A while ago there was a long, debated thread (there's probably been a few actually) about the merits of drafting two stud RBs with your first two picks.
If you look at how backups play (and score) historically when a star running back goes down, I think in a strange way, it proves how much more stable RBs are than WRs. This might take a minute to explain...
My theory has always been this about RBs: Sure, some of them have more talent than others, but if you give an NFL-level runner the ball 30 times a game in a system that at least fundamentally knows "how to run the ball", that player is going to put up close to stud-like numbers. I don't care who it is. It can be priest holmes, ickey woods, christian okoye, tyrone wheatley, barry sanders, james brooks, jerome bettis... it doesn't matter. It's a "plug and play" position. And success is 90% based on opportunity -- and 10% based on talent. Don't get me wrong, that 10% of talent is what separates the good RBs from the great ones. And no doubt, the great ones have really earned it.
On the other hand, if a leading WRs goes down with injury, there is no telling how this will affect his replacement. I can't remember one circumstance where a WR came out of nowhere to put up stud-like numbers JUST BECAUSE he got the opportunity to start on the wing as opposed to in the slot. Shaw hasn't done anything with Moulds out. No one stepped up in SD when Boston was suspended and hurt. No one's turned in good numbers since Charles Rogers went down. The reason for this is because WRs don't have true backups -- like RBs. Sure, there's a guy's name behind theirs on the team depth chart -- but it doesn't work the same way. Once a leading WR goes down with injury, the ball just gets "spread around" some more to fill the void. No one really fills in to replace him.
So, here's the logic: If, when a top WR goes down, the ball just gets "spread around" some more to fill his absence, what's to stop that from happening when he's in there?! That's what makes the WR position so undependable. There's no guarantee that any WR will get the ball a consistent amount of times per game. First, the amount of looks he gets depends on the gameplan for that week, then the QB has to have time in the pocket to throw to him X amount of times a game, then, the WR has be open X amount of times to have a chance to catch X amount of passes, then the WR has to make sure he actually catches the ball (and doesn't drop it a la Darrell Jackson)! There's too many damn variables in there that can go up and down from week-to-week.
With a RB, just take a step back and hand him the ball 30 times. Easy. Consistent. Simple. And if your stud goes down, there's another potential stud right behind him waiting to fill in that can do something close to the same thing for you. That's why I always draft RBs 1/2, because more times than not, I always know what to expect.
20 Team League | 11-3 | 5th Place
Q: Kitna, Flutie
R: Henry, Portis, T. Jones, Rudi, Griffin, Burns
W: Chambers, Ward