The Backup RB

[skip]

I've been in this game now for 27 years and I wonder how owners go out and make the same mistakes over and over again. Go back a year and look at offseason discussions about valuation of players like Kniles Davis, Joseph Randle, Bryce Brown, Alfred Blue, Charles Sims etc. You can go back to any offseason and find backup players like these who were supposedly going to either pick up a bigger role or a starting role and be worth quite a bit. And it is happening again...

Rawls, Langford as supposed starters...Karols Williams, West/Ware, etc.

While possible that these players do indeed live up to how they are being widely valued right now, it is far more likely that all of them move back to backup roles or even fall off to no value at all. I guess I need to understand owner thought process on why they would fall into this trap.

[Bad News Barrett]

I agree somewhat, but there are plenty of examples of backups who kept the job. Most running backs start as backups, although I think it is less likely to happen the lower the draft pedigree. There are some outliers, Fred Jackson and Arian Foster, to name two off the top of my head.

But yeah, I think investing in guys drafted after round 3 probably isn't a smart move in general

[skip]

Most running backs start as backups, although I think it is less likely to happen the lower the draft pedigree.

When they were drafted to take the starting job, sure...but the lower draft pedigree guys are the ones I'm talking about. The list is very short that end up being successful. Way too short for any kind of substantial investment.

[Bad News Barrett]

I've said it before, Karlos Williams is way overvalued. He isn't that good. I'm a Bills season ticket holder. He sucked when he got the chance to start. He had a few lucky long TD runs where he basically went untouched due to the great offensive line and work from Richie Incognito. His stats are inflated, and McCoy isn't going anywhere. Even Mike Gillislee, who I never heard of and the Bills found on the street, looked good

[ImaRounder]

do you think Carey(4th?) was drafted to take over for Forte or Langford(4th)? Sims taken in the 3rd I believe... I don't think these players were drafted in the middle rounds to sit on the bench IMO.

Personally, it's a case by case basis. I like Ajayi and Sims and do think they can take over and be number one backs. as far as Karlos, Rawls, KC backfield I don't see them doing much of anything

[sloth8u]

your looking for the thought process of owners of fantasy football teams. they want to win! as long as the rb is a necessary start...they will carry value. the typical process is to go after the guy who's great...but i prefer to go after the guy's who's value is down when approaching rb.

there has to be some team in your league that has rb's to part with at a discount. owners look for picks or wr's and you can flip a stash into a rb that you like at minimal cost.

[tstafford]

Most running backs start as backups, although I think it is less likely to happen the lower the draft pedigree.

When they were drafted to take the starting job, sure...but the lower draft pedigree guys are the ones I'm talking about. The list is very short that end up being successful. Way too short for any kind of substantial investment.

The bold italics is added by me.

I agree with this. The odds of hitting on a back-up RB that becomes the starter is really small. Think about all the times that a stud gets injured and we rush to the redraft WW to put in a claim on the back-up. These guys generally, not always, underwhelm. They are back-ups for a reason.

Look at the top-10 PPR RBs from last year:
Freeman
ADP
Woodhead
Martin
Miller
Williams
Forte
Johnson
Gurley
Murray

None of those guys was a back-up toiling behind a stud waiting to get their chance. ADP, Martin, Williams, Forte and Gurley were all known quantity studs coming in to their drafts. They warranted top-3 or higher rookie selections and we knew that at the time. Miller is on the cusp.

It's rare for the back-up guy to emerge. It does happen from time to time but more likely than not the mix of Langford, Karlos, Rawls, Ajayi, etc. will disappoint.

[Pac_Eddy]

Skip, the backup RB is indeed a trap.

I can't recall any situation where I've actively tried to trade for the backup to one of my high end RBs. Too often those players 1) don't perform well when the starter is gone or 2) are part of a committee or 3) aren't given the chance to be the number one.

NFL draft pedigree is a decent starting point for placing value on these guys. The later the round, the more likely he was draft to be a backup and special teams body. There are exceptions, of course. but this is a good place to start.

I have McCoy & Karlos Williams in one league and if McCoy is gone leaving Williams as the starter, I'll be looking to sell on Karlos to someone who values him as a legit RB1 in fantasy.

[Servo]

It's hard not to be blinded because a lot of these back-up/replacement backs perform when the spotlight is on them (a-la Hightower etc). However, can these guys keep it up for a full season? As much as running backs are an uneasy investment, you have to believe every team wants to find their AP, Gurley, Bell, Emmitt, LT, Curtis Martin, etc. etc.

[JJDubya]

Skip, I think you're overlooking the evolution in the game itself that continues to undervalue the position. 27 years is a long time, and you've no doubt seen a lot, but I've been watching football for that long and have also noticed the game is vastly different than the way it was played 10 or 15 years ago, let alone 25+. This recent phenomenon of plug and play RB is a necessary evil in the salary cap era and I think we're going to see a lot more guys drafted in the mid and late rounds get a shot to prove themselves. Rawls, Langford, Ajayi, Williams, they'll all likely get a shot to start (maybe not Williams, Shady likely won't miss time due to incarceration). Sure they'll face competition and may have a short leash as a result of the minimum amount invested by their teams, but teams just aren't paying up for the Position today. It makes much more fiscal sense to build and pay the rest of the team because RB is a relatively easy position to plug and play compared to the others. We've seen what happens with TRich and Montee Ball lately and as this new age of the RB continues to develop and mature, I think we'll see many more of the Ajayi and Rawls scenarios unfold. Why pay your starter $5-8m per year if you can get 85% of his production for $500k per. Granted, the shelf life of these "backups" may not be as long, but as a fantasy owner you can be savvy and utilize them for limited periods of production and flip them for crazy value when they're ready to get their shot. If next year's draft class is a bumper crop we might see some teams dip into the first round for some talent, but the fact 2 of the past 3 drafts have seen no RBs drafted in the 1st indicated to me we're likely see more mid-late round RBs maintain real and fantasy relevance going forward.

To tstafford, that list you put together includes a few names that I would argue didn't see top 3 pick status. Woodhead? How was Woodhead not a backup? He's a change of pace guy who shouldered more of the load because of injury and ineffectiveness of his peers, not because he was the stud. Williams may have been a high rookie pick, 8 seasons ago, but has been nothing more than a flex play for most of the last 4 or 5 seasons. This year he was drafted EXCLUSIVELY as a handcuff to Leveon. Johnson was 3rd on the depth chart when the season started and drafted no higher than the late first in any of my leagues. Freeman was the cheaper option in his own backfield coming into the season.

Point is, although the late round picks will continue to disappoint, there will be more of them in this position going forward because of the way the real game is played, so it makes sense to invest pennies in a number of them in the hopes you can cash out big. Skip uses his stock metaphor regularly. These guys are like penny stocks. There's tones of risk, but as long as you invest early, you won't have to pay too much and the reward can be huge if you hit on one or two every couple of years.

[skip]

These guys are like penny stocks. There's tones of risk, but as long as you invest early, you won't have to pay too much and the reward can be huge if you hit on one or two every couple of years.

I agree with this..."as long as you invest early". But what I am highlighting is the problem right now with the names I mentioned - like Rawls and Langford. These guys are trading in some cases for early 1st round picks which is ridiculous. Right now both of these guys should be carrying slightly more value than any other backup because neither is the starter. Both COULD be the starter.

A year ago I fought endlessly with multiple people over Joseph Randle trying to help them understand this concept - that even IF he ended up being the starter that he wasn't going to produce like Murray and more likely than not would be facing replacement. So Dallas goes out and adds DMC (a starting caliber RB), Randle fails miserably, and DMC takes over to have a very successful full season of stats in just 10 weeks.

I also fought owners regarding Kniles Davis because many believed that Charles would see a reduced role into more of a time share because Davis had proven himself to be a competent backup and deserving of an increase in usage. And it happens every year...

Specifically to the two main ones: Langford and Rawls... I'll dismiss Langford right off as crazy overvalued. He simply wasn't an effective runner. He epitomizes the quality backup - a couple good games and otherwise is just a role filler. He doesn't have a starting caliber skill set and even if he gets named the starter, he isn't going to live up to any kind of the hype. To Rawls, he is the closest thing I would consider to be an outlier to the general rule - but I've seen him go for as much as the 1.02 - which means he is being compared to the elite level of rookies entering the league. Given the high failure rate of trying to guess the success of current backups/future starters, I don't believe any of them is worth that kind of investment.

[ArrylT]

Isnt the ratio on 1st round rookies a 50/50 proposition and that decreases with every round?

I am not saying owners should be going out and buying backups now in starting roles at 1st round prices, but I am thinking it should be noted that rookie picks are not sure bets. Basically they are currency that every owner is going to use as they see fit.

Is it safer for owners to invest their picks in the actual draft? Maybe. Not every draft is 2014. And if you are trying to win now (ie this year) what difference would it have made to an owner who invested a 1.08-1.12 last year on a Coleman/Agholor/Perriman, to have spent the same pick on a backup they thought had a high probability of starting at some point.

If that player had been D. Williams, McFadden, R. Mathews, Sims or so forth - then they may have just gotten the production they needed either to make the playoffs or even win.

In the end, while dynasty is a long game, and safe plays usually are the smart move, some times you have to swing for the fences to score the winning run. At some point an owner is going to find it a better play to use their pick on a backup, than on a rookie. Maybe for some owners, it is sooner rather than later.

Do I necessarily agree? No. But without owners who sell their picks for production or hopes of production, other teams are not going to get the picks they feel they need to retool/rebuild. And that is the best thing about dynasty - there is no 1 proven way to build a championship. Do some routes increase your chances - yes - but different routes, even if riskier, can still lead to success.

[JJDubya]

With both Rawls and Langford, they're technically not the backups anymore since we know the incumbent isn't coming back. Randle is a great example, but he did have major warts with his shoplifting issues. Rawls has a checkered past, but he hasn't done anything as stupid as Randle did while he was a pro, so I'll give him a clean slate. Totally agree that these guys' values are inflated. I cashed out on both in e past couple of weeks, but still have Rawls in one league, since I added him from the ww so costs me nothing to keep and he could be a legit RB1.

On board with the overall theme of draft these guys while backups, not once they've had their value jump.