"For the first time in [a] decade ... it's best player available."
—ESPN's Talented Mr. Roto, Matthew Berry
I respectfully disagree. Some may have read my article three weeks ago as to why you shouldn't worry about Running Back By Committees.
Sure, you can look at last year's point totals and say to yourself, "Wide receivers and quarterbacks are the new running backs!" But that's not the case.
Yet.
I have for you three tables showing statistics of quarterbacks, wide receivers and running backs; this first one shows the points per game (PPG) of the top-10 running backs and top-20 running backs for the past five years.
| Year | Top 10 | Top 20 |
| 2007 | 14.3 | 12.3 |
| 2006 | 17.3 | 14.3 |
| 2005 | 16.8 | 13.8 |
| 2004 | 16.1 | 14.0 |
| 2003 | 17.9 | 14.7 |
Do you see a trend here? Anything? Even a two-year stretch that shows running backs are on the decline?
Neither do I. All I see is one anomalous year, last year.
In fact, running back value was improving from 2004-06 with the top-10 running backs' PPGs increasing by more than a point in that two year stretch.
Here is the second table, showing the same statistics of wide receivers.
| Year | Top 10 | Top 20 |
| 2007 | 13.0 | 11.2 |
| 2006 | 11.4 | 10.4 |
| 2005 | 12.2 | 10.7 |
| 2004 | 12.5 | 11.3 |
| 2003 | 12.2 | 10.7 |
I think I see a trend here. Wide receivers were falling from 2004-06—or the same time running backs were improving. Right now you're thinking, "Wait, so wide receivers were on the decline and running backs were improving from 2004-06. Surely quarterbacks had to be on the decline as well, right?"
In the words of Lee Corso, not so fast my friend.
| Year | Top 10 | Top 20 |
| 2007 | 17.0 | 14.2 |
| 2006 | 15.2 | 13.4 |
| 2005 | 14.6 | 13.1 |
| 2004 | 17.5 | 15.0 |
| 2003 | 15.4 | 13.5 |
As many of you all may remember, 2004 was the year of the quarterback with Daunte Culpepper, Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb all putting up spectacular numbers, and Trent Green putting up 4,500 passing yards as well.
But that's aside the point.
From 2001 ('01 and '02 not shown) through 2006, there were no two years when the quarterback stats made the same change in value as it had the year before—or in other words, the stats went up, down, up, down, up, in those five years. That changed last year, when the PPG of quarterbacks rose, as it did from '05 to '06.
Does that mean there's a trend?
Hardly. If you graph the Top 10 quarterbacks data above, you get this:
Not exactly the definition of trend...
The stats show that prior to this year wide receivers were dropping in value, running backs were increasing in value, and quarterbacks were unpredictable.
So while the rest of your league looks at last year's abnormal stats and proclaims Tom Brady, Randy Moss and Terrell Owens as first-round draft picks, you'll be the one going running back/running back in the first two rounds and be on your way to fantasy glory.
9 comments Last one added 11 months ago — Leave a Comment
Jimbo 11 months ago
I agree with you, Zach. Running backs are too valuable to pass up in the first two rounds.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jacob Sloan 11 months ago
I think I still like taking two RB in the first three rounds (leaving some flexibility to throw a WR in there somewhere, but I can't deny your charts, professor. In some drafts, I have seen the damaging effects of global warming and the hype around QBs and WRs cause people taking two WRs in the first two rounds! It's crazy talk.
If you can make it into the fourth round with one elite RB, one elite WR and another solid RB, I think you are doing well this year.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jacob Sloan 11 months ago
Note to self: comments after 1 a.m. should be read twice. Here's some clarification:
I think I still like taking two RBs in the first three rounds (leaving some flexibility to throw a WR in there somewhere), but I can't deny your charts, professor. In some drafts, I have seen the damaging effects of global warming and the hype around QBs and WRs cause people to take two WRs in the first two rounds! That's crazy talk.
If you can make it into the fourth round with one elite RB, one elite WR and another solid RB, I think you are doing well this year.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Wade 11 months ago
Thanks for your analysis. Overall, very helpful. However, I'd like to disagree regarding your RB chart. While your analysis holds true for the top 10, when compared to the top 20, other things are going on. If your top ten are increasing in PPG (not counting an anomalous 2007), you also have to agree that the top 20 are _decreasing_, not counting an anomalous 2006. This says to me that even though guys 1-10 are increasing, guys 11-20 are decreasing enough to offset 1-10's increase. This may be the committee factor, the WR factor, or other things. However, your chart seems to say take the stud RB in rd 1, then weigh your options, because there will be a significant drop-off thereafter.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Fein 11 months ago
I would hardly call 2006 an anomalous year for top 20 running backs. If you look at the chart again, you see that the top 20 RBs went down from 14.7 to 14.0 to 13.8, a combined average of 14.2. From 13.8 it improved to 14.3—just in line with the average.
The top 20 RBs made the same change that the top 10 RBs made each year except one—from '04 to '05 when the top 10 RBs improved by 0.8 PPG and the top 20 RBs declined by 0.2 PPG.
And you say the 11-20 RBs are decreasing enough to offset the increase in top 10 RBs; here are the stats for the RBs ranked 11 through 20:
2007: 10.3 PPG
2006: 11.3
2005: 10.8
2004: 11.9
2003: 11.4
Those RBs are unpredictable, but have made the same change the top 10 and top 20 RBs have made every year except 03 to 04—i.e. they aren't offsetting other stats at all.
Edit Comment Cancel
Chris D'Aniello 11 months ago
It's not about how many points they score.. it's about the discrepency between the top tier and the second tier. Running backs are so deep this year that it's not necessary to grab a top guy in round 1. The drop off from guys like LT, AD, SJax, and Westbrook to guys like Marion Barber or Jamal Lewis is way less than the drop off from guys like Randy Moss, T.O., and Reggie Wayne to guys like Housh and Brandon Marshall. Same goes for QBs- after Peyton and Brady the dropoff is absurd.
I respect ur opinion because thats what B/Rs about, but I disagree on a huge level. This year if I can't get All Day or LT, I'll be snagging Brady or Moss (depending on scoring).
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Fein 11 months ago
I looked at the difference from the #2 and #20 RBs, #2 and #20 WRs, and #2 and #10 QBs (in order to take away career or record years, like Holmes, Alexander, and LT's record years all in the past 5 years; if you want me to look at the stats with the #1 at each position I will). Here's the stats:
#2 RB and #20 RB #2 WR and #20 WR #2 and #10 QB
2007: 8.0 PPG 5.5 5.1
2006: 10.0 PPG 3.4 4.0
2005: 11.0 4.3 2.4
2004: 7.8 3.6 7.5
2003: 11.5 7.3 2.7
I even looked at the #2 RB and the #15 RB (2003: 10 PPG; 2004: 6.6; 2005: 10.2; 2006: 9.7; 2007: 7.4), and that difference was almost 2 PPG higher than the WR or QB difference in that same year, except 2004 (the crazy quarterback year).
This year reminds me of 2005, when Peyton and Daunte (Peyton and Brady this year) were both first rounders, McNabb was a 2nd rounder (Romo), Moss and TO (Moss and TO this year) were the best WRs and were top-half second rounders and Harrison (Wayne, his teammate, this year) was a low second rounder, and the rest were RBs.
Edit Comment Cancel
Zach Fein 11 months ago
I guess that didn't post right...
#2 RB and #20 RB.................#2 WR and #20 WR............#2 and #10 QB
2007: 8.0 PPG......................... 5.5 ...................................5.1
2006: 10.0 PPG....................... 3.4 ..................................4.0
2005: 11.0 ...............................4.3 .................................2.4
2004: 7.8 ..................................3.6 ................................7.5
2003: 11.5 .................................7.3 ................................2.7
Anyway, I took it a step further and compared the difference of the #2 and #10 RBs to the #1 and #20 WRs:
........#2 and 10 RBs..............#1 and 20 WRs
2007: 6.1 PPG.........................9.3
2006: 8.9................................4.2
2005: 8.4................................6.3
2004: 5.9................................5.3
2003: 7.7................................8.8
AVG: 7.4................................6.8
Even I couldn't believe that... In other words, the difference of AD and say, Marion Barber is bigger, on average, than Randy Moss and say, Dwayne Bowe.
(By the way, here's something weird: In 2006, the difference of the #2 and #5 RBs was bigger than the difference of the #1 and #15 WRs.)
Edit Comment Cancel
Chris D'Aniello 11 months ago
I actually wrote an article ( http://bleacherreport.com/articles/33759-a-shift-in-fantasy-draft-strategy-a-study-to-prove-it ) awhile back discussing this same thing.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.