Overabundance of RB1s in the league?

[jcc6fd]

Remember when Derrick Henry was going to be the best RB in the NFL?

[hockeyBjj]

Remember when Derrick Henry was going to be the best RB in the NFL?

And I bought him for Corey Davis?

[M-Dub]

All of those guys there either have been Rb1s (Kamara, Hunt, CMC, Fournette) or people see as a high or at least solid chance of becoming RB1s. That's 12 backs, so in a 12 team league even if all of them perform to expectations, they won't all be RB1s as Gurley/Zeke/DJ/Bell/Gordon/Freeman/Howard plus dark horses are all out there still like Drake and Collins and Ajayi who have opportunity

I think that you're defining "RB1" improperly. It's not about the top 12 RBs. Say that RB10 scores 211 points, RB11 scores 208, RB12 scores 207, RB13 scores 206, and RB 14 scores 204. Are you really telling that RBs10-12 are RB1s and RBs13-14 are RB2s? Of course not.

Look at it more in tiers. There's RB1 tier, RB2 tier, etc. Consider that RB1 tier (or, if you consider only, say, Zeke, Bell, Gurley, Johnson, and/or Barkley and/or maybe someone else RB1, then RB2 tier) as having expanded. Some years, there might be 8 players in that tier, some years 11, some years 5, some years 17.

Now, say that this tier has expanded to around 15-18. The question is how you adjust your strategy to accommodate. Do you wait on RB, figuring that you can get an RB1 later than usual? Or you double (triple!) down trying to dominate at that position, having two RB1s while other owners might have zero? Or something else...?

Agree and disagree. Maybe it’s just semantics, but in terms of seasonal production, there can necessarily only be 12 RB1s. In your example, I would argue that the RB13 and RB14 were, in fact, RB2s that year, even though they perfomed almost as well as a handful of the low-end RB1s. I think most people use terms like RB1, RB2, WR1, etc. in that context. It’s just the easiest and most objective way to discuss players in terms of their seasonal performance.

I do agree, though, that when it comes to long-term dynasty evaluation, a tier system works much better. You have your stud/elite tier, then the next tier will include guys who have RB1 potential but could end up as a high-end RB2 depending on how they and others at their position perform in a given year. Age and situation also come into play, obviously. Somebody like Lamar Miller might wind up as a back-end RB1 this year, but it’s doubtful that one good season is enough to push him up into that second tier for most people.

So while I agree with your overall premise, I think it’s much less confusing to just use terms like RB1, WR1, TE1, etc. in terms of seasonal performance, and use different terminology when discussing tiers.

[moishetreats]

So while I agree with your overall premise, I think it’s much less confusing to just use terms like RB1, WR1, TE1, etc. in terms of seasonal performance, and use different terminology when discussing tiers.

Fair enough. I was trying to suggest that the mindset that there are only exactly 12 RBs who are RB1s -- putting aside language for the moment -- is less useful than thinking of RBs in tiers.

We agree that RB tiering is preferable than looking at the top-X at the position in order to evaluate it.

[kaius]

I don't think there's 15-18 WRs out there people, if polled independently of the other options, would say are likely to be WR1s

You are probably correct - most people seem to be talking about plenty of WRs as WR2s or WR3s.

Currently, based somewhat on Re-draft rankings, you can probably assume any of these could be potential WR1s for 2019 but not all of them are being considered WR1s. I have put a break where I think the line is consensus wise.

A. Brown
D. Hopkins
O. Beckham
M. Thomas
K. Allen
AJ Green
D. Adams
L. Fitzgerald
T. Hill
----
M. Evans
D. Baldwin
A. Thielen
A. Cooper
S. Diggs
D. Thomas
B. Cooks
A. Jeffery
A. Robinson
J. Landry
J. Gordon
TY Hilton
G. Tate
M. Jones

Julioooooooo