Catch that 'WR's First' article on Rotoworld?

[wickerkat]

i personally think that the tes are very deep this year, and can get a guy like Olsen in Chicago in the 7th who will be a similar performer to the top tes, I see him in the top ten, with potential of top 5. last year in my 1 ppr:

gonzo 261
witten 201
clark 197
gates 178
cooley 173
daniels 168
carlson 147
shiancoe 143
olsen 141
zmiller 139

between #10 and #1 difference of 8 pts per week (@ 15 weeks), but between 2nd and 6th only 33, or 2 pts per week, negligible

[The Lung]

Here's a good article from SportingNews about drafting WR-WR in the first two rounds of a re-draft league.

I think many seasoned Cafe vets know why to avoid this strategy, but there's some good mathematical data presented on the "why."

Take two WRs and call me
Draft strategy: Go WR-WR?
June 4, 2009

Brad Pinkerton
Sporting News

Larry Fitzgerald is simply amazing.

After a spectacular regular season in which he had 96 receptions for 1,431 yards and 12 touchdowns, Fitzgerald's encore was a record-setting 546 receiving yards with seven TDs in the postseason. Heck, he was even named MVP of the Pro Bowl and did almost all of this while playing with an injured left hand. Even Chuck Norris must be impressed with those tales.

After that performance, Fitzgerald certainly deserves to be ranked No. 9 in our latest Top 200. But with a few other receivers also posting impressive 2008 stats and possessing unstoppable potential, the question becomes: Should fantasy owners drafting late in the first round begin thinking about going WR-WR and bypassing running backs?

Blasphemy! It's not quite scripture, but one of the unwritten rules in fantasy football is to draft at least one running back in the first two rounds. While the receiving crop may be enticing, do you really want to risk angering the gods and spend your first two picks on receivers, leaving your backfield bare?

Sure, having Calvin Johnson and Fitz on the same team sounds like a profitable, can't-miss strategy that could result in some clever team names, but I'd argue against it for several reasons.

continued...

[portisfan24]

Its a do or die strategy. If you land two elite WR's early, you have to get lucky in the later rounds with guys like Chris Johnson, Michael Turner or Steve Slaton (to use last years examples). I'd much rather land a couple stud RB's and take my chances finding gem WR's late. As the article points out, its a much safer strategy.

[Azrael]

I generally like to go 1 and 1 to get an anchor at each spot. If I go RB/RB then I'm helping push the elite WRs back down to the guys who have the strongest backs. But RBs seem to be slipping right now in mocks.

[Fenway Frank]

i read that sporting news article. while i'd love to have randy moss and larry fitz on my team, i just couldnt see myself being confident in a team that had them alongside backs like sproles, hightower and benson. which is what would prolly happen. to further illustrate my point on this strategy:


http://broncosstable.com/

[steelerfan513]

Every year we hear the "WR-WR: a viable strategy?" debate, and the teams that go with the running backs almost always win (the only exception I can think of is anyone who had Brady and Moss the year Brady broke the TD mark). Fact is, the first round is always all running backs for a reason, and that isn't going to change soon. The NFL would have to become almost Arena Football-like to make waiting on running backs a viable strategy.

[Free Bagel]

We had a really long discussion about this about a month ago. Rather than reiterate all my points, I'll just link to that thread here:

viewtopic.php?t=436821

A quick summation of my thoughts on this:
-Drafting the preseason #1 and #2 WR doesn't actually net you the #1 and #2 WR, or anything close to it. In the last 6 years drafting the top 2 WRs would not have netted you the actual #1 WR a single time, and WRs drafted in the top 2 are far more likely to finish outside the top 5 than within the top 2.

-Historically, the bust rate of late 3rd/early 4th round RBs is around 75-80%, so to REALLY make this strategy work you need to grab RBs in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, AND 6th rounds, not just the 3rd and 4th like people get trapped into.

-This draft has the potential to make you weak at EVERY position. Your RBs, obviously, are going to be far behind. You QB and TE are going to be behind because you have to use so many mid-round picks on RBs. And I'm not convinced you'll end up with the best WR corp in your league because you won't be drafting your WR3 until VERY late so if one of those top 2 WRs doesn't perform like a top WR (and history suggests that at least one of them won't) you have little depth there.

If you have the foresight to know exactly which WRs are going to finish as the top 2 and know exactly which mid-round RBs are going to break out and know exactly which 7th-8th round QBs/TEs are going to break out then this could be a great strategy. But if you have that much foresight then you're going to win your league regardless of which positions you draft first.

[justinj312]

I look at it a little differently, I look at the first 3 picks.

I'm thinking 2 of your first 3 picks should be WRs, and the other pick a RB (which is no later than a 2nd rounder).

I think once the 3rd rd is over, the RB quality is much better. Take advantage and hit the RB position in the middle rounds where the depth is and hope to score. (Also finding a WR3 is not that hard.)

If you go 2RB/1WR, then i think it is too difficult to find a good WR2. Your WR group will be weak as a result. And if your WR1 is out for a couple of weeks (Colston/AJ/TO), you are in big trouble.