value RB vs WR

[Pope Flick]

Ahhh, an early appearance of the annual debate that typically rears in mid-July.

 

Must be global warming.

[Gopher]

What's next, the "Draft Manning in the first round" debate (although it might be Brady this year)?

[Big Country]

In all fairmess, there are "unique" league setups that I have seen that may boost value of certain positions. Start 2 QB leagues certainly boost QB values a bit (though, that thread last year where the guy kept calling me out even though I was attempting to help defend his position was priceless), bumping required WRs to 4 certainly help level the WR field a bit and doing something like PPR only for TEs or better yardage scoring for TEs only certainly boost the value of the few TEs that score.

 

But, for your fairly standard 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, TE, Flex, K , D (heck even 3 WR and a flex to) type league, with or without PPR and with or without 6 pt passing TDs the law of supply and demand and the historic scoring curve just dictates that RBs have much greater intrinsic value, and due to the relative flat nature of QB and WR scoring behind the top few dictate that they have lesser value.

 

And, again in all fairness, I generally propogate the last starter method as a starting baseline for value. In my opinion, it is definitely not perfect, but provides a very good starting point. It is the tweaks based on your knowledge of owner tendencies that give it even greater effectiveness (ie, many owners grab a backup RB before their #2 or #3 WR, you know to shift the RB baseline down to account for this, resulting in an even greater importance on RB)

Edited May 8, 2008 by Big Country

[yo mama]

the law of supply and demand and the historic scoring curve just dictates that RBs have much greater intrinsic value, and due to the relative flat nature of QB and WR scoring behind the top few dictate that they have lesser value.

Meh. Last year the top 12 WRs combined for about 3527 fantasy points in a standard PPR format. The top 12 RBs: 3134. Plus, the top RB (Westbrook with approx 370 fantasy points) scored fewer points than the top WR (Moss, with 385). Looking down the food chain, the 24th best RB (Fargas, with 163 points) similarly had fewer fantasy points than the 24th best WR (Galloway, with 194).

 

Maybe last year was an anomaly. But, at least for last year, WRs were worth more than RBs. That said, you still couldn't have won without at least serviceable RBs, and if you waited to grab your RB1 until the 3rd or 4th round the chances of that happen were pretty slim. In reality, you want as many studs on your team as possible. My personal preference is for at least one of them to be RB and for one of them to be a WR. But if I can still find stud potential in the 3rd or 4th round, I could care less if the position is a RB, WR, or QB.

Edited May 8, 2008 by yo mama

[Dr. Love]

I won't go as far as saying that one should look to draft WR-WR, but I almost always come out of round two with one RB and one WR. I will certainly say that wisdom of drafting RB-RB no matter what can be easily called into question.

 

As others have said, stud WR scoring is often far more variable than stud RB scoring. Even worse for tier 1A guys. I'm usually more concerned with getting a WR that will consistently score in double digits (using a "standard" scoring system). I'd make the argument that a guy like Brandon Marshall was more valuable last year than TO. Marshall had ZERO games in which that he scored fewer than 10 points, and only three that he scored fewer than 13. TO had four games that he scored single-digit points in. I bet that TO owners as a whole lost 90+% of those games.

 

FF has never been simple or completely formulaic. That being said, five years ago someone who committed to drafting RB-RB with their first two picks usually did fairly well. I'm not sure that will be the case going forward.

[CMac83]

In the past, I've been a huge supporter of the "load up on backs early" strategy. But I've been doing a lot of thinking about different strategies myself. Here are the most important points (in my opinion) when thinking about different strategies this year:

 

#1) Obviously, the first thing brought up is true. You have to look at value (specifically value over expected replacement). If you're considering going RB or WR, and the talent at WR falls off after the next couple of guys but all of the RBs are about the same, it makes obvious sense to go WR.

 

#2) Someone made the claim that it doesn't make sense to gamble on an RB when you can grab a sure-fire WR. Would you like to tell this to the owners who drafted sure-fire WRs such as Steve Smith, Marvin Harrison, and Javon Walker last year? (You could even count Lee Evans in this group too.)

 

#3) Without question, I'm going RB in round 1. There are a lot more "feature backs" than 5, but the talent definitely does drop off after the first 5 RBs. Even if I'm picking in late round 1, that doesn't matter to me. I don't want to be going into the season without a legit RB1. However, after the first 13 or so backs (varies on if you believe in Ryan Grant, Reggie Bush, etc), the talent drops off again. So in most cases in a 12-team league, as of right now, I'm planning on going QB or WR in round 2. I feel like the backs that should be available in rounds 4 and 5 (LenDale White, Thomas Jones, Jonathan Stewart) are nearly equivalent to the guys going in round 2. That's projected using Mock Draft Central's average draft positions for estimating where these guys will go (I hope I'm allowed to say that).

 

To illustrate this point, let me compare Willie Parker and Thomas Jones. Parker is currently going in the late 2nd/early 3rd round of 12-team drafts, and TJ is going late 5th/early 6th. Why? You got me there. Let's look at their 2007 stats:

 

FWP: 1480 total yards, 2 TDs (15 games)

TJ: 1336 total yards, 2 TDs (16 games)

 

Now consider that Parker is coming off an injury, his offensive line got worse, and the Steelers added Mendenhall, who will steal carries and make FWP a complete non-consideration at the goal line. The Jets added no one to compete with Jones, and his offensive line got better in the offseason. If you ask me, these average draft positions should be reversed.

 

And this gets back to point #1 as well. Why would you take Parker, knowing you can get at the very least a near-equivalent back a couple of rounds later? If you take a WR there, you might get someone like Fitz, Colston, or AJ. But the round 5 WRs show a significant drop-off in fantasy talent: Hines Ward, Calvin Johnson, Dwayne Bowe. Therefore, the smart move would clearly be to go WR in this position (or QB, if a good one slips to you).

 

Just my thinking. Injuries are going to shake up fantasy football draft boards in July & August anyway, so all of this could be purely hypothetical when it comes time for real drafts.

 

Oh, and edited to add: #4) This should go without saying, especially with the people on these boards, but know your league's scoring system too. Things like PPR and 4pt passing TDs can have drastic effects.

Edited May 8, 2008 by CMac83

[bushwacked]

4pts for passing TDs can have drastic effects.

 

[CMac83]

Am eye geting waged 4 pour grammer oar sumfin? Ouch. I've gone back and edited anyway, although I'm still not sure if it's up to your expectations.

[Egret]

The vulnerability of grabbing lots of WRs early: even if they pay off you're gambling that you can get good RBs either later in the draft, or during the year.

True dat. I've had it work, and I've had it blow up in my face. When it works, it's a thing of beauty.

[Big Country]

I won't go as far as saying that one should look to draft WR-WR, but I almost always come out of round two with one RB and one WR. I will certainly say that wisdom of drafting RB-RB no matter what can be easily called into question.

 

As others have said, stud WR scoring is often far more variable than stud RB scoring. Even worse for tier 1A guys. I'm usually more concerned with getting a WR that will consistently score in double digits (using a "standard" scoring system). I'd make the argument that a guy like Brandon Marshall was more valuable last year than TO. Marshall had ZERO games in which that he scored fewer than 10 points, and only three that he scored fewer than 13. TO had four games that he scored single-digit points in. I bet that TO owners as a whole lost 90+% of those games.

 

FF has never been simple or completely formulaic. That being said, five years ago someone who committed to drafting RB-RB with their first two picks usually did fairly well. I'm not sure that will be the case going forward.

 

I agree 100% with these sentiments, especially the value of consistency, particularly from the WR spot.

[Big Country]

Oh, and edited to add: #4) This should go without saying, especially with the people on these boards, but know your league's scoring system too. Things like PPR and 4pt passing TDs can have drastic effects.

 

THe 4 pt vs 6 pt pass TDs has been shown and used a an example countless times of how scoring system generally has an extremely minimal affect on value. The only way the scoring of TDs, particularly passing TDs, would have a big affect is if only certain players at the position got the bonus, like say only QBs whose last name begins with A-J get 6 pts, and those with last names beginning with K or later get 4 points, then you would see a more significant value shift. If all QBs get the same per TD, the net effect on value is minimal. (ie, making these up, but Manning averages 6 TDs per season more than the #7 QB, that's a whopping 12 point value shift over the course of the entire season, relatively insignificant)

 

Regarding PPR, the main effect that adding PPR (assuming 1 point per rec. for all positions) is that elite RBs that catch a lot (LT and Westy off the top of my head) skyrocket in value, RBs that are not elite runners but catch a lot (Bush) jump up in value, and the top flight WRs get a bit of a boos compared to the RBs that are not involved much in the passing game. The other major effect is that it sway the value of a flex position more towards a decent #2/#3 type WR over a change of pace RB as the COP back may average 40 yards a game, but to match or beat that the WR only needs 2 catches for 20 yards.

[Big Country]

Meh. Last year the top 12 WRs combined for about 3527 fantasy points in a standard PPR format. The top 12 RBs: 3134. Plus, the top RB (Westbrook with approx 370 fantasy points) scored fewer points than the top WR (Moss, with 385). Looking down the food chain, the 24th best RB (Fargas, with 163 points) similarly had fewer fantasy points than the 24th best WR (Galloway, with 194).

 

Maybe last year was an anomaly. But, at least for last year, WRs were worth more than RBs. That said, you still couldn't have won without at least serviceable RBs, and if you waited to grab your RB1 until the 3rd or 4th round the chances of that happen were pretty slim. In reality, you want as many studs on your team as possible. My personal preference is for at least one of them to be RB and for one of them to be a WR. But if I can still find stud potential in the 3rd or 4th round, I could care less if the position is a RB, WR, or QB.

 

I must reiterate, value is based on point differential, not points scored.

 

Using your theory, Moss is the most valuable player as he scored 385 points (compared to Westy 370). But, from a value perspective, Moss is worth 191 (385-194=191) compared to Westy's 207 (370-163), thus, if you take Moss over Westy, despite his outscoring Westy point wise, you are losing in value.

 

Obviously this is extremely simplified and ignores important factors such as expected drop in value by position between picks, but it does illustrate the point trying to be made. Now, historically the RB drop off is much steeper, especially after the top 12, compared to WRs that when comparing say the top 24 at each position (for a 12 team start 2RB/2WR league) you may well find that value wise the 5th RB who only scored say 320 points holds more value than Moss with his 385 points because of the increased availability of similar scoring WRs later on vs. the steep drop off in RB production.

[yo mama]

Am eye geting waged 4 pour grammer oar sumfin? Ouch. I've gone back and edited anyway, although I'm still not sure if it's up to your expectations.

Grammar? Maybe in the Tailgate, where the Huddle's intellectuals hang out. But not in the football forum. No, I think Bushwacked was busting your chops because its fairly well established that 4 v 6 pts for passing TDs makes virtually no difference when comparing QBs to QBs. It only makes a difference when comparing QBs to other positions. Even then, it doesn't makes WRs more valuable than RBs, or vice versa. Now, if RECEIVING TDs were only 4 pts (relative to 6pts for rushing TDs), then maybe you'd have a point. That'd be a pretty wacky scoring system, though.

[yo mama]

I must reiterate, value is based on point differential, not points scored.

 

Using your theory, Moss is the most valuable player as he scored 385 points (compared to Westy 370). But, from a value perspective, Moss is worth 191 (385-194=191) compared to Westy's 207 (370-163), thus, if you take Moss over Westy, despite his outscoring Westy point wise, you are losing in value.

 

Obviously this is extremely simplified and ignores important factors such as expected drop in value by position between picks, but it does illustrate the point trying to be made. Now, historically the RB drop off is much steeper, especially after the top 12, compared to WRs that when comparing say the top 24 at each position (for a 12 team start 2RB/2WR league) you may well find that value wise the 5th RB who only scored say 320 points holds more value than Moss with his 385 points because of the increased availability of similar scoring WRs later on vs. the steep drop off in RB production.

I see what you're saying, and don't have any qualms with it. The problem is that, in a typical snake draft, the best 6 RBs are usually gone in the first 6 picks. If you're on the back half of the draft you don't have the luxury of ever getting a consensus top 5 RB. Thus, if the differential comparison is the #1 WR and #24 WR vs the #12 RB and #24 RB (assuming you're drafting at the 1.12 spot), the math works out much more in favor of taking the #1 WR. I think the more general phenomenon you've described is much more appropriate to auction leagues.

Edited May 8, 2008 by yo mama

[Big Country]

I see what you're saying, and don't have any qualms with it. The problem is that, in a typical snake draft, the best 6 RBs are usually gone in the first 6 picks. If you're on the back half of the draft you don't have the luxury of ever getting a consensus top 5 RB. Thus, if the differential comparison is the #1 WR and #24 WR vs the #12 RB and #24 RB (assuming you're drafting at the 1.12 spot), the math works out much more in favor of taking the #1 WR. I think the more general phenomenon you've described is much more appropriate to auction leagues.

 

In this case, what you would do is look at the value of the best available RB and WR at the time of your pick (let's assume for this those are the only two positions you are considering), then make an educated guess as to what the teams that pick between this pick and your next pick will do, thus allowing you to estimate where the value will be at your next pick so that you can select the combination that will net you the greatest overall value. Oftentimes, because so many owners do blindly go RB/RB, it may mean taking the #6 or #7 RB over the #1 or #2 WR on your board, even if the #1 WR has slightly greater value, because you expect to be able to get your #4 or #5 WR at the next pick where as you may then be looking at the #13 or #14 RB on your board. I think most would say that the combination of the #7 RB and #5 WR is much more desireable than the #1 WR and the #13 RB, and this of course assumes you are ranking them correctly. In this case, the #6 RB has greater "relative value" (yes, I am coining this term) even if the WR has greater "absolute value".

[CMac83]

Ah, I understand, and I see your points. You're right - Over the course of a season, 6pt passing TDs don't make much of a difference. I personally hate 6pt passing TDs though, because too often, a week's matchup is decided by QBs. If you have a QB who threw for 175 yards, 1 TD and 2 INTs and are facing a QB who threw for 300 yards and 3 TDs, good luck trying to make that up. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a sizeable difference, but it sucks going into it knowing that your QB's performance will have an unbalanced impact on your matchup.

 

It could be the same thing with WRs. If receiving TDs were 12 points, then overall, the #3 WR might only end up being an extra 20 points or so better than the #15 WR if it were a standard league. But, WRs would decide many more weekly matchups.

 

Just explaining my hatred of 6pt passing TDs, and I'm sure it's already been brought up many times on these boards. You're 100% right though with its effect on player rankings - My mistake.

Edited May 8, 2008 by CMac83

[Duchess Jack]

I was afraid it would come to this.....

 

hmmm... and here it seemed you were just waiting for it to come to this....

[Avernus]

I follow no formula...things never go as I expect...

 

I just try to draft the best team that I can put together....even if I draft a backup at one position before taking a QB....

 

the best strategy is considering all scenario's and changing your plan on the fly..

[Sturphy]

I follow no formula...things never go as I expect...

 

I just try to draft the best team that I can put together....even if I draft a backup at one position before taking a QB....

 

the best strategy is considering all scenario's and changing your plan on the fly..

This is basically my approach.

[keggerz]

you want to see a screwy QB Scoring system check this one out....actually i think we did a pretty good job with the scoring and starting requirements

 

and to a certain handful of leaguemates, no I am not saying that i agree with the QB scoring

 

****dont just look at the QBs overall scores but look at their WEEKLY scores too....I am the guy that NEVER takes a QB early(usually take mine once someone already has a backup) and in this league I spent a 2nd rounder on Peyton****

[piratesownninjas]

The issue isn't which position you're picking, so much as the points that pick generates for you.

+1

[dirtdickens]

I see what you're saying, and don't have any qualms with it. The problem is that, in a typical snake draft, the best 6 RBs are usually gone in the first 6 picks. If you're on the back half of the draft you don't have the luxury of ever getting a consensus top 5 RB. Thus, if the differential comparison is the #1 WR and #24 WR vs the #12 RB and #24 RB (assuming you're drafting at the 1.12 spot), the math works out much more in favor of taking the #1 WR. I think the more general phenomenon you've described is much more appropriate to auction leagues.

 

I am in line with your thinking this year. I never go into a draft with a plan, but if I am stuck late in the round with no solid option at RB I am going WR. My league is a snake with PPR and I would feel a lot better going Moss and AJ/Brady/TO. I have been pretty lucky finding mid round RB talent so this could be the year I finally work this method.

[BumpNRun]

IMO, I go with the value the pick has theory.....The value I will get out of the pick in that round usually does better for me........I have gone RB heavy, and have had to make trades to get a decent WR........but have also learned tolook at other picks that have better value for me. (ie a top WR). It also depends on your local........Mine goes RB heavy every year.......except last year...the commish in the 10 spot went WR, WR.....he ended up winning it all in the money league, if that aint the kicker.......

 

This year, with all last years injuries, I will pay close attention to that as the draft takes place ( even though I hear it is at a gentlemens club this year) to the VALUE the pick has at the spot being picked...