The rb-rb draft?

[ThatDude]

10 team PPR #3 pick and went RB/WR/WR/RB

 

Start 1QB, 2RB, 3WR/TE, 1Flex(RB/WR/TE), 1K, 1Def

 

1. Rice

2. Nicks

3. VJax

4. Bradshaw

5. Welker

6. Harvin

7. Schaub (everyone was pissed when they realized Schaub was still on the board)

8. Wells

9. Vernon Davis

10. Bradford

Edited September 5, 2011 by ThatDude

[Wildcard]

I got A. Foster at first, Vick 2nd, Mike Wallace 3rd and Mcfadden 4th all with the 3rd pick in the draft.

Not 1 player was on my short list when I started the draft. I was all set to take Charles or Johnson figuring Foster & Peterson wpold be gone. That all changed when Peterson and Aaron Rodgers went 1&2.

You have to go with the flow.

[Whiskey Pimp]

I got A. Foster at first, Vick 2nd, Mike Wallace 3rd and Mcfadden 4th all with the 3rd pick in the draft.

Not 1 player was on my short list when I started the draft. I was all set to take Charles or Johnson figuring Foster & Peterson wpold be gone. That all changed when Peterson and Aaron Rodgers went 1&2.

You have to go with the flow.

 

How did DMC fall to the fourth round? 8 team league?

[rai]

How did DMC fall to the fourth round? 8 team league?

yea, he was the 11th pick in my draft

[Shorttynaz]

In a 10-team league I picked #10. Went WR with my first FOUR picks..

 

1 - R White

2 - C Johnson

3 - M Wallace

4 - B Marshall (maybe reached a little but what was on the board for RB's - Marshall was the "best value")

5 - S Greene

6 - P Manning (thought I was gonna get some extreme value here - but the homer in me got in the way)

7 - C Benson

8 - R Grant

9 - O Daniels

10 - Steelers D

 

Yeah - we can start 4 WR's. On paper (with a healthy big brother) I think I've got the strongest team in my league. I have Eli as my backup - if he can hold down the fort until big brother gets healthy I think I'm in for one hell of a ride this season (been a long time since I left the draft and felt GOOD about my team).

Edited September 6, 2011 by Shorttynaz

[cbs0121]

Eh, I do it all the time (RB-RB that is) with good success in my local ten man. Half of the league will spend a 3rd round pick or better to secure a top Quarterback, so I tend to get a lot of value going against the grain. If I were in a league where the first picks went more stock - ie RB till the 7th pick, only one first round Quarterback - I probably would have to change up my strategy, but that hasn't happened yet.

 

It seems to me that the top Quarterback/top Receiver strategy is very boom or bust - if your mid/late RBs pan out you probably win your league. If they don't, you're in for a lot of teeth gnashing as the year goes on. Personally, I prefer to take the less risky approach.

[BrooklynCrew]

Eh, I do it all the time (RB-RB that is) with good success in my local ten man. Half of the league will spend a 3rd round pick or better to secure a top Quarterback, so I tend to get a lot of value going against the grain. If I were in a league where the first picks went more stock - ie RB till the 7th pick, only one first round Quarterback - I probably would have to change up my strategy, but that hasn't happened yet.

 

It seems to me that the top Quarterback/top Receiver strategy is very boom or bust - if your mid/late RBs pan out you probably win your league. If they don't, you're in for a lot of teeth gnashing as the year goes on. Personally, I prefer to take the less risky approach.

 

Actually, most of the studies I've read recently is that the early 'many rbs' approach is far riskier... because a much higher percentage of 'top 20' rb's are busts than top 10 qb's or top 10 wr's even. I guess that's the point. RB - RB over the recent years is MORE risky. It may just feel safer cuz that's the trend historically.

[Goopster24]

Last two years in home league have gone WR/WR. Nearly won it last year.

 

I agree with most here: if you have chance of getting "the workhorse" RB, you take him. Outside that, I think you might as well get the "stud" WR and go for value in RB later. So many RBBC, so many injuries happen, so much young talent.

 

I had 10th pick. Keeper was Blount. First two picks were Calvin J. and Vincent J. My starting RB's I'm rolling with are Benson and Blount. I feel good about that. And I got Witten. And I got Matt Ryan as my QB who I really like this year.

[cbs0121]

Actually, most of the studies I've read recently is that the early 'many rbs' approach is far riskier... because a much higher percentage of 'top 20' rb's are busts than top 10 qb's or top 10 wr's even. I guess that's the point. RB - RB over the recent years is MORE risky. It may just feel safer cuz that's the trend historically.

 

It may be if everyone is doing it, but in a league like mine where I'm one of two or three taking that approach, it's hard to beat the value. My first five picks this year went like this -

 

1.1 Rice

2.10 Forte

3.1 VJax

4.10 S. Greene

5.1 Dez Bryant

 

Now, if there weren't any top 10 RBs left at the turn, I would have gone WR-WR. But with all the qbs going early a lot of RB value fell and that's why I took two RBs with my first three picks. It tends to happen every year in both of my locals and it's only getting more and more prevalent.

 

I guess my point was just that as people in my leagues start getting scared of all but the top 5 RBs, their draft values get adjusted for that injury/bust risk and the folks that are grabbing a bunch of RBs aren't paying like they used to. Most rankings have Forte as a early/mid 2nd guy and Greene around the late 3rd/early 4th. I was happy to get them for less.

[Goopster24]

Actually, most of the studies I've read recently is that the early 'many rbs' approach is far riskier... because a much higher percentage of 'top 20' rb's are busts than top 10 qb's or top 10 wr's even. I guess that's the point. RB - RB over the recent years is MORE risky. It may just feel safer cuz that's the trend historically.

 

Makes sense.

[Big Country]

Actually, most of the studies I've read recently is that the early 'many rbs' approach is far riskier... because a much higher percentage of 'top 20' rb's are busts than top 10 qb's or top 10 wr's even. I guess that's the point. RB - RB over the recent years is MORE risky. It may just feel safer cuz that's the trend historically.

 

From earlier in this thread -

 

The thing with QBs is that yes, we can have a level of confidence in the projections for them, but, as is seen year in and year out, the drop off between the #1 and #12 QB is minimal compared to the drop off at other positions. So, if we are both relatively confident in who the top 10 will be, and we are also relatively confident that the drop off is minimal, it is a position that I would be very comfortable waiting on.

 

With RBs, I believe I saw an analysis somewhere, maybe even cited earlier in this thread, that of the projected top 10 RBs, or at least top 10 ADP RBs, only 5-6 perform at that level. Well, given the much larger dropoff at RB, I would much rather load up my chambers with as many bullets from that group to try hit on a top 10 RB then try get one of the 4 RBs that are top 10 out of the other 40 or so that may get drafted, depending on league size.With WRs, we have also seen year over year a much smaller drop in production, and with the proliferation of PPR scoring, we aren't exactly seeing that gap increase significantly, more so we are seeing a much larger base of viable weekly options as those possession WRs that regularly go for 5 catches and 50 yards are seeing a doubling in their fantasy points, while that big play WR that is more of a 3 catch and 70 yard guy is now putting up the same fantasy points (though seeing a smaller percentage increase in points) in a much more volatile manner.

 

Now, this is all highly volatile from league to league where different lineup settings and scoring rules affect player values, but, in general, unless it is only a 1 required RB league, I would prefer to have as many bullets (read, highly ranked RBs) in my chambers as possible as the analysis of the stats over the last few years clearly shows that their is only a minimal drop in QB production from #1-#10 or 12 and with more viable WR options in PPR making that position a lot deeper, productive WRs can be found much later.

 

So, does all this mean one should blindly go RB-RB in their drafts? Of course not, but to blindly throw that option out of your playbook is just a foolish as going in to a draft with a preset draft plan and blindly sticking to it.

 

 

I guess it comes down to how you want ot use the information. For me, I'd rather the 60% shot at a top 10 RB rather and a 10% shot at a top 10 RB when I know I will have a near 100% shot at a top 10 QB 5-6 or more rounds later and also a very good shot at a highly rated WR with a good chance of perofrming at projected levels after those top 10-12 RBs are taken.

 

Again, that's not to say that bllindly going RB-RB is the way to go, as league dynamics play a hugh role, but to blindly dismiss it is folly.