Value of WRs verses RBs

[kris_kapsner]

We seem to have a lot of differing opinions on this subject here on the forum of late, particularily when disgussing Ingram verses AJ Green. So, I thought we could use a discussion that focuses strictly on the position and not on any player in particular, rookies or otherwise.

So, who would you rather have for your fantasy team, a stud WR or stud RB?

Where do you think the first WR should come off the board in a start up draft?

Where do you think the first WRs should start coming off the board in a rookie draft?

This should be an interesting discussion. And, just assume a PPR scoring format.

[11stever11]

We seem to have a lot of differing opinions on this subject here on the forum of late, particularily when disgussing Ingram verses AJ Green. So, I thought we could use a discussion that focuses strictly on the position and not on any player in particular, rookies or otherwise.

So, who would you rather have for your fantasy team, a stud WR or stud RB?

Where do you think the first WR should come off the board in a start up draft?

Where do you think the first WRs should start coming off the board in a rookie draft?

This should be an interesting discussion. And, just assume a PPR scoring format.

I whould rather have a stud RB then a WR. I think that the WR postition is deeper then the RB.
I think the first WR should come off the board at around 1.8 in start up drafts.
In rookie drafts I think it just matters who is n that class. I whould rather have Green the Ingrem in this class but last year most whould say they should want Mathews over Dez Bryant.

[eaglesfan]

Stud RB. I think more owners have success finding sleeper receivers than backs so the later rounds come into play. When a team is hurting at running back it is much more difficult to acquire or find through free agency a running back that could help your team. Owners aren't willing to part with stud backs as easily as they are with stud receivers. To me, it comes down to supply and demand and they're simply are not many backs out there so you have to grab them early. And especially now with many teams using two backs.

[49ersFaithful80]

I disagree, Id much rather have a young stud WR than a young stud RB. WR's have much longer shelf lives, RB's reach middle age and their values start to fall off a cliff.

[nightmarion]

I disagree, Id much rather have a young stud WR than a young stud RB. WR's have much longer shelf lives, RB's reach middle age and their values start to fall off a cliff.

Yes, but you can trade a top 5 back at age 27-28 and still pull top value in return. Use him for 4-5 years and trade for upgrades at other positions. I'm with the majority that a top RB is more valuable then a top WR.

[tstafford]

I think this depends completely on the line-up requirements. My current league is 1 RB/3 WR/1 Flex (non-PPR) and there is no doubt that this highly favors having WR depth. When I first came into this league I under estimated the impact of the line up on player value and loaded up on RBs. I've since adjusted my team via trades and the draft and have had more success. It's not just the team I can put on the field each week, but also keeping guys off of other teams. At most 24 RBs are started weekly and at least 36 WRs. This means if you have a several solid WR3/4 guys you are really hurting several teams out there. Additionally, this format allows for a more RBBC type approach because it isn't critical to have multiple stud guys.

I also think the line-up requirements impact the draft selections for all the same reasons. The bust factor on WRs has caused me to try to acquire multiple rookie picks (even lower ones) to try to load up and get better odds. Currently I have Harvin, Nicks and Benn all on rookie contracts. Not bad overall. One solid, one okay and one that looks to be shaky. In this same league, I picked Tampa Mike in round two and traded him for Foster after Ben Tate went down. Then flipped Foster for Maclin, Blount and a 3 spot improvement in the first and a 6 spot improvement in the second. WRs can be very valuable. . .

[BradyT]

I´m torn on this one.. if I have a shot at the absolute top.. I prefer the Stud RB.. but outside of those(right now there are 3 imo).. I also like building around a stud WR. It also depends on the kind of league you´re playing in. In one of my leagues, IDP´s are included and 1 pt ppr and I almost won the the championship with Danny Woodhead and Mike Goodson starting almost all year for me(+ Michael Vick..).. having build my team around Andre Johnson, Greg Jennings and Vincent Jackson(and a strong IDP lineup.) On the other hand.. its also possible to run all over opposing teams with 2 or 3 great RB´s and "mediocore" WR´s in your lineup. So basically.. I dont really have a preference.

[dlf_ericd]

As much as I love RB's (my favorite position to watch & I have a tendency to "collect" them in fantasy football) I think the best dynasty teams are built around stud WR's. In redraft I don't think it matters as much, but with the "life span" of WR's so many more seasons that even the best RB's, there can be a huge difference.

The last two years in my main dynasty league I've won off the strength of WR's. This last season I ended up with the RB11, RB12, & RB 34 as my top RB's, but won b/c I had the WR3, WR4, WR7, & WR 20 in our format. My WR's carried my team, especially in the playoffs.

That being said, I think you have to be solid at the RB position in order to be a good team, but if I had to pick having studs at WR or RB, I'd go WR in dynasty.

[eaglesfan]

In one of my dynasty leagues I own Hakeem Nicks, Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Tampa Mike Williams, Santonio Holmes and Michael Crabtree and I didn't even make the playoffs. We start 3 receivers too.

[meineymoe]

good topic, Kris - I was thinking the same thing with all the strong opinions around here lately about the value of WRs vs RBs.

I'd much rather build around a stud RB than WR - for one, they are rarer to find, and you can get by with a stable of second or third tier WRs much better than you can with less-than-quality RBs.

The flow of the draft and the makeup of the league will of course dictate when players will go, but for me, the first WR off the board shouldn't happen until pick 20 or so... but I also understand taking a pair of stud WRs at the turn of the 1st and 2nd rounds -- though I'd much rather take RBs there....

Rookie drafts are of course different, but again, all things being equal, I'd take the RB over the WR - but the top one could easily go top five.

-oo-

[MARKinMI]

It all depends on scoring systems. in my case (ppr) we get 1 pt for 10 yards of a TD. so if its a 30 yd TD its 6 +1(rec) +3long td bonus=10 pts. Wrs tend to score from further out than RBs so in my league WRs are king. Our lineups are 2 RB, 3 WR & 2 flex so you can start as many as 4 rbs or as many as 5 wrs. I killed our league 2 yrs ago using AJ,Djax,Marshall,austin,Boldin. I've since sold high on a few of those guys to pick up RBs and a top QB. I'm interested to see if my run 2 yrs ago was flukeish because I had so many 100 catch guys. last year I didn't and my team suffered so I moved some of those guys to get better at RB. I plan on using a 4 RB base lineup this year with AP,CJ,DMC & Mendy... I'm kinda worried though because this will be the first year in along time I won't have the Best WR corps in that league.

[MonkeyOne]

Where do you think the first WR should come off the board in a start up draft?
Around 1.6 or so.

Where do you think the first WRs should start coming off the board in a rookie draft?
1.1 is okay for someone like Green.

[skip]

Given the general choice of what to build around, I prefer the WRs. My main league is 2RB/3WR. You can get by with 1 solid RB but not so at WR. You have to have a strong, deep group of WRs and the teams with them are invariably the top teams in the league.

[kris_kapsner]

I personally have a double edged answer. I "like" WRs better but would rather own the young stud RB.

There are many reasons for me liking the WR better, most of which have already been mentioned. I love the long shelf life. I love the fact that they tend to not get "used up" relatively quickly in the NFL. I like that even after they start to fade and other WRs start to take their thunder away, they can still be productive because every NFL team plays 2-3 of them for most of the game. I also like that they tend to be more durable over the season because they aren't taking a pounding.

Now for some downsides to the WR. Unlike RBs who depend on just an offensive line for production (though having a passing game is nice to soften defenses), the WR depends on the offensive line, the QB and other passing threats on the field so he doesn't get double teamed all game. And, because of the number of WRs started in the NFL as well as WR3's and WR4's who have productive times, finding a WR cheap in trade or on the waiver wire is much easier than finding RBs.

That last part is VERY key. If you look at the top 10 dynasty RB list and the top 10 dynasty WR list of yours, you'll probably notice that most of the guys on the RB list were drafted in the first 2 rounds or so while there are always those WRs who were drafted late who become good or even great in the NFL. Very few later round RBs last more than a season or two if they happen to become starters.

Because of that, as a dynasty fantasy football owner, you are able to find quality WR prospects throughout the 1st round and into the 2nd round of almost every rookie draft. Yet, the same can't be said for finding quality RB prospects.

So to me it's not a matter of who I would rather own, it's a matter of who is more valuable. And, the value is definitely hedged in the direction of RBs. The truly good ones are tough to find. To get the elite RBs you usually have to have a high 1st round pick. You don't for all but the Calvin Johnson's, Larry Fitgerald's or Andre Johnson's of the world. Even then, if you wanted Crabtree, you spent a top 4 pick on him. If you wanted Dez, you spent a top 4 pick on him too. Yet Nicks, Maclin and Harvin have all look better than Crabtree to this point and they were drafted much later in our rookie drafts. Dez was shown up by a WR in Mike Williams drafted in the 4th round last year who was a 2nd round rookie pick in most drafts that happened prior to mid July.

I almost won my league in 2003 with NOTHING at RB, just a stud QB and a few stud WRs. But, I will tell you that the three times I've won my league it was because I had bell cow RBs and my opponents did not. Just something to consider.

Also, if you analyze the "bust rate" of WRs verses RBs, there is factual evidence to support the theory that drafting WRs is much riskier than drafting RBs. The reason I think this is the case is there is much more to being a good WR than just physical ability. That's why we see so many 3rd round or later WRs become long term starters in the NFL and so many 1st round WRs bust. It comes down to perfecting their game with route running and being on the same page as the QB. Unlike a RB who pretty much just has to know which hole is supposed to open up on each run play, a WR has to have a fuller understanding of the intricacies of his profession. Yes, a RB needs to understand pass protections. But, even if he doesn't understand those too well, he'll make it out onto the field due to his pure ability. The same can't be said for WRs because they do the team no good if they can't get open because they run poor routes or are in a different place than the QB expects them to be.

Another thing to consider is how much value a potential "bust" RB continues to hold verses a potential "bust" WR. How much value do guys like Donald Brown and Chris Wells still have? Quite a bit in most leagues, just because they are young 1st round pick RBs. Yet, if WRs show as little as they have to this point, you won't get much for them in trade, even if that doesn't seem quite fair. So, when you invest a pick, as they say in the auto sales world, your "trade in" value is much higher with the RB verses the WR. And, on the flip side, when each position shows greatness, I've never seen a WR traded for nearly as much as I've seen some elite RBs go for.

So, the value to me truly favors the RB.

[standard_variance]

I disagree, Id much rather have a young stud WR than a young stud RB. WR's have much longer shelf lives, RB's reach middle age and their values start to fall off a cliff.

Scarcity is what makes value. Diamonds and gold are valuable because they are very rare and precious stones. Same with RB's. Even though WR's may be more productive over time that is what, in fact, makes them less valuable. There are less STUD RB's and even less that are YOUNG STUDS. If YOUNG WR's generally last longer, and as a whole WR's are more productive, that also means that OVER TIME there are more - productive WR's meaning they are actually LESS VALUABLE. Also it really depends on the league starting requirements....The problem with young RB's is knowing which ones are going to last through and through..