Running Backs in Fantasy Football Today

[treat24]

Last year was probably the best fantasy WR year of our lifetime. Not sure we'll see another year like that for a long time.

I kept telling people this last year. A few years ago we had the year of the TE like no other... FF can be a cyclical beast. The question is, Was last year the start of a couple year trend, or just an anomaly? QBs and WRs definitely had a great year.

[joelamosobadiah]

That doesn't look at all like "getting smaller and smaller" to me.

That looks more like "getting bigger and bigger except for one outlier".

Last year was probably the best fantasy WR year of our lifetime. Not sure we'll see another year like that for a long time.

I should have said about the same and then a vastly smaller year. It was a HUGE year for fantasy WR's, but it was also a really poor year for fantasy RB's. Those stats aren't the best to get a feel for trends really and I don't have the time to hunt down the stats that would be best for that. I was just curious so threw some together.

[JasonSeahorn]

I'm not saying so much that RBs need to be secured because they are much better, but that because there are many more decent startable wides than there are RBs. That is why I'm saying that securing 2 good/decent RBs should be important because you can find pretty good WR talent later, or play a WR carousel. WR carousels are definitely viable and much easier to do than RB carousels.

[joelamosobadiah]

I'm not saying so much that RBs need to be secured because they are much better, but that because there are many more decent startable wides than there are RBs. That is why I'm saying that securing 2 good/decent RBs should be important because you can find pretty good WR talent later, or play a WR carousel. WR carousels are definitely viable and much easier to do than RB carousels.

Actually, if you compare fantasy points for 30th and 40th best WR's and RB's, they seem to hold to very similar differentials as the rest of the way down. I don't think many leagues have more than 40 WR's on the roster. Maybe 50 if it a standard 12-man league at the tops. I think that the biggest difference is that RB's seem to get their points in spurts while low end WR's can get a steady 5-6 points per game. With the low end RB's, they might not get more than a carry or two and then they might get 2 TD's and fifty yards the next week.

That's all speculation, but it seems that low end WR's tend to be a bit more consistent.

[JasonSeahorn]

Actually, if you compare fantasy points for 30th and 40th best WR's and RB's, they seem to hold to very similar differentials as the rest of the way down. I don't think many leagues have more than 40 WR's on the roster. Maybe 50 if it a standard 12-man league at the tops. I think that the biggest difference is that RB's seem to get their points in spurts while low end WR's can get a steady 5-6 points per game. With the low end RB's, they might not get more than a carry or two and then they might get 2 TD's and fifty yards the next week.

That's all speculation, but it seems that low end WR's tend to be a bit more consistent.

So you're just proving my point even more

[joelamosobadiah]

Actually, if you compare fantasy points for 30th and 40th best WR's and RB's, they seem to hold to very similar differentials as the rest of the way down. I don't think many leagues have more than 40 WR's on the roster. Maybe 50 if it a standard 12-man league at the tops. I think that the biggest difference is that RB's seem to get their points in spurts while low end WR's can get a steady 5-6 points per game. With the low end RB's, they might not get more than a carry or two and then they might get 2 TD's and fifty yards the next week.

That's all speculation, but it seems that low end WR's tend to be a bit more consistent.

So you're just proving my point even more

I was pointing out that overall in points, you are just as well starting the 40th RB in the league as the 40th WR. Actually, a little more depth is there in the RB category.

However, I pointed out that I think those numbers are probably skewed. I don't have any consistency ratings I can look at so that's all speculation though.

[Axl's Army]

That doesn't look at all like "getting smaller and smaller" to me.

That looks more like "getting bigger and bigger except for one outlier".

Last year was probably the best fantasy WR year of our lifetime. Not sure we'll see another year like that for a long time

The differential between RBs & WRs is shrinking is what he is saying.

[Axl's Army]

It really comes down to this - there are VERY FEW every down backs in the NFL anymore. Period. This increases the value of WRs. Period. If you can't see that - that's fine with me, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a FACT. Put simply, dilute the numbers at one position, but don't dilute the numbers at another position & the position that you don't dilute the numbers at increase in value.

[JasonSeahorn]

It really comes down to this - there are VERY FEW every down backs in the NFL anymore. Period. This increases the value of WRs. Period. If you can't see that - that's fine with me, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a FACT. Put simply, dilute the numbers at one position, but don't dilute the numbers at another position & the position that you don't dilute the numbers at increase in value.

Despite what you and Joel say, I see this meaning that stud RBs are more valuable. Since there are more high scoring wides, that means they aren't as valuable as far as positional scarcity, so a team should make sure to secure 2 good starting RBs. It's the same argument as Antonio Gates in years past being drafted a few to several rounds earlier than other TEs.

[BlueBandit24]

It really comes down to this - there are VERY FEW every down backs in the NFL anymore. Period. This increases the value of WRs. Period. If you can't see that - that's fine with me, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a FACT. Put simply, dilute the numbers at one position, but don't dilute the numbers at another position & the position that you don't dilute the numbers at increase in value.

Despite what you and Joel say, I see this meaning that stud RBs are more valuable. Since there are more high scoring wides, that means they aren't as valuable as far as positional scarcity, so a team should make sure to secure 2 good starting RBs. It's the same argument as Antonio Gates in years past being drafted a few to several rounds earlier than other TEs.

I agree. Stud WR's have some very good value, but there are so many guys in that 2nd and 3rd tier who post solid and similar production that you can wait and still get a good wideout in the mid-rounds. Top RB's still carry most teams. It is not about the total points they are putting up but the points they are putting up relative to other players at their position.