Longer Viable Fantasy Career, WR or RB?

[Johnny Canuck]

Simple question, which position has the longer viable fantasy career? Not the longest career, but the longest from a functional fantasy production standpoint.

Now I’ll be honest I thought I already knew that WRs have a longer shelf life, get injured less, and have more opportunity as there is just more of them on the field at any given point (when compared with RB).

But this recent draft got me thinking, and here’s why - I see all these top WRs as the long term hold types. So if I’m expecting a yr three breakout for most WRs, they’ll prob be fantasy viable at about age 25 (or 28 for Ridley lol). And it seems reasonable to expect them to produce until about age 30ish give or take (so about a 5 yr window on average).

Now compare this to typical top RB prospects, that are pretty much expected to produce from day 1. So if an RB is drafted at age 22 and produces till age 27 (or 21 till 26 for the Ronald Jones types), we end up with about the same functional fantasy window, 5 yrs.

Now obvs these are very vague and simple measures using lots of generalities, but the question still remains in my head, is the functional window actually about the same? Or, maybe is it closer than we had previously thought it to be? Or, do WRs really have THAT much longer of a fantasy career on average.

If anyone has done any research or has old data to support one argument or another it would be great to see.

Thanks.

*I’m talking about players in general. The 99% that make up the NFL. Prob best to not consider the massive outliers in this discussion.

[ascherb]

I think a big factor is that normally, the top rookie RBs are going to teams where their path to the #1 role is relatively clear. Teams who need a starting RB are more willing to fill that spot with a rookie.

As for WR, it seems like teams are less likely to allow themselves to go completely bare and rely on a rookie to be their top target immediately. Antonio Brown came in behind Wallace and Ward. Julio came in behind Roddy. Hopkins had Andre Johnson. TY Hilton, Reggie Wayne, the list goes on.

[ascherb]

I think a big factor is that normally, the top rookie RBs are going to teams where their path to the #1 role is relatively clear. Teams who need a starting RB are more willing to fill that spot with a rookie.

As for WR, it seems like teams are less likely to allow themselves to go completely bare and rely on a rookie to be their top target immediately. Antonio Brown came in behind Wallace and Ward. Julio came in behind Roddy. Hopkins had Andre Johnson. TY Hilton, Reggie Wayne, the list goes on.

[mlynarcm]

I think this is a loaded question because on both sides you have players that will produce elite numbers throughout their careers

RBs
E. Smith - 15 Season (11 seasons 1000+yd)
L. Tomlinson - 11 Seasons (8 seasons 1000+yds)
WRs
Reggie - 14 Seasons (8 seasons - 1000+yd)
R. Moss - 16 Seasons (10 Seasons - 1000+yds)

But the bigger question is what players can last an entire career. Whether it's due to injury or lack of value at the position, it appears that running backs are a lot more likely to have career ending injuries or be replace due to a down year.

[Mjvb5]

It comes more from once you hit the truly "elite guys I beileive". I looked into it a while back and the typical range for those guys is 5-8 years of elite production at RB, your APs, LTs, Jamaals and Fosters. Whereas at WR it tends to be more like 7-10

[Phaded]

I do not think position matters as much as talent.

That said, I feel like top flight WRs will outlast top flight RBs.

[Johnny Canuck]

Everyone seems to want to talk about elite players, so lets consider some of the best players to play the position.

Longer Fantasy Career, Elite WR or RB?
*for ref sake, I'm going to consider a cut off of 10.0 ppg in a standard league as being a viable fantasy contributor.

For WRs let's consider: Antonio Brown, Randy Moss, Calvin Johnson, and Brandon Marshall.

The number of seasons above 10.0 ppg for WRs are: Brown (5), Moss (8), Calvin (7), and Marshall (7). Now we don't know how much longer Brown will continue to put up seasons of more than 10.0 ppg, but let's just call it 3 more to tie Moss at eight yrs (think everyone can agree that being in a tie with Randy Moss is beyond fair).

Moving Brown to 8 seasons, would make the average 7.5 viable fantasy yrs, for hyper elite WRs.

For RBs let's consider: Lesean McCoy, Adrian Peterson, Matt Forte, and Arian Foster.

The number of seasons above 10.0 ppg for RBs are: McCoy (8), AP (8), Forte (9), and Foster (6). Obvs McCoy is still active so let's give him one more season above 10.0 ppg then call him done.

Moving McCoy to 9 seasons, would make the average 8 viable fantasy years, for hyper elite RBs.

I think everyone would agree that all these players have been considered truly elite at one point or another in their career. It's funny because, like everyone else, I just blindly assumed that the most elite WRs would provide production over a longer period of time, but based on this very simple example, it doesn't appear to be true. It seems that this false narrative may be perpetuated, by the fact that WRs play later into their 30s, while RBs fall off the cliff at 30, or just before.

Since most WRs take a few years to become a viable fantasy option, they actually have a fantasy shelf life that is more similar to RBs than we all think. When considering this, I think it would be prudent, to stockpile RBs in a rookie draft with the hopes that one hits. If you happen to hit, roster them for about 3/4 yrs, then trade for an equivalent WR to maximize your yearly ROI.

[sloth8u]

For RBs let's consider: Lesean McCoy, Adrian Peterson, Matt Forte, and Arian Foster.

The number of seasons above 10.0 ppg for RBs are: McCoy (8), AP (8), Forte (9), and Foster (6). Obvs McCoy is still active so let's give him one more season above 10.0 ppg then call him done.

Moving McCoy to 9 seasons, would make the average 8 viable fantasy years, for hyper elite RBs.

I think everyone would agree that all these players have been considered truly elite at one point or another in their career. It's funny because, like everyone else, I just blindly assumed that the most elite WRs would provide production over a longer period of time, but based on this very simple example, it doesn't appear to be true. It seems that this false narrative may be perpetuated, by the fact that WRs play later into their 30s. However, since most WRs take a few years to become a viable fantasy option, they actually have a fantasy shelf life that is more similar to RBs than we all think.

i would not call setting the bar at 10 points very valueable in this discussion. id like to think my flex is averaging 14 if not more. that said, i do agree with the premise, rb contribution is key to any season. if you lock down rb, you should be good...and even moreso in todays fantasy game where wr's are a dime a dozen.

[kadun2]

I think this is a loaded question because on both sides you have players that will produce elite numbers throughout their careers

RBs
E. Smith - 15 Season (11 seasons 1000+yd)
L. Tomlinson - 11 Seasons (8 seasons 1000+yds)
WRs
Reggie - 14 Seasons (8 seasons - 1000+yd)
R. Moss - 16 Seasons (10 Seasons - 1000+yds)

But the bigger question is what players can last an entire career. Whether it's due to injury or lack of value at the position, it appears that running backs are a lot more likely to have career ending injuries or be replace due to a down year.

This is a good point, and answers the question in my opinion. RBs have an overall increased probability of injury. This gives them less productive years on average, I would assume.

[Johnny Canuck]

For RBs let's consider: Lesean McCoy, Adrian Peterson, Matt Forte, and Arian Foster.

The number of seasons above 10.0 ppg for RBs are: McCoy (8), AP (8), Forte (9), and Foster (6). Obvs McCoy is still active so let's give him one more season above 10.0 ppg then call him done.

Moving McCoy to 9 seasons, would make the average 8 viable fantasy years, for hyper elite RBs.

I think everyone would agree that all these players have been considered truly elite at one point or another in their career. It's funny because, like everyone else, I just blindly assumed that the most elite WRs would provide production over a longer period of time, but based on this very simple example, it doesn't appear to be true. It seems that this false narrative may be perpetuated, by the fact that WRs play later into their 30s. However, since most WRs take a few years to become a viable fantasy option, they actually have a fantasy shelf life that is more similar to RBs than we all think.

i would not call setting the bar at 10 points very valueable in this discussion. id like to think my flex is averaging 14 if not more. that said, i do agree with the premise, rb contribution is key to any season. if you lock down rb, you should be good...and even moreso in todays fantasy game where wr's are a dime a dozen.

I agree that 10 pts is low-ish, but the topic is about overall longevity in fantasy, not longevity of elite production. For arguments sake, using the same example, if we used 14 ppg (in standard) as a bench mark.

# Of Seasons Above 14 ppg

WR: Brown (3), Moss (3), Calvin (3), Marshall (1)

Averaging 2.5 seasons above 14 ppg for Elite WRs

RB: McCoy (4), AP (8), Forte (4), Foster (5)

Averaging 5.25 seasons above 14 ppg for Elite RBs

Now obvs small sample size, but these elite RBs have more than double the number of seasons above 14 ppg on average when compared to the WRs in the example. This combined with the fact that overall fantasy viable longevity isn't really that different, makes me think that you want as many young elite RBs as possible, so draft heavy RB and hope to hit, or trade your talent for young elite RBs. It appears they'll make more of impact on your fantasy success (and before they die trade them for a similarly aged WR).

I ran the numbers thru a couple different formats with difference benchmarks for reference. When changing the format to full ppr, and upgrading the benchmark to 20ppg, the WRs averaged 2.75 seasons above 20 ppg, while the RBs averaged 2.25 ppg. My usual stats site is giving me a runtime error so I can't provide definitive half point ppr numbers, but essentially, RBs were still more valuable on average in that format. If you wanna see for yourself, just run the numbers. Essentially format matters, but the fact still holds true that in most formats (stnd & 0.5 vs ppr) RBs tend to hit higher benchmarks for more, or at least a similar, number of seasons when compared to WR.

[Phaded]

My biggest problem is that you are nitpicking 4 names at each position which is an incredibly low and quite frankly, irrelevant sample size.

I understand the conversation you are trying to bring up but the data needs to be more relevant.

You are also talking standard scoring which you do not need data to know it favours RBs. In addition, I would guess more PPR leagues are out there than Standard just from observation.

Add to that you are not factoring all the guys people thought were elite and flamed out.

[Johnny Canuck]

My biggest problem is that you are nitpicking 4 names at each position which is an incredibly low and quite frankly, irrelevant sample size.

I understand the conversation you are trying to bring up but the data needs to be more relevant.

Totally agree. Problem is there are only so many hyper elite/"generational" type players (making sample size inherently small regardless). Also, it appeared that everyone wanted to reference the elite of the elite types, so I just grabbed a couple recent names that fit the bill, to continue the conversation. This was in no way a definitive report, more of a broad generalization, similar to the broad generalization that "WRs have a longer shelf life." Obvs any generalization can be faulty, but even with the small sample size, I feel that my example at least makes people question that narrative and provides intrigue/interest. If you happen to have another example that uses more relevant data I'm all ears (...or eyes in this matter).

Ideally, I'd rather look at a massive sample size of all RBs/WRs that have ever produced at #36 or above. I don't really want to solely focus on elite players, because they usually only make up about 25% ish of someones roster give or take. That's why I originally asked in the op if anyone knew if this had been researched, or if anyone had any data support it one way or the other.

Data about the guys people thought were elite and flamed out would be especially interesting imo.

"I'm here to learn" - Billy Madison

[sloth8u]

For RBs let's consider: Lesean McCoy, Adrian Peterson, Matt Forte, and Arian Foster.

The number of seasons above 10.0 ppg for RBs are: McCoy (8), AP (8), Forte (9), and Foster (6). Obvs McCoy is still active so let's give him one more season above 10.0 ppg then call him done.

Moving McCoy to 9 seasons, would make the average 8 viable fantasy years, for hyper elite RBs.

I think everyone would agree that all these players have been considered truly elite at one point or another in their career. It's funny because, like everyone else, I just blindly assumed that the most elite WRs would provide production over a longer period of time, but based on this very simple example, it doesn't appear to be true. It seems that this false narrative may be perpetuated, by the fact that WRs play later into their 30s. However, since most WRs take a few years to become a viable fantasy option, they actually have a fantasy shelf life that is more similar to RBs than we all think.

i would not call setting the bar at 10 points very valueable in this discussion. id like to think my flex is averaging 14 if not more. that said, i do agree with the premise, rb contribution is key to any season. if you lock down rb, you should be good...and even moreso in todays fantasy game where wr's are a dime a dozen.

I agree that 10 pts is low-ish, but the topic is about overall longevity in fantasy, not longevity of elite production. For arguments sake, using the same example, if we used 14 ppg (in standard) as a bench mark.

# Of Seasons Above 14 ppg

WR: Brown (3), Moss (3), Calvin (3), Marshall (1)

Averaging 2.5 seasons above 14 ppg for Elite WRs

RB: McCoy (4), AP (8), Forte (4), Foster (5)

Averaging 5.25 seasons above 14 ppg for Elite RBs

Now obvs small sample size, but these elite RBs have more than double the number of seasons above 14 ppg on average when compared to the WRs in the example. This combined with the fact that overall fantasy viable longevity isn't really that different, makes me think that you want as many young elite RBs as possible, so draft heavy RB and hope to hit, or trade your talent for young elite RBs. It appears they'll make more of impact on your fantasy success (and before they die trade them for a similarly aged WR).

I ran the numbers thru a couple different formats with difference benchmarks for reference. When changing the format to full ppr, and upgrading the benchmark to 20ppg, the WRs averaged 2.75 seasons above 20 ppg, while the RBs averaged 2.25 ppg. My usual stats site is giving me a runtime error so I can't provide definitive half point ppr numbers, but essentially, RBs were still more valuable on average in that format. If you wanna see for yourself, just run the numbers. Essentially format matters, but the fact still holds true that in most formats (stnd & 0.5 vs ppr) RBs tend to hit higher benchmarks for more, or at least a similar, number of seasons when compared to WR.

i think what your trying to argue is recency bias...there is no arguement here that rb's have gained in value since the wr over rb approach was the "thing". there is also no argument that rb production is key to championship success.

that does not necessarily mean that you "must" own them (via trade)imo... no one thought they could get a hunt or kamara where they did last year. its likely someone will end up with a nice back deep in the 1st this year.... as we look at the top backs from last year....you did not need a "prime pick" to get them or in ingram and freemans case...a wait and see... even bell was obtainable just a few years back if you wanted him.

no one thought gio, Anderson, powell, lewis, or yeldon, gore, or breida... would all be top options week 16, but indeed they were some of the best options outside of gurley.

you can preach rb....but the postition in general is about opporutunity. it very hard to predict opportunity.

[jordanzs]

Which players had the longest productive fantasy careers?

Andre Johnson
Larry Johnson.
Willis McGahee

They all entered the league at the same time

[Pullo Vision]

you can preach rb....but the postition in general is about opporutunity. it very hard to predict opportunity.

Is that unique to RBs, though? Do WRs or other positions somehow get points by not getting snaps or touches?

Between WRs and RBs, the primary difference is typically 2 WRs start and only 1 RB. Teams splitting up RB duties has helped more gain relevance, and some teams going to a more balanced run-pass offense has helped raise RB floors and ceilings.

Production is based on opportunity, for all positions. Now, if your focus was on VALUE, that can be different.