What have we learned in 2016?

[Hambombs]

Note to self:

Some were very critical of drafting Le'Veon Bell as early as round 2, knowing that he'd miss 3 games.
Then there's Gronk who was drafted in round 1 and is missing more time than Bell.

I drafted bell 8th overall in my half point ppr league. Because you wont have a chance at someone that good if you pass on him. Ended up going 2-1 without him

 

[Sam Sportboy]

Note to self:

Some were very critical of drafting Le'Veon Bell as early as round 2, knowing that he'd miss 3 games.
Then there's Gronk who was drafted in round 1 and is missing more time than Bell.

Imagine my surprise (and glee) when I was able to draft DJohnson/LBell at the 10/11 elbow in my 10 team PPR league............even had on guy type "Are you kidding me, this is PPR" after I took Bell.............same league some dumbass dropped Gordon after week 1.................and I have Hill and Howard riding the pine............yes, I am glad I drafted Bell, and sad I only did it in one league

 

[averagejoe]

... before I leave for work.

Sometimes a win is a win. You make sacrifices.
Had Haushcka in 2 leagues on his BYE.
Bit the bullet in 1 league and replaced him. Won.
In the other league (D2) that I didn't, I lost by 5 points.

 

[Chef99]

"We" have learned that matchups are just as key as talent. "Must-Start" can be close minded and misleading sometimes.

 

[ehb5]

WRs were overhyped this year. RBs still very valuable.

Im late in seeing this, but what exactly is this based on?

 

[SmokingMonkey]

Im late in seeing this, but what exactly is this based on?

I'd think every main stream fantasy outlet calling this 'The Year of the Receiver' and ranking borderline WR3 types above solid RB2 types.

Hell, look where Shady went/was ranked preseason compared to how you'd rank him now.
I know talking 1 player doesn't mean much, but just the overall bump WRs got in the preseason ranks were off base, imo.

 

[ehb5]

I'd think every main stream fantasy outlet calling this 'The Year of the Receiver' and ranking borderline WR3 types above solid RB2 types.

Hell, look where Shady went/was ranked preseason compared to how you'd rank him now.
I know talking 1 player doesn't mean much, but just the overall bump WRs got in the preseason ranks were off base, imo.

McCoy was slotted as a 2nd round pick in most places. Im not sure thats too inaccurate. And I get that people here lean towards RBs which is fine. But I consistently see people comment on how this year proves they were right - but they dont provide any evidence. WRs have been just fine. I mean the AJ Green, Mike Evans, Jarvis Landry, DeMarco Murray, Carlos Hyde team is killing it right now and that team prioritized WR. Which isnt to say the alternative cant be true obviously - just that I dont think theres any proof RBs are more valuable.

 

[TREFF]

McCoy was slotted as a 2nd round pick in most places. Im not sure thats too inaccurate. And I get that people here lean towards RBs which is fine. But I consistently see people comment on how this year proves they were right - but they dont provide any evidence. WRs have been just fine. I mean the AJ Green, Mike Evans, Jarvis Landry, DeMarco Murray, Carlos Hyde team is killing it right now and that team prioritized WR. Which isnt to say the alternative cant be true obviously - just that I dont think theres any proof RBs are more valuable.

to me is me that you can still find more serviable WE's, on the wire, every week, than you've ever got a chance at finding a decent RB option, you've gotta get into the high teen of the current RB producers to find someone that MIGHT have been a waiver pickup and not commonly drafted, and even than, probably was drafted when many many leagues, (CMIKE), gotta get to 20 and Jordan Howard before you find a real waiver find.
But at WR, you've got Sammie Coates knocking on the door of the top ten, Wallace and Pryor rounding out the top 15, Tyrell Williams, Fuller, Diggs, Royal, Beasley, all in the top 30.

as is always been, supply and demand, RB's simply are more valuable.

and more consistent as well. there are 6 RB's averaging more than the top WR, seven if you count L. Bell.

there is also a much bigger divide in the top guys at each position. there's roughly a 2 point a week drop from spots 6 & 7 to #8, a 4 point a week drop from #8 to #20. Whereas at WR, toy do have a somewhat significant drop from #2 to #9 of 2 points a week, but after that the next 20 guys are all within 2 points a week from one another. ..simply put, after AB, they're producing as if they're a dine a dozen. .hence, less valuable

 

[ehb5]

to me is me that you can still find more serviable WE's, on the wire, every week, than you've ever got a chance at finding a decent RB option, you've gotta get into the high teen of the current RB producers to find someone that MIGHT have been a waiver pickup and not commonly drafted, and even than, probably was drafted when many many leagues, (CMIKE), gotta get to 20 and Jordan Howard before you find a real waiver find.
But at WR, you've got Sammie Coates knocking on the door of the top ten, Wallace and Pryor rounding out the top 15, Tyrell Williams, Fuller, Diggs, Royal, Beasley, all in the top 30.

as is always been, supply and demand, RB's simply are more valuable.

and more consistent as well. there are 6 RB's averaging more than the top WR, seven if you count L. Bell.

there is also a much bigger divide in the top guys at each position. there's roughly a 2 point a week drop from spots 6 & 7 to #8, a 4 point a week drop from #8 to #20. Whereas at WR, toy do have a somewhat significant drop from #2 to #9 of 2 points a week, but after that the next 20 guys are all within 2 points a week from one another. ..simply put, after AB, they're producing as if they're a dine a dozen. .hence, less valuable

Based on PPG (and using ADP from a couple different places - it may be different depending on where you got it from) 11 of the preseason top 20 WRs by ADP are also in the top 20 in PPG. For RBs 8 of the preseason top 20 are top 20 in PPG.

WR has guys like Tyrell Williams, and Pryor, and Fuller, but RB has guys like Howard and CMike. There also are no WRs who shouldve been undrafted in the top 20 in ppg.

Plenty of mid round guys at both positions have been productive (Crabtree, Gordon, Hyde, Murray, Fitz, Diggs, Riddick, Crowell).

As for gap in PPG its essentially 9 points from #1 to #20 at RB and thats with the 2 guys above 23 per game being a guy who was suspended for 3 weeks and still worth a first round pick according to most people and a guy who was a mid round pick in a possible time share (Murray). At WR there is a 7 point gap from WR1 to WR20 in PPG but the top guy was a consensus #1 overall pick.

 

[CowboyB]

Trusting the gut is hard to do. When you do it, it seems to back fire and when you don't, you should have listened.... more often than not.

.

 

[ehb5]

I also think even if AB, OBJ, Hopkins, AJ, Dez, Keenan, and every other top WR crapped the bed or got hurt this year it wouldnt prove RBs are more valuable. Theres plenty of evidence that Zero RB at the least is a workable strategy. One outlier of a year wouldnt really change that.

Again, I dont think it matters whether you build your team with RBs or WRs really. You have to make good value picks either way. If that means going Zeke, Shady, Ingram with your first 3 picks then great. If it means going AJ, Evans, TY with your first 3 then thats great too.

 

[TREFF]

I also think even if AB, OBJ, Hopkins, AJ, Dez, Keenan, and every other top WR crapped the bed or got hurt this year it wouldnt prove RBs are more valuable. Theres plenty of evidence that Zero RB at the least is a workable strategy. One outlier of a year wouldnt really change that.

Again, I dont think it matters whether you build your team with RBs or WRs really. You have to make good value picks either way. If that means going Zeke, Shady, Ingram with your first 3 picks then great. If it means going AJ, Evans, TY with your first 3 then thats great too.

Well the post didn't say, the top RB's were more valuable than the top WR's, as per ADO, simply that the position if RB as a whole, is still more valuable than the WR position, as a whole, and that's factual

 

[ehb5]

Well the post didn't say, the top RB's were more valuable than the top WR's, as per ADO, simply that the position if RB as a whole, is still more valuable than the WR position, as a whole, and that's factual

No snark intended - how is that factual?

 

[TREFF]

so how many different sets of numbers do you need to allow a fact to be a fact.? .I just set it out, a shit ton of WR's, many of which you could find on waivers are all jumbled together 1 or 2 points a week seperating them, not nearly as many RB's in that second tier class, which in and of it self makes them me valuable, I don't care how you spin it, supply and demand is an inarguable fact, and it's the same story each and every single year, year after year. just becuase the boys at Athlon, and ProFootball Weekly creamed their skinny jeans at ODB and Julio and went to publish with how this is the year of the WR..didn't change the pattern.

 

[TREFF]

he'll even taking the names, the numbers/stats away. .just sheer volume of options alone, make RB's more valuable than WR's. each NFL team plays at most 2 RB's enough to be worthy of fantasy consideration, and 2 is being kind, the average is probably closer to 1.5. every team had a bare minimum if 2 WR's, most 3, let's be kind again, and say that is 2.5 per team, so thers already one third more viable options available at WR than there is at RB..and most leagues, you need 2 of each every week. the demand is basically the same for both, the supply for one is substantially smaller..one, by simple law of supply and demand, is therefore more valuable than the other.

 

[ehb5]

so how many different sets of numbers do you need to allow a fact to be a fact.? .I just set it out, a shit ton of WR's, many of which you could find on waivers are all jumbled together 1 or 2 points a week seperating them, not nearly as many RB's in that second tier class, which in and of it self makes them me valuable, I don't care how you spin it, supply and demand is an inarguable fact, and it's the same story each and every single year, year after year. just becuase the boys at Athlon, and ProFootball Weekly creamed their skinny jeans at ODB and Julio and went to publish with how this is the year of the WR..didn't change the pattern.

Its not nearly that simple though. Most leagues allow 2 RBs and either 2 or 3 WRs plus a flex. WRs tend to score more points. Not necesarrily at the top but overall. You want to be starting a WR at that flex spot most likely. Say a 12 team league - should start 24 RBs, 24 WRs and 12 flexes. The WR25 outscores the RB25 by about 2 ppg this year. The WR36 scores about even with the RB 25 in ppg so far this year. So essentially demand is higher (or should be) for WRs. If you have a 3 WR plus flex league (which is pretty common in my experience) WRs are even more important.

Theres also risk to consider. Studies have shown RBs to be less consistent and more likely to get hurt.

I also feel like saying the position as a whole is more valuable is a wierd way of avoiding the fact that plenty of people have shown zero RB or a more WR heavy approach is perfectly fine. In reality, this discussion comes up because some people say draft more WR early and some people say draft more RB early. To come out and say see RB is more valuable pretty much says youre agreeing with the former even though theres plenty of evidence saying the latter works just fine.

 

[TREFF]

Its not nearly that simple though. Most leagues allow 2 RBs and either 2 or 3 WRs plus a flex. WRs tend to score more points. Not necesarrily at the top but overall. You want to be starting a WR at that flex spot most likely. Say a 12 team league - should start 24 RBs, 24 WRs and 12 flexes. The WR25 outscores the RB25 by about 2 ppg this year. The WR36 scores about even with the RB 25 in ppg so far this year. So essentially demand is higher (or should be) for WRs. If you have a 3 WR plus flex league (which is pretty common in my experience) WRs are even more important.

Theres also risk to consider. Studies have shown RBs to be less consistent and more likely to get hurt.

I also feel like saying the position as a whole is more valuable is a wierd way of avoiding the fact that plenty of people have shown zero RB or a more WR heavy approach is perfectly fine. In reality, this discussion comes up because some people say draft more WR early and some people say draft more RB early. To come out and say see RB is more valuable pretty much says youre agreeing with the former even though theres plenty of evidence saying the latter works just fine.

there are certain exceptions to any and all rules. sure if you went 3 wide, picked the right 3, then grabbed Murray, Gordon, Blount, RBX, your likely the exception. .I'm speaking in very general terms, the majority of all instances, RB's are simply more valuable, becuase there's less of them around who are worth a damn, period, and that's not even arguable. bringing up some exception of a strategy that worked in this instance or that instance, doesn't change that. even if you grabbed the best 3 WR's, and they pan out, you've still gotta find 2 RB's to fill the roster, and chances are your not finding them on the wire. And what happens when Gordon, Blount, RBX gets hurt? there's still only a very limited supply of RB's who on any given week, maybe two dozen, if that, have a decent relatively strong chance at scoring any decent amount.

 

[ehb5]

there are certain exceptions to any and all rules. sure if you went 3 wide, picked the right 3, then grabbed Murray, Gordon, Blount, RBX, your likely the exception. .I'm speaking in very general terms, the majority of all instances, RB's are simply more valuable, becuase there's less of them around who are worth a damn, period, and that's not even arguable. bringing up some exception of a strategy that worked in this instance or that instance, doesn't change that. even if you grabbed the best 3 WR's, and they pan out, you've still gotta find 2 RB's to fill the roster, and chances are your not finding them on the wire. And what happens when Gordon, Blount, RBX gets hurt? there's still only a very limited supply of RB's who on any given week, maybe two dozen, if that, have a decent relatively strong chance at scoring any decent amount.

Its not an exception though. Plenty of people have proven WR heavy strategies work. Again I have no problem with somebody taking RBs with your first 2 picks. But they better be value picks. Taking RBs because you think you NEED to be loaded at RB is dumb just like taking WRs because you think you NEED to be loaded at WR is dumb.

 

[TREFF]

Its not an exception though. Plenty of people have proven WR heavy strategies work. Again I have no problem with somebody taking RBs with your first 2 picks. But they better be value picks. Taking RBs because you think you NEED to be loaded at RB is dumb just like taking WRs because you think you NEED to be loaded at WR is dumb.

And you keep going back to this. .this isn't what I'm taking about. .not discussing a draft strategy, taking about the entire season, as it plays out, week to week. I'm not even going to debate this any longer. you're arguing merits of a strategy and pointing out that it can work, which I'm happy to give you, and it still doesn't change the plain and simple fact that RB's have more value. so until you can come up with something that changes the quantity of viable WR's vs that of viable RB's available in the player pool, that plain and simple fact isn't changing

 

[ehb5]

And you keep going back to this. .this isn't what I'm taking about. .not discussing a draft strategy, taking about the entire season, as it plays out, week to week. I'm not even going to debate this any longer. you're arguing merits of a strategy and pointing out that it can work, which I'm happy to give you, and it still doesn't change the plain and simple fact that RB's have more value. so until you can come up with something that changes the quantity of viable WR's vs that of viable RB's available in the player pool, that plain and simple fact isn't changing

If RBs were more valuable they would need to be drafted earlier than WRs. And typically demand for WRs is (or at least should be) higher than for RBs. But I dont think we'll agree on this one lol.