Join the Footballguys Daily Update
Start your morning with our roundup of the most important stories in football - with the fantasy insight you need to make league-winning decisions. Delivered straight to your inbox, 100% free.
The Stud Running Back Theory has been a fantasy mainstay for decades. Is it still viable? Why or why not?
Jeff Pasquino: For the Top 4 backs (McCoy, Charles, Peterson and Forte), I am a subscriber. After that, I don't see many elite options, so I would rather go after a stud tight end or wide receiver and then take shots at Top 20-25 running backs in the next few rounds.
Heath Cummings: I've been a big believer in this theory for a long time but I think it finally dies in 2014. Like Jeff said, there just aren't enough stud running backs to justify the theory anymore. Eddie Lacy may move in just as Adrian Peterson is fading out, but the game has changed too much to count on anyone outside of the top five to be a stud. The stud RB approach worked because those studs were supposed to be the most reliable option in the early rounds. With the way football is played today there are now 4-5 receivers and at least 1 tight end that is safer than any of the running backs in the bottom half of the RB1s. If I have a very early pick I'm still taking one of the stud running backs but anywhere in the bottom 2/3 of the draft and I'm taking Jimmy Graham or a wide receiver in the first round.
Jason Wood: I think fantasy strategy is cyclical, and for the last few years the smart play was eschewing the classic 'RB heavy" draft strategy. The reason for zigging versus the classic zagging was sound -- everyone overvalued running backs because they were the fantasy studs and also the hardest to replace on waivers. As we know, today's NFL is a different place. The increasing reliance on the passing game and coaches' preference for role-specific backs (i.e., RB-by-committee) has greatly reduced what a RB has to do weekly in order to be worthy of a roster spot. Combine that with a growing appreciation for star receivers (thanks to a combination of PPR becoming standard and the aforementioned increasing role of the passing attack) and we're seeing running backs fall that NEVER would have before.
With that said, I don't think it's wrong to at least consider going back to a stud RB theory. If you happen to land one of the elite runners (McCoy, Charles, Peterson, Forte, Lacy), and then someone falls back to you in the 2nd round like Marshawn Lynch, Alfred Morris or DeMarco Murray, it's certainly a strategy you can employ. But the key to all strategies is to not have a strategy. What I mean is you HAVE to be flexible. I'm just as likely to go RB/RB as I am WR/WR or TE/QB. It's about trusting your draft board, trusting your instincts, and targeting the best relative value you can in each and every round.
Andy Hicks: Stud running back is still a viable option, but the choices are far more limited. As Jason said you can still go RB/RB in the first 2 rounds, but it has to be the right guys.
Taking Steven Jackson in round 2 would be a big mistake, but getting Eddie Lacy and Alfred Morris wouldn't be a bad pairing. Draft slot is dictating whether you can go stud RB or not in the first round. With Peyton Manning, Jimmy Graham, Rob Gronkowski and 6 or 7 elite receivers you have other options.
There will be guys who take running backs with their first 2 or 3 picks almost out of habit, but they have to be worth it.
Maurile Tremblay: When I started playing fantasy football, Steve Young, Jerry Rice, and Emmitt Smith were everybody's top picks. There was no stud RB theory. There was general parity among QBs, RBs, and WRs, with several players at each position being taken in the first round. (It was a secret among VBD disciples that TEs like Shannon Sharpe and Ben Coates were worthy of second- or third-round grades, at worst; the first tight ends were generally selected in the fifth round or so.)
What happened in short order, however, was that many of the perennial stud QBs from the early-to-mid 1990s -- Steve Young, John Elway, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly -- were out of the league by the end of that decade, and gone were their reliably productive passing attacks. We went through a period when a lot of quarterbacks came out of nowhere, had a terrific season or two, and then faded back into fantasy mediocrity -- Steve Beuerlein, Kurt Warner, Jeff Garcia, Rich Gannon, Marc Bulger, Aaron Brooks, Kurt Warner again, etc.
Sure, there was Peyton Manning, and for a while Daunte Culpepper, but for the most part it was the NFL's rushing attacks, not its passing attacks, that were more reliable. The Stud RB theory made sense because the top ten projected running backs were generally pretty likely to have strong seasons, while the top projected quarterbacks were often upstaged by late-round flyers. And as quarterbacks went, so did their receivers. Many NFL passing offenses were in flux from year to year.
I believe we've come full circle. Once again, the league has a number of reliably productive passing offenses. The Packers, the Broncos, the Saints, and the Lions are almost certain to produce a lot of fantasy points through the air; and the Colts, Falcons, Patriots, and Cowboys are solid bets as well. From among those teams, there are quarterbacks, wide receivers, and tight ends who are just as much sure things as the league's best running backs. That makes the Stud RB theory obsolete.
Dan Hindery: I will likely be in the minority, but I think the stud RB theory is as strong as ever as the pendulum may be swinging too far in the other direction. The last few years, it was common to see 10 RBs in the first round and 16-18 in the first two rounds. Smart owners saw an opportunity to exploit this overvaluing of the RB position by grabbing elite WRs and TEs early and building such a big advantage at those positions that they could overcome weakness at RB.
In seeing that success, now it seems everyone drafting after the 4th spot is thinking along the same lines and trying to target WR/TE. We are now regularly seeing only 5 or 6 RBs in the first round and only about 11 in the first two rounds combined. I suspect this is a bit of an overreaction. While I certainly would not box myself into one strategy without flexibility, I would prefer to start my draft with at least two RBs in the first three rounds. In a PPR league, If I can grab DeMarco Murray and Montee Ball in the first two rounds drafting late, I would happily do so. If drafting early, I would love to pair up an elite runner like Lesean McCoy with another top 10 back in Giovani Bernard.
I would not always zig just because everyone else is zagging, but this may be one of those years to do so with too many owners focused on grabbing top 10 WRs early. There are some relatively safe RBs with high upside ranked 5th to 10th and it is easier than ever to pair two of them up. In fact is even possible in most drafts to grab one of the top four RBs and still add a top 10 back when it comes back around in the 2nd round.
Stephen Holloway: The term in my opinion has a different definition than it had a decade ago. It previously meant to draft running backs early and often, to be the strength of your team and also to limit other team's abilities to have them. They were almost always used as your flex players and as trade bait. To me, the NFL has devalued the position and most coaching staffs prefer to have several running backs, even going so far as to minimize use of their so-called stud so that he will have fresh legs for the playoffs.
The rule changes continue to increase the effectiveness of quarterbacks, wide receivers and tight ends. There are still stud running backs and it is important to have at least one on your team, but they are much fewer in number. It can impact overall fantasy roster quality if you focus too heavily on running backs early. A more effective way to develop a strong roster is to go heavy on wide receivers early so that you have several consistently top producing wide receivers that can be used as your flex players.
League rules of course must be considered, but if there are more wide receivers required than running backs and you can use either for flex positions, I prefer to have strength at wide receiver and even tight end, if they have increased points per reception.
Mark Wimer: I agree with this. Going running back three rounds in a row to start off your draft is likely to seriously diminish your roster quality at wide receiver and tight end, and those positions are more important than ever now that DBs can't make contact after the first five yards from the line of scrimmage. The league has set up a rules paradigm that favors passing the football over running the football - so the fantasy points are increasingly found in the receivers' ranks.
Also stud quarterbacks are worth quite a bit compared to the rest of the field at quarterback - Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers are legitimate first/second round picks depending on league scoring rules. In my longtime (25 years and counting) redraft league all TDs are worth 3 points - including those thrown by quarterbacks - and this year Manning, Brees, and Rodgers went 1.07, 1.08, 1.09 followed by Matt Ryan at 1.12. Always pay attention to your league's scoring rules.
Dan Hindery: I do not think there is any question that the new rules favor the passing game. However, I do disagree with the assumption that fantasy strategy should follow similar lines. It has become increasingly easy to find highly productive WRs and TEs in the later rounds of drafts.
Top notch WR production was found out of Josh Gordon, Alshon Jeffery and other mid-late round targets in 2013. We have seen a huge influx of talented young WRs in the past few years. I personally would rather shore up RB early (likely gaining a large advantage at the position) and then hope that I can at least come out even at WR with 2 or 3 guys in rounds 4-6 (Roddy White, Percy Harvin, etc.) and then shooting for the next breakout star with players like Justin Hunter, Kelvin Benjamin, Jordan Matthews and others later on in the draft while everyone is else is forced to scavenge for scraps of RB value.