WR vs RB in Flex

Route Collectors · Post by **Route Collectors** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 6:27 am

Walla
This is an interesting and ongoing debate on almost every forum since draft day. Time will tell which strategy was the most successful, but I think the bigger picture is being missed.
This is my take:

1)We start 2 RB and 3 WR (1)FLEX
2)That equates to 28 RB and 42 WR mandatory
3)The 28th RB scored about 113 points last year
4)The 42nd WR scored about 132 points last year
5)There were 27 RB's taken in the first 3 rounds of our draft.(14 gone by the time it came back to us at pick 7. Only 3 WR gone and we had Moss.
6)4th WR scored 285 15th RB 163.

Here's my point: With the drop off at RB being so drastic it makes more sense to grab 4 WR that accumulated 1079 points and suffer with 2 RB that totaled 226 points (#'s 27 and 28) instead of grabbing 3 RB's that scored 630 points (#'s 1,21 and 22) and if it were even possible, take the next 3 best WR #'s 15,16 and 17 totaling 482 points.

It always comes down to player projections being close and the injury bug not biting but the philosophy has to make sense (#'s) on draft day.

I'm just a guy with an opinion - that makes sense on the calculator.

INDY RULES

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 6:40 am

Well said, JerseyPaul. But I just can't keep my mouth shut on this issue.

As Ico stated, the question isn't RB vs. WR for the flex. It's when to draft them? As a participant of the WCOFF the last 2 seasons, I feel I have some grounds to base my arguments on. Last year, I started 2RBs/4WRs half the games en route to finishing the season as the 25th overall regular season scorer (out of 600). What does this prove... probably nothing, BUT if you consider that both myself AND the 2003 WCOFF Champion drafted RB/WR/WR/TE with the first 4 picks last year, I think the RB/RB/RB theorists should stop and reevaluate for just one more minute. And also keep in mind that the WCOFF scores 1pt/rec for running backs, which makes the RB even more valuable!

But instead of more hot air, I'll put my money where my mouth is.
I'm willing to wager right now, before the season starts, that of the 42 teams to make the playoffs, the percentage of teams who didn't draft a WR in the first 3 rounds will be less tha the percentage of those who did!

Anyone what to take that bet? Name your stakes. I accept!

Jersey Dawg · Post by **Jersey Dawg** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:02 am

Guys; my 2 cents... I see team 11 in NYC League 1 who drafted RB, RB, RB and think his team is solid (not my team, just one I saw at the draft). He got Taylor, Barlow and Tiki Barber. The reason I like that team is that Barber is a perfect flex option. He gets a good number of receptions that even at only .5 points per still adds up with his rushing and receiving yards. He also has a legit player to start at RB2 when he has bye weeks. So, the arguement shouldn't be RB,RB,RB; but instead, which RB's did you get. Even getting Holmes and Ward with my first 2 picks doesn't make me feel good about having to start Wheatley and then picking Richie Anderson or Pittman on bye weeks at all. I feel sick about that. But in my league 20 RB's were gone before I got to pick at the end of round 2 and I didn't like any of the options I saw at RB. I hoped someone would come back a round later and only Wheatley was left....

Pete

Jersey Dawg · Post by **Jersey Dawg** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:04 am

I may add one add'l thought: This year with the new WR bumping rules being enforced, I think the WR's will get more points than usual. It may make them better options than they normally are at flex. I certainly hope so...

Pete

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 7:07 am

Dawg...what did the rest of his team look like? I think I remember looking at it after the draft and yes, Tiki IS a good flex option.

CMoore · Post by **CMoore** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 8:29 am

I've been following this discussion because this was an issue I struggled with pre-draft.

However, one VERY important point that hasn't been made is that good RB's are relatively scarce. As has been pointed out, you can still get decent WR's in the 8-9 rounds. What kind of RB will you get there? No one!

On the other hand, the average WR is most certainly more valuable than the average RB. Yet, you HAVE to start 2 RB's - so a good team will have good RB's - and, you'll have to take them relatively early.

Lastly, it's much easier to get break-out WR's late or even on the free agent wire (last year, Boldin, perhaps S. Moss).

Las Vegas League #3:
QB Bulger
RB Dillon
Staley
WR R. Moss
A. Johnson
Coles
Lloyd
TE Shockey
PK Elam
D Miami

ryanash · Post by **ryanash** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 8:35 am

I could be way off base, but what if the middle and late round WR's are helped more by the new bumping rules than the elite receivers. Don't get me wrong, all WR's should benefit by the new rule, but not by the same marginal amount. For example, when bigger players like Terrell Owens and Chad Johnson went to catch the ball, they weren't affected as much by the "bumping" of defensive players as smaller or possession receivers were. My point is that there may not be as big of a drop off or shelf this year from the top ten receivers as there were last year. I am probably wrong, but it is just a thought.

hankstr56 · Post by **hankstr56** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 8:41 am

I started out drafting 2 WRs (pick 10 - Holt and then Owens). Of course by round 3 there weren't many good options left at RB. I have Kevin Jones and Wheatley as my starters. I ended up drafting 8 rbs all together with hopes that one or more of them (e.g. Davenport, Tony H., Musa Smith) may get lucky and be productive over the course of the season. A lot of different strategies were employed - that is what makes this interesting....

kal8898 · Post by **kal8898** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 8:52 am

I don't even think it is a matter of looking at it as RB vs WR or "I need to take RB/RB then WR/WR/WR." We went into this draft looking to get 2 rb's and 3 wr's in the first 5 rounds. But because there were huge runs on RB's there was no value there and had to take stud WR's.

By our 3rd pick (3.11) there were 28 RB's taken, 6 WR's taken, 1 TE taken, & 3 QB's taken. That said, who would you take? Chad Johnson (surprised he wasn't one of the top 6 wr's taken) or J. Jones, Garner, T. Bell, Wheatley, or E. Smith???

By our 4th pick (4.04), we the same choice minus Vick, A. Johnson, J. Jones, D. Jackson, P. Price, C. Rogers, so we took D. Mason.

My point here is we didn't have much of a choice in our picks even if we did want to go with RB's first.

That said, we really liked the way our draft turned out, just like 13 others in our league probably liked their's too. GOOD LUCK EVERYONE AND ENJOY THE RIDE!!!

CMoore · Post by **CMoore** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 9:00 am

Nice WR's, Kal. 2 Top 4's and 3 Top 8's, by my reckoning.