Sayonara Stud RB...

[DMD]

If you get a chance, read my latest article Rise and Fall of the Workhorse Running Back.

 

I had to look back through 32 years of data but being a stat junkie, I found it all really interesting.

[The Wolf]

In light of your recent purchase , and having not yet read the article, I can conclude it is BRILLIANT!

[Avernus]

I haven't read your article yet, but I have found quite a few RB's who put up stud RB numbers while being in a committee - while other RB's suffer in a committee and appear to be more along the lines of the every down back mold, but are stuck in a RBBC....

 

from here on in - the trick is to find the RB who performs well in a RBBC to go along with your 1st round stud....provided your 1st round stud performs like a 1st round stud, or if you even draft that position in the 1st round to begin with...

[buddahj]

I haven't read your article yet, but I have found quite a few RB's who put up stud RB numbers while being in a committee - while other RB's suffer in a committee and appear to be more along the lines of the every down back mold, but are stuck in a RBBC....

 

from here on in - the trick is to find the RB who performs well in a RBBC to go along with your 1st round stud....provided your 1st round stud performs like a 1st round stud, or if you even draft that position in the 1st round to begin with...

Agree 100%

[DMD]

Agree 100%

 

Having a lack of many heavy duty backs does make the few more valuable. But it also means the second round no longer needs to be chockfull of RBs.

[ajfalcone]

I've found that the last couple years, the flex play tends to be a receiver instead of rb. Its risky just because the rb will get more touches then any receiver but the rbbc trend tends to weigh towards a good receiver will start as flex. Hence 3 good rbs instead of 5 is needed

[hooknladder]

again, i think the proven method in this climate is a shotgun approach, focused on young backs and hope you hit on one.

[Big Country]

I've found that the last couple years, the flex play tends to be a receiver instead of rb. Its risky just because the rb will get more touches then any receiver but the rbbc trend tends to weigh towards a good receiver will start as flex. Hence 3 good rbs instead of 5 is needed

 

I think this largely is affected by PPR as well as the other lineup reqs.

 

Assuming a PPR league, leagues that simply added a flex to the lineup requiremnts (assuming 2RB/3WR standard config) will still see significant value in the RB position with a focus on WRs in the flex as there are more required "RBs" used to fill the RB spots, whereas leagues that removed one of the required RBs and added in a flex (thus, a lineup req of 1-2 RBs and 3-4 WRs) see a decline in overall RB value and more balance between the use of RBs and WRs in the flex, as more of the tier 2/3 RBs are used in the flex as there are only 12 required RBs.

[Rovers]

I sort of saw this coming, and great article. I'll say sort of, because I almost fell into this strategy accidentally.

 

Last year in one league, I had the Ravens and Dolphins #1 and 2 RB's. I started 3... so based on matchups, I'd swing towards starting either both Ravens' RB' and one Miami RB, or swap to starting only Rice and both Miami RB's. It worked out fairly well. This also supplies the handcuff in case of an injury. The caveat is making sure you can still get RB2 after drafting the #1. In any case, WR's have spiked in value for sure. Time to put the RB in the first round strategy to bed, unless you pick in the first 3 or 4 slots.

[BeeR]

The free part of the article has me unconvinced.

 

Honestly looking at 03 thru 09 I see very modest declines which might even end up being aberrations.

 

I think this should be something more along the lines of "The Decline of the 'RB Stud' Draft Strat" and how PPR is largely responsible, not the RBBC thing.

 

Then again I drafted Forte over Peterson last year so

[Cameltosis]

When I first skimmed the title I was wondering who Sayonara was and how I hadnt heard of him seeing as though he is sort of a stud RB.

 

[Big Country]

In any case, WR's have spiked in value for sure.

 

To what do you attribute this? Is it there are more WRs distancing themselves from the pack, or is it more a function of league setup and the trend (anecdotal evidence, but based on what I am generally seeing) towards not just PPR scoring but also additional required WRs? 5-10 years ago, the majority of leagues were 2RB/2WR setups and did not have PPR.. nowadays, you are seeing much more 2RB/3WR plus a flex setups or even 1 RB/3WR plus a flex setups. Both of these newer more common setups deflate RB values in comparison to WRs not to mention the affect PPR has in scoring, which, as has been shown, generally has less of an affect on overall values but certainly drives WRs up in comparison to RBs when looking at the flex position, due to the proliferation of possession WRs now having an increased level of scoring, especially in leagues that award 1 point per reception.

 

Time to put the RB in the first round strategy to bed, unless you pick in the first 3 or 4 slots.

 

Too sweeping of a general statement IMO. Depends on league setup, as noted in my comments above. A 12 team league with a fixed lineup of 2 RBs and 2 WRs will still see greater value in the RB position much deeper than a league that is 1 RB/ 3 WR.

[Rovers]

To what do you attribute this? Is it there are more WRs distancing themselves from the pack, or is it more a function of league setup and the trend (anecdotal evidence, but based on what I am generally seeing) towards not just PPR scoring but also additional required WRs? 5-10 years ago, the majority of leagues were 2RB/2WR setups and did not have PPR.. nowadays, you are seeing much more 2RB/3WR plus a flex setups or even 1 RB/3WR plus a flex setups. Both of these newer more common setups deflate RB values in comparison to WRs not to mention the affect PPR has in scoring, which, as has been shown, generally has less of an affect on overall values but certainly drives WRs up in comparison to RBs when looking at the flex position, due to the proliferation of possession WRs now having an increased level of scoring, especially in leagues that award 1 point per reception.

 

 

 

Too sweeping of a general statement IMO. Depends on league setup, as noted in my comments above. A 12 team league with a fixed lineup of 2 RBs and 2 WRs will still see greater value in the RB position much deeper than a league that is 1 RB/ 3 WR.

 

I've never played in a start 2 WR league, and I started playing FF When Ricky Waters was a first round pick. Agreed, PPR is newer, and newer still is 0.5 PPR. My point is simply this: The days of RB-RB are over. After the first 4 or so RB''s are off the board, I'll be going WR or perhaps QB. There must be at least 12 WR's I would draft before any RB from teams like NYJ, NYG, MIA, IND, TEX, and so on. To me at least, that is a change, and translates to more WR value vs. RB value in the early rounds.

[cjray]

Great article, thanks DMD.

 

In my league, 10 team PPR, mandatory to start 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 Def, 1 IDP, 1 Flex(RB/WR/TE), 1 PK. 2009, CJ was top FPt scorer but 2-5 were QBs, pretty much all 5 of those players with 300+ pts. Then sharp drop off to more RBs and QBs, WR didn't show up until #18 overall. AJ with about 200 pts. We're talking about raising the PPR from 1 for 2 to 1 for 1, big effect on WR of course, smaller rise for RB and TE.

 

Either way though, as I'm doing the math on a 10 team draft, though RB has been the must get 1st round pick for years, it seems that QB should now be the first round pick in our league. The drop off of talent and therefore pts in QBs is much more significant than the drop off in RBs. If you can get one of those top RBs, great, but once you break out of the top 5 RBs the next 10-15 all scored within 20 pts or so of each other. So basically, the top 3 (CJ, AP, MJD) in our league scored roughly 18-20 pts/game, Ray Rice more like 16, a couple others in the 14-15 range, then a bunch in the 11-13 range. Whereas QBs, the top 3 were likewise 18-20 pts per game (Brees, Rodgers, Manning), with Favre/Brady/Shaub not too far behind, but you reach the 10-12 pts per game category pretty quickly with QBs.

 

Sorry, long preface to my point. LOL In my league anyway, the switch from stud RB to RBBC makes a big difference. Important to get a top RB for sure, but as I'm crunching the numbers I'm seeing more value on choosing a QB first in our draft. I don't know the technical term but we draft 1-10, then team 10 drafts at 11 and back up to team 1 at overall pick 20 and so on. That being the case, picking up CJ as #1 at about 20 pts/game, 18 picks before you go again, looking at numbers has every team getting a QB in one of their first picks, and either an RB or WR as the other. But that means team 1 gets essentially the #10 ranked QB at around a 10-12 pt/game QB. Whereas, taking Brees as #1 at about 20 pts/game, assuming roughly the same mix of QB/RB/WRs picked, team 1 ends up with about a 12-14 pt/game RB1.

 

So I think, at least for our league, that the trend towards more RBBC means that the middle of the field players for RB1 is stretched much wider, making other higher scoring positions more valuable early on in a draft. Especially if our PPR changes then the top WRs are taken earlier as well, which again means more valuable RBs available for longer in the draft.

 

Am I off on my logic here? Obviously, it depends on your league and scoring rules.

 

Anyway, thanks DMD, your article made me start looking at some of those numbers in my own league. LOL

[Big Country]

Am I off on my logic here? Obviously, it depends on your league and scoring rules.

 

Without seeing the actual scoring in your league for the last 3-5 years, generally speaking, yes. It is not total points scored that determines value, it is the point differential within the position that is the primary driving force behind value.

[cjray]

Without seeing the actual scoring in your league for the last 3-5 years, generally speaking, yes. It is not total points scored that determines value, it is the point differential within the position that is the primary driving force behind value.

 

Thanks for responding Big Country. I don't understand what you mean by "point differential within the position." Explain please?

[Avernus]

Thanks for responding Big Country. I don't understand what you mean by "point differential within the position." Explain please?

 

 

pretty much I think he's talking about potential PPR or even more elevated performance scoring...

 

a back stuck in a committee who only gets about 10 touches a game can be a decent RB2 if you play matchups right and have a solid team around him if he can make plays in the passing game...

[Scooby's Hubby]

McGahee was truly a beast as a goaline back, much like Jerome Bettis was at one time. Rarely do you have statistically, RB combos like Rice/MaGahee or Ronnie Brown/Ricky. Just look at Barber/Felix. Hard to start either with great confidence last year. I think stategies like Rovers are too hard to come by. Yes, PPR makes WR score better, but WRs are too inconsistent (thinking of the not-so obvious and post 1st round picks) whereas RBs get more guaranteed touches plus goaline touches. Personally, last year I would have taken Chris Johnson (taken 11th overall in our league) over Reggie Wayne or Jennings, Boldin, Roddy White etc., with a late 1st round pick early second, even though Lendale was supposed to be the goaline back. Guys like Greg Jennings and Roddy White get doulble teamed too much. How frustrating was it being a Greg Jennings owner, or Colston owner last year? Too hard to pick their big games. Give me consistency and touches. I would probably take a L. McCoy or Sproles over any tier 2 WR.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Scooby's Hubby

[Rovers]

McGahee was truly a beast as a goaline back, much like Jerome Bettis was at one time. Rarely do you have statistically, RB combos like Rice/MaGahee or Ronnie Brown/Ricky. Just look at Barber/Felix. Hard to start either with great confidence last year. I think stategies like Rovers are too hard to come by. Yes, PPR makes WR score better, but WRs are too inconsistent (thinking of the not-so obvious and post 1st round picks) whereas RBs get more guaranteed touches plus goaline touches. Personally, last year I would have taken Chris Johnson (taken 11th overall in our league) over Reggie Wayne or Jennings, Boldin, Roddy White etc., with a late 1st round pick early second, even though Lendale was supposed to be the goaline back. Guys like Greg Jennings and Roddy White get doulble teamed too much. How frustrating was it being a Greg Jennings owner, or Colston owner last year? Too hard to pick their big games. Give me consistency and touches. I would probably take a L. McCoy or Sproles over any tier 2 WR.

 

This year, I think there are a few teams that might make for a viable one-two punch. Hard to tell until some preseason games, but I will keep my eye on the following pairings:

Greene/Tomlinson

Johnson/White

Williams/Brown

Rice/MaGahee

 

Other teams to watch are Buffalo, SD, Dallas, Tex, Sea, all depending on the draft and what might happen before redraft time comes around.

 

I don't agree with BC in so much as the determining factor of value is differential aligned strictly within a position, if that is what he meant. Cross comparisons of total points between positions also plays a part. What the balance between the two is largely dependent on scoring systems and line up requirements is a given, there are far more stud WR's than there are RB's anymore. That by itself changes relative value and draft position IMO. Just because there might be a big differential is say, a team defense, that is no reason to draft one in the fifth round when there are positional players who have the potential to put up far more FF points.

 

Perhaps I don't understand BC's point.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Rovers

[Scooby's Hubby]

The Greene/Tomlinson duo has to rate the highest of all duos and may be the one to handcuff together this year. Ray Rice would be picked much earlier than either Jet, but is much easier to handcuff than the Jet or Miami duo; so you could wait for the Jet or Miami duo and still get WR with 1st or 1st and 2nd pick.

[Big Country]

Thanks for responding Big Country. I don't understand what you mean by "point differential within the position." Explain please?

 

It is one of the simpler methods for evaluating relative value of positions.

 

Your post makes it seem you believe that the higher scoring postions are neccessarily more valuable. This is simply not the case.

 

Using the "Last Starter Method" allows one to evaluate the the relative value of players against one another. This method id simply taking the points scored by the last "starter" at each position and subtracting that value from all players within that position. What this does is baselines all players in all positions to a common value, so that you can more easily compare players across positions. I like to look at a 3-year average at minimum to help smooth any anomalies. Now, this is not an individual players 3 year average, it is the 3 year average by rank within the position (ie, average for the #1 RB each year, the #2 RB, etc.).

 

Now, there have been more trends to a few QBs jumping off the charts in value lately, the key being trying to identify which Qb it is that will have the monster year, but, in general, after the top 2-3 Qbs, there is usually a very smooth trend for the next 5-8 QBs, meaning that similar value can be had whether you take the 4th QB off the board or the 10th QB. You generally see similar trends for WRs after the top 8 or so. RBs generally show much larger value drops.

 

What I am getting at is this... in most leagues, QBs in general are the highest scorers, but, this does not neccessarily translate into QBs being the highest value.

 

I have several posts in past years that go into much greater detail on this, feel free to do a search for them if you are interested and want to discuss further.