Value of WRs verses RBs

[MARKinMI]

Stud WR for me. I can win with decent RB play and there seems to always be WW RB's to be had.

No one has addressed the fact that RB's are losing value and they are about to lose even more value.

The age of the WR winning your FF leagues has been coming for a while and I think it's here. Those that don't see it are going to be doomed to lose. With the RBBC spreading through the league and now the season likely getting longer. I think that with 18 games, you "stud" RB is going to have his touches per week cut to keep him healthy through the season and expand the RBBC even further. This will continue the decline of the FF RB and promote the FF WR. The main RB will be putting up less and his breather RB will be putting up more. This will make the RB position even easier to fill and get decent production from, since more RB's will have value.

ding ding ding ding give the man a prize

[kris_kapsner]

Stud WR for me. I can win with decent RB play and there seems to always be WW RB's to be had.

No one has addressed the fact that RB's are losing value and they are about to lose even more value.

The age of the WR winning your FF leagues has been coming for a while and I think it's here. Those that don't see it are going to be doomed to lose. With the RBBC spreading through the league and now the season likely getting longer. I think that with 18 games, you "stud" RB is going to have his touches per week cut to keep him healthy through the season and expand the RBBC even further. This will continue the decline of the FF RB and promote the FF WR. The main RB will be putting up less and his breather RB will be putting up more. This will make the RB position even easier to fill and get decent production from, since more RB's will have value.

While what you say is true, you are missing the point I am trying to make. And that's ok. We can all disagree.

You can find a RB here or there cheap that blows up for a single season to fill in. Yes, that's true. Foster and Hillis were this year's models. Last year it was Fred Jackson. The year before it was Thomas Jones. But, then the fall away into obscurity again and can be nearly worthless a year later. WRs come out of nowhere every year too. This year's versions were Steve Johnson and Brandon Lloyd. Last years were Miles Austin and Desean Jackson. The year before it was Antonio Bryant. So, both have their share of guys who rise and fall with each year.

I agree that RBBC and scoring systems tending towards PPR, as well as how today's NFL offenses produce, is narrowing the gap between RBs and WRs. I just don't think the value of the WR has over taken the RB yet. And, I'm not sure it ever will.

You always have the occasional WR (like Calvin Johnson right now) or QB (like Aaron Rodgers right now) that someone might take #1 overall in a dynasty start up draft. But, for the most part, dynasty owners know how scarce the "young stud" RB is in the NFL. That won't go away with an 18 game schedule. It won't go away with RBBC gaining traction. It won't go away because of PPR. NFL coaches want to win. And, when they know they have a stud in the back field, they want to get the ball to them.

What you will see changing, and it already has, is that the RB in today's NFL needs to be able to catch the ball well. If they can't, there will be another RB on the roster who can. And that RB will take touches away from the stud runner. So, we see smaller shiftier RBs gaining success as of late. You look at the top studs and they're all small pass catchers except Peterson. Chris Johnson, MJD, Charles, McCoy, Rice...all had "size issues" coming into the NFL. And all of them put those to rest for their NFL teams as well as their dynasty owners. Small elusive RBs who catch 50+ passes are the new wave. Those guys are worth a gold mine in dynasty fantasy football right now. To most owners, they are worth more than even Calvin Johnson.

So, to an average owner, when you have multiple players at one position (RB), worth more than the most valuable player of another position (WR), then RB is the most valuable position.

[kris_kapsner]

Jeff just reminded me that he already did his WR draft analysis to go with his RBs. So, I'm going to pull a couple of paragraphs from each of his articles here. Everything after this was written by Jeff except for the one line I wrote encapsulated with [ ]. This should put things in perspective from a rookie draft stand point...AKA: the AJ Grenn verses Mark Ingram debate that inspired this thread.

Even if AJ Green is drafted in the top 5 picks, he's still less likely to succeed as a fantasy starter (50%) than taking ANY RB drafted in the 1st round (62.5%) and a MUCH bigger risk than taking the 1st RB drafted (90% success rate).

.
From the WR article:

In the years from 2000-2009, there have been 43 WRs taken in the first round. Note that in 2008, no WRs were taken in the first round. Given my current category assessments, these 43 receivers are broken down as follows:

Stud: 6/43 or 14%
Starter: 9/43 or 21%
Bench: 6/43 or 13.9%
Bust: 22/43 or 51.1%
Chance of getting a Stud or Starter from a NFL first round receiver: 35%

It really depends on how you wish to slice it. In short, the wide receiver position is the the hardest to draft, especially highly, in your fantasy draft. As you can see, you have a 35% chance of getting a difference maker when you select any receiver that has been drafted in the first round. Even if you are to select the first receiver off the board in the NFL draft, your odds of getting a stud or starter are only 30%. Your odds increase to 50% if you select a receiver that has been drafted within the top five picks in the NFL draft – this remains your best bet. But as you can tell, selecting the first or second receiver off the board in the NFL draft has a bust or bench rating of 70-80%.

.

From the RB article:

Let’s take a look at first round RBs. Recall from above that there were 32 RBs selected in the first round in the period of 2000-2009.

Stud: 10/32 or 31.25%
Starter: 10/32 or 31.25%
Bench: 4/32 or 12.5%
Bust: 8/32 or 25%
[62.5% chance to get a stud or starter when drafting 1st round RBs]

Of the 32 RBs taken in the first round, the ten taken first over the previous ten years are categorized as follows:

Stud: 5/10 or 50%
Starter: 4/10 or 40%
Bench: 0/10 or 0%
Bust: 1/10 or 10%

If your name is William Green and you were the first drafted RB at #16 in 2002, congratulations, you’re the anomaly. But at least you get your picture next to Adrian Peterson on DLF! As these numbers clearly show, taking the first RB off the board in first round nets you a productive fantasy player 90% of the time.

Unlike WRs, where draft position can be a telling indicator, RBs are not similarly aligned. It’s quite safe to say that the first RB off the board in the NFL draft is going to be a fine fantasy producer. Even the second RB off the board produces at a relatively good rate of 50%. And even when considering the last RB off the board in the first round, your odds of getting a fantasy producer are much better from this position than the WR of just about any position.

In short, first round RBs are a better bet if you need fantasy production. If you are in a BPA (Best Player Available) situation, the RB position is a good bet.

[dlf_ericd]

Stud WR for me. I can win with decent RB play and there seems to always be WW RB's to be had.

No one has addressed the fact that RB's are losing value and they are about to lose even more value.

The age of the WR winning your FF leagues has been coming for a while and I think it's here. Those that don't see it are going to be doomed to lose. With the RBBC spreading through the league and now the season likely getting longer. I think that with 18 games, you "stud" RB is going to have his touches per week cut to keep him healthy through the season and expand the RBBC even further. This will continue the decline of the FF RB and promote the FF WR. The main RB will be putting up less and his breather RB will be putting up more. This will make the RB position even easier to fill and get decent production from, since more RB's will have value.

I agree totally...even in leagues where 300+ players are rostered, the depth of talent at the RB position is deeper than it's ever been due to chaning philosophies/utilization of RBBC's. While the very top 5-7 RB's are extremely valuable at this point due to the # of touches they see every week, the next 20+ RB's can often come out of nowhere. I guess if you see a RB in the draft that you believe can be one of those top 5-7 that monopolize their team's carries, then you should take him immediately. If not, then I think a lot depends on what your team needs are and how soon you are expecting production from your draft picks.

In my case, at the 1.1 I'll be drafting whoever I feel is the better talent. I'm not concerned about 2011 value, so I feel I can afford to take more of a risk if need be and take the player with the higher upside.

[dabearsfan]

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..

Great discussion here guys. Lots of great points being made. For me, the highlighted section above makes a lot of sense. There are fewer stud RBs than there are stud WRs and thus the stud RB is more valuable.

There are, of course, other variables such as line-up requirements and scoring systems that might make WRs more valuable but in general if I'm picking in the top 5 I am probably going to take a RB. I can't say I would fault anyone for taking a WR though. There have been some great arguments made for taking a WR.

[Mangelo]

Jeff just reminded me that he already did his WR draft analysis to go with his RBs. So, I'm going to pull a couple of paragraphs from each of his articles here. Everything after this was written by Jeff except for the one line I wrote encapsulated with [ ]. This should put things in perspective from a rookie draft stand point...AKA: the AJ Grenn verses Mark Ingram debate that inspired this thread.

Even if AJ Green is drafted in the top 5 picks, he's still less likely to succeed as a fantasy starter (50%) than taking ANY RB drafted in the 1st round (62.5%) and a MUCH bigger risk than taking the 1st RB drafted (90% success rate).

.
From the WR article:

In the years from 2000-2009, there have been 43 WRs taken in the first round. Note that in 2008, no WRs were taken in the first round. Given my current category assessments, these 43 receivers are broken down as follows:

Stud: 6/43 or 14%
Starter: 9/43 or 21%
Bench: 6/43 or 13.9%
Bust: 22/43 or 51.1%
Chance of getting a Stud or Starter from a NFL first round receiver: 35%

It really depends on how you wish to slice it. In short, the wide receiver position is the the hardest to draft, especially highly, in your fantasy draft. As you can see, you have a 35% chance of getting a difference maker when you select any receiver that has been drafted in the first round. Even if you are to select the first receiver off the board in the NFL draft, your odds of getting a stud or starter are only 30%. Your odds increase to 50% if you select a receiver that has been drafted within the top five picks in the NFL draft – this remains your best bet. But as you can tell, selecting the first or second receiver off the board in the NFL draft has a bust or bench rating of 70-80%.

.

From the RB article:

Let’s take a look at first round RBs. Recall from above that there were 32 RBs selected in the first round in the period of 2000-2009.

Stud: 10/32 or 31.25%
Starter: 10/32 or 31.25%
Bench: 4/32 or 12.5%
Bust: 8/32 or 25%
[62.5% chance to get a stud or starter when drafting 1st round RBs]

Of the 32 RBs taken in the first round, the ten taken first over the previous ten years are categorized as follows:

Stud: 5/10 or 50%
Starter: 4/10 or 40%
Bench: 0/10 or 0%
Bust: 1/10 or 10%

If your name is William Green and you were the first drafted RB at #16 in 2002, congratulations, you’re the anomaly. But at least you get your picture next to Adrian Peterson on DLF! As these numbers clearly show, taking the first RB off the board in first round nets you a productive fantasy player 90% of the time.

Unlike WRs, where draft position can be a telling indicator, RBs are not similarly aligned. It’s quite safe to say that the first RB off the board in the NFL draft is going to be a fine fantasy producer. Even the second RB off the board produces at a relatively good rate of 50%. And even when considering the last RB off the board in the first round, your odds of getting a fantasy producer are much better from this position than the WR of just about any position.

In short, first round RBs are a better bet if you need fantasy production. If you are in a BPA (Best Player Available) situation, the RB position is a good bet.

I'm enjoying the back-n-forth but I'd also like to add that there appears to be a mix up of signals here. Some of us appear to be arguneng the the value of already established studs like Calvin, Peterson, Cj2k etc and there's also some discussion of the rookies, which although is related, it's a whole nother tangent.

DLF has obviously gone through a lot of trouble to put these informative articles out, and they serve their purpose as some nice framework, but I'd still rather rely on my eyes. For instance, it would seem that these two articles would champion taking Ryan Mathews and CJ Spiller over Dez Bryant. Mathews landing in SD basically pushed him to the #1 spot in I'd say 50-60% of rookie drafts, even though most scouts and pundits would have agreed that Dez was much more talented.

[standard_variance]

No one has addressed the fact that RB's are losing value and they are about to lose even more value.
.

MENTIONED IN THE POST RIGHT BEFORE YOURS.

I will say this though....the RB position has gone through a nice turnover in the past 2-3 years sporting a handful of highly productive RB's. Dynasty wise RB's are a little deeper than normal...but they will never be as deep as WR's.

I dont mean to sound rude here....but its either you didnt read through every post, or you did not understand what was being said here. Either way, just because RB's are losing value doesnt mean WR's are currently more valuable at the moment.

[MR ROURKE]

The fact that we are talking PPR future decreases the "stud" RB, because PPR makes a lot more RB's viable contributers. PPR also adds 90-100+ points in catches to the WR. In non-PPR, I can see the RB arguement being viable just because non-PPR shrinks the viable RB's drastically and the WR's aren't getting a huge bump for the passes caught.

This debate stems from the Ingram verses Green debate, however... you would first have to show that Ingram is elite to even make that fit this discussion. I don't see an elite skill set from Ingram and I haven't read anyone say that he's an elite talent. I think this is more those people who are so used to taking RB after RB over the years and just aren't acknowledging the change to WR. The NFL is a passing league... ask anyone. That means that FF has to start embracing the WR a lot more then it had to 10 years ago when everyone drafted a RB in the first and RB in the second. WR's have gained a little more value every year and they are going to gain more value in the future.

Statistics and stats can only take you so far. Regradless of what they say or what you think they say, evey player and their circumstances are different. Lumping them together is just a way for those who do their homework to get ahead by going with their keen eye and beating those odds. I fully understand the odds and I believe that everyone who's been in FF for a number of years has heard them somewhere, but the right move can be against those odds. Also of note is that the "odds" are calculated from years past. They do not say that AJ Green with his track record and his production on tape couldn't be a much higher percentage, because the "odds" are made of a bunch of WR's who aren't AJ Green. All the "odds" do is say that many have failed, but the odds are made up of many players that didn't have as high of a precieved ceiling at AJ Green as well. No where in the "odds" is there a gimmie for teams taking the wrong player like the Raiders taking DHB or when a team takes a player out of need and forces the pick like Tedd Ginn Jr. These type of instances are why I like odds, because the odds are never as bad as they are made out to be.

[MR ROURKE]

No one has addressed the fact that RB's are losing value and they are about to lose even more value.
.

MENTIONED IN THE POST RIGHT BEFORE YOURS.

No... it doesn't. I reread your post and your post says that there have been several good RB's and that the RB depth is deeper then normal. I'm sure you needed the capital letter though.

[standard_variance]

No one has addressed the fact that RB's are losing value and they are about to lose even more value.
.

MENTIONED IN THE POST RIGHT BEFORE YOURS.

No... it doesn't. I reread your post and your post says that there have been several good RB's and that the RB depth is deeper then normal. I'm sure you needed the capital letter though.

Ok clearly there is someting about the concept of VALUE that you do not understand......either that or maybe you mean to imply that I did not go into greater detail about the devaluation of RB's - which is true...so I'll assume the latter. But I was speaking to the point of you saying that NOBODY HAD touched on the devaluation of RB's...when it clearly implicated in the statement "the RB depth is deeper than usual".

the MORE OF SOMETHING THERE IS
the LESS VALUABLE IT IS

thus me saying that the RB depth is deeper than usual
means that
I am in fact acknowledging that RB's have lost some value


Thus you were wrong in saying nobody had touched on it.

So we agree that RB's have lost some value - true. The only disagreement is how much RB's have been devalued. And my position is surely not enough to make them less valuable than WR's at this point.

[49ersFaithful80]

well here lets put this in the form of a question.

would you rather have Adrian Peterson and his elite production for 5 more years?

or

would you rather have Calvin Johnson's elite production for 7 or 8 more years?


WR's last much longer, and thus IMO have more value

[standard_variance]

The fact that we are talking PPR future decreases the "stud" RB, because PPR makes a lot more RB's viable contributers. PPR also adds 90-100+ points in catches to the WR. In non-PPR, I can see the RB arguement being viable just because non-PPR shrinks the viable RB's drastically and the WR's aren't getting a huge bump for the passes caught.

This debate stems from the Ingram verses Green debate, however... you would first have to show that Ingram is elite to even make that fit this discussion. I don't see an elite skill set from Ingram and I haven't read anyone say that he's an elite talent. I think this is more those people who are so used to taking RB after RB over the years and just aren't acknowledging the change to WR. The NFL is a passing league... ask anyone. That means that FF has to start embracing the WR a lot more then it had to 10 years ago when everyone drafted a RB in the first and RB in the second. WR's have gained a little more value every year and they are going to gain more value in the future.

Statistics and stats can only take you so far. Regradless of what they say or what you think they say, evey player and their circumstances are different. Lumping them together is just a way for those who do their homework to get ahead by going with their keen eye and beating those odds. I fully understand the odds and I believe that everyone who's been in FF for a number of years has heard them somewhere, but the right move can be against those odds. Also of note is that the "odds" are calculated from years past. They do not say that AJ Green with his track record and his production on tape couldn't be a much higher percentage, because the "odds" are made of a bunch of WR's who aren't AJ Green. All the "odds" do is say that many have failed, but the odds are made up of many players that didn't have as high of a precieved ceiling at AJ Green as well. No where in the "odds" is there a gimmie for teams taking the wrong player like the Raiders taking DHB or when a team takes a player out of need and forces the pick like Tedd Ginn Jr. These type of instances are why I like odds, because the odds are never as bad as they are made out to be.

Ok ok hold on Mangelo makes a good point. There is clearly some confusion when it comes to the context in which drafts are being referred too. Three different types of drafts are being referenced and it gets confusing....

Fantasy Football Inaugural drafts
Fantasy Football Rookie drafts
NFL Rookie drafts

Kris' post was referring to RB's taken in the first round of the ACTUAL NFL Rookie draft...not the Fantasy Football Rookie draft. That makes a world of a difference as far as context is concerned. Just had to throw that out there.

And also to respond to Rourke..PPR also helps a lot more WR's than it does RB's....I can guaratee you that. So thats a moot point - unless you really need evidence to support that. You cant keep looking at one side of the equation when you make statements. PPR increases the productivity of a lot of RB's, true...but it also inreases the productivity of a lot of WR's....so in order to find out who it devalues more we would have to figure out who has the larger increase in productivity....my bet is on WR's.

Here is something that has also gone slightly unmentioned i believe. Most teams start 3 WR's and 1 RB. Thats 96 WR's and 32 RB's...even if the entire league relied on a 2 RBBC system thats still only 64 RB's in comparison to 96 WR's. Top end RB's will still always slightly be more valuable unless RBBC starts to significantly affect how many WR's start across the board. My guess is - that wont happen.

What Kris was trying to say about rookie WR's is that for the price you pay for a top rookie WR, you could usually get a mid tier one thats just as productive for a lesser price.
In terms of inaugural drafts its the same thing except on a larger more known scale. In terms of an inaugural draft in PPR WR's are in theory a safer pick long term in terms of production according to the odds....this is why acquiring a top RB and owning one is and will always be more important...because a franchise RB is harder to get your hands on.

In NON-PPR its actually the opposite....top WR's are actually MORE VALUABLE in NON-PPR than they are in PPR.

[standard_variance]

well here lets put this in the form of a question.

would you rather have Adrian Peterson and his elite production for 5 more years?

or

would you rather have Calvin Johnson's elite production for 7 or 8 more years?


WR's last much longer, and thus IMO have more value

thats not how value is determined. The flaw is once again in your method....not your knowledge. Your knowledge supports the notion that Calvin Johnson over time is more productive. Thats correct but that doesnt mean he is more valuable.

How many Calvin Johnson like producing players are there?
How many ADP like producing players are there?

Look it up and you will see that there are MORE WR's producing at Calvin Johnsons level consistently from year to year than there are RB's producing at ADP's level consistently year to year.....thats what makes ADP more valuable.

[dlf_ericd]

Standard Variance, you've made lots of good points, but I have a problem with this...

"Here is something that has also gone slightly unmentioned i believe. Most teams start 3 WR's and 1 RB. Thats 96 WR's and 32 RB's...even if the entire league relied on a 2 RBBC system thats still only 64 RB's in comparison to 96 WR's. Top end RB's will still always slightly be more valuable unless RBBC starts to significantly affect how many WR's start across the board. My guess is - that wont happen."

I don't think that's something that can be said across the board. With as many different formations and offensive packages as most teams use these days, I think you would actually have to see the numbers in order to give a figure like that. If you think about how many teams have a true "feature back" that get 80%+, there aren't very many. My guess is you would have to add at least 20 RB's to your count (again, just a guess w/o looking at the snap counts).

Also, if you account for the 2-back (and even 3-back) sets and 2 TE sets where there is 2 or less WR's on the field, you would have to subtract from your WR number of 96 started. Not to mention that just b/c you say 96 WR start, doesn't mean 96 WR are valuable. I'd argue all of the "starting RB's" are valuable where as some of those 96 WR's aren't even a top 3-4 option in their team's offense.

[MR ROURKE]

And also to respond to Rourke..PPR also helps a lot more WR's than it does RB's....I can guaratee you that. So thats a moot point - unless you really need evidence to support that. You cant keep looking at one side of the equation when you make statements. PPR increases the productivity of a lot of RB's, true...but it also inreases the productivity of a lot of WR's....so in order to find out who it devalues more we would have to figure out who has the larger increase in productivity....my bet is on WR's.

I consider all sides, but I make statements of what I feel is correct in my opinon. Since I don't flounder back and forth on issues, yes... my statements do corrcetly follow on one side of the equation as they should.

PPR helps every WR including a ton of low end WR2's and WR3's, but it doesn't make a WR1. PPR makes non-PPR RB2's into RB1's.
PPR helps everyone, but an elite stud WR is always stud WR's. Stud RB can depend on the format of PPR or non-PPR.

Since a WR's value is stable and a RB is likely getting more RBBC and less work per week, a WR is a better investment. This discussion is about a stud WR and a stud RB. I assuming the same age in a dynasty startup draft, I'll take the WR from this point on. WR's are going to be going in the first round more and more as people see that the elite RB is going down hill and scoring less points per game and no where near as consistant. The stud WR is the better choice week in and week out for the road ahead. 10 years ago the RB was the better choice, but times change. The NFL has changed to a passing team and so will FF teams to follow the scoring. 18 game season will cause the RB's to score less per week due to being saved for the rest of the season. Once a team has the game in hand, they should have a back up bruiser to come in and run the clock to not have to run down their top talent. Thee headed backfields are coming to a team near you in the future. Main RB to start and be spelled by the guy with game breaking speed/3rd down and a bruiser. The current value of the RB will be a little less each year and the WR appears stable. Why invest in a product like a RB when you can see the devaluing process right in front of you going forward. WR is stable. No one is going out there and buying high priced stock that everyone believes is going to do down in value. That's a dumb investment. In that situation, people would buy a strong stable company, who isn't at least known to be losing value.