1 WR jumps to a value of 163 (good for #4 overall).

 

All of a sudden with this one minor modification, your top 20 are comprised of 1 QB, 7 RB, 10 WR and 2 TE, with RBs being 5 of the top 10.

 

Go to 3 RBs and top 20 is 11 RBs, 8 WRs and 1 TE, with 8 of the top 10 being RBs.

 

Go to 1 RB and the top 20 is 1 QB, 5 RB, 12 WR and 2 TE with 3 of the top 10 being RBs

 

As the above numbers show, bumping the number of RB starters up completely destroys the value you can gain from other positions to offset the hugh value of the top feew RBs in a standard setup.

[DMD]

There is no doubt that there have been a lot of rbbc teams last year BUT it is not as bad as it may seem at first. For one, it means there are a lot more RBs to go around than before (albeit lower scoring). Also, last year was an abberation because of LT scoring more than any other RB in the history of the NFL. Recall too what happened to owners of Shaun Alexander, Clinton Portis, Lamont Jordan, Carnell Williams, etc. who thought they had the answer for a primary back.

 

LT made such a HUGE difference last year that it makes the RBBC look like it is really a hindrance but there should be less this season anyway and as always, you have a 50/50 chance on getting the primary back that you think you are drafting.

[cliaz]

This is okay if all you start is RBs.... but, you start many other positions and that is how you can create a value balance in the league.

 

(Pulling some of this from an article I am working on)

 

Using the average of the last 3 years of stats, the top RB in the standard scoring system (and a 1/2/3/1/1/1 starting lineup requirement) I described above has a value of 212 pts. The top QB has a value of 103 points (which is good for 7th overall in value), the top WR has a value of 121 points (good for 5th overall in value). There is a significant dropoff however in RB value after the 7th RB (RB7=88pts, RB8=71 pts) compared to the dropoff at WR (WR2 thru 9 are valued between 99 pts and 75 pts). QB2 averages to 78 point, and the drops are marginal from 3 on, showing that the thory about waiting for QBs is a fairly solid one.

 

Your top 20 players are comprised of 1 QB, 8 RB, 10 WR and 1 TE.. with 6 of the top 10 being RBs.

 

Make 3 required RB starters and the top 20 are 1 QB, 12 RBs, 6 WRs and 1 TE with 9 of the top 10 being RBs.

 

Go with 1 RB and your top 20 are made of 2 QBs, 6 RBs, 10 WRs and 2 TEs with 4 of the top 10 being RBs.

 

What this shows is that there is indeed a very significant dropoff in "value" at the RB position very early on, while the other positions remain relatively flat after that initial run. This in turn drives the run on RBs up as generally speaking good value WRs, and definitely QBs will fall to later rounds as everyone tries to snap up those RBs that can help you.

 

Adding more RBs to the required list HELPS the LT owner, as he gains more in the added value that comes from forcing more RBs to be started by each team, and makes it a lot harder for teams to make up that value from the other positions like WR, QB and TE. More required starters from a position means higher relative value for the players in that position that score.

 

All of my response are with the mind set that I am talking about a 12 team league that starts 2+ RBs:

 

The problem with this is in leagues that require 2+ starting RBS. If you wait and grab a higher value WR/QB you miss out on getting a RB that could even put up more than 10 pts. So then you are severally hurting on RBs but have a good couple of WRs or a great WR and QB but you can't trade any of them for a equal or higher value RB because they are like gold. IMHO you've hurt yourself if you don't have two starting RBS by the end of round 2 in leagues that require 2+ RBs.

 

Let' s go with your example of LT plus two marginals against your 3 decent RBs... you admit this is about a wash. Well, in order for that to happen, the LT owner is forgoing RBs early and taking player sfrom other positions... higher value players from those positions. So, while you are grabbing 3 RBs to make up the LT ground, the LT owner is grabbing top producers at other positions increasing his advantage as you play catch up. Now, if he could only start one RB, or one RB plus a flex, the RBs would last longer asthere are less required starters, you could get a high value WR early on and get an RB a round or two later that very likely gives similar production (based on the value anlaysis, we see this is likely), so, in the end you can gain an advantage over the LT owner by having higher value players at other positions.

 

This argument is kind of confusing to me because if we have a team owner that has LT more than likely he had 1.1 which means he would have 2.12, 3.1 (or whatever size league. Doesn’t matter as he would have the back to back pick on the even going into the odd rounds.) So he would take LT, grab another RB and a top 10 WR on the swing or a top 5 QB if not take 3 RBs to build his team around. He would still have to burn a slot for a RB and then have a pick right after it so he could draft whatever he wanted at that point as there would still be at least 2 top 20 RBs available to him. Doesn't matter if the rest of the league is chasing RBs because he is at a huge advantage here. 1. He gets the best RB/scoring in fantasy football. 2. He gets two back to back picks to grab whatever he wants. 2 RBs, 1 RB and 1 top WR, 1 RB and 1 top 5 QB, hell he could take two TEs if he really wanted to.

 

 

Basically what I’m saying here is it doesn't matter what the rest of the league goes after at this point because he is at a huge advantage that no one else in the draft has and he can draft whatever he wants at this critical point depending on what the run is. No matter what team 2 – 12 do he controls the draft from round 1 to round 3.

 

Now, looking at making one minor modification to the above, that is adding PPR, no other changes. Lineup reqs are the same. The top RB comes in with a value of 223, a slight increase over the 212 of the standard, but #2 is up to 196, cutting the difference between 1 and 2 to about 1 PPG. QB values are unchanged, so the #1 QB is still at a value of 103 (good for a tie at 16th overall), the #1 WR jumps to a value of 163 (good for #4 overall).

 

All of a sudden with this one minor modification, your top 20 are comprised of 1 QB, 7 RB, 10 WR and 2 TE, with RBs being 5 of the top 10.

 

Go to 3 RBs and top 20 is 11 RBs, 8 WRs and 1 TE, with 8 of the top 10 being RBs.

 

Go to 1 RB and the top 20 is 1 QB, 5 RB, 12 WR and 2 TE with 3 of the top 10 being RBs

 

As the above numbers show, bumping the number of RB starters up completely destroys the value you can gain from other positions to offset the hugh value of the top feew RBs in a standard setup.

 

[Big Country]

cliaz -

 

Note that my comments address the RB issue by stating that by INCREASING the required starters at other positions, or DECREASING the required starters at the RB position you can bring relative values of other positions into line with RBs, such that you can theoretically make up for that lack of a true stud RB. My arguments clearly show that I agree with you, if you are required to start 2+ RBs, then not going RB is detrimental from a strictly value stand point.

 

Your second set of comments is because I believe you did not link my comment about taking swammis scenario which is LT plus two marginal backs vs. his 3 decent backs in a 3 RB required situation. I tried to show that even in the scenario where an owner takes LT and then skips RBs until he takes the last "startable" RBs, he is gaining an extreme advantage at the other spots, while, if the requirement was less RBs, it is easier for other owners to overcome the "lack" of quality RBs by making up for that lesser RB production with increased production at other spots.

 

As DMD noted, this past season was an anomaly in terms of LTs production.. it was insanely high, but, if he can do it again, you could ride LT and a load of window lickers to the playoffs.

 

What I tried to illustrate was that from a value perspective, adding more required RBs HELPS the owners with the earlier picks a lot, and hurts those teams trying to play catch up at that position, not the other way around as was insinuated in that original response I referred to.

[cliaz]

cliaz -

 

Note that my comments address the RB issue by stating that by INCREASING the required starters at other positions, or DECREASING the required starters at the RB position you can bring relative values of other positions into line with RBs, such that you can theoretically make up for that lack of a true stud RB. My arguments clearly show that I agree with you, if you are required to start 2+ RBs, then not going RB is detrimental from a strictly value stand point.

 

Your second set of comments is because I believe you did not link my comment about taking swammis scenario which is LT plus two marginal backs vs. his 3 decent backs in a 3 RB required situation. I tried to show that even in the scenario where an owner takes LT and then skips RBs until he takes the last "startable" RBs, he is gaining an extreme advantage at the other spots, while, if the requirement was less RBs, it is easier for other owners to overcome the "lack" of quality RBs by making up for that lesser RB production with increased production at other spots.

 

As DMD noted, this past season was an anomaly in terms of LTs production.. it was insanely high, but, if he can do it again, you could ride LT and a load of window lickers to the playoffs.

 

What I tried to illustrate was that from a value perspective, adding more required RBs HELPS the owners with the earlier picks a lot, and hurts those teams trying to play catch up at that position, not the other way around as was insinuated in that original response I referred to.

 

 

 

Gotcha!

 

understand i'm buzzing off of hydrocodone right now.

Edited March 10, 2007 by cliaz

[policyvote]

Yet everyone still hamstrings QBs with 3- or 4-point-per-passing TD rules. :confused:

 

Peace

policy