I think I'd like to challenge a cardinal rule of fantasy football

by ILLZ on Aug 6, 2009 10:00 AM EDT

This rule being that RB's are your bread and butter. They're the dressing in your salad. Grab two and grab two EARLY. Why? Is it the consistency week to week? Sure, they are more consistent than WR's. Are they more consistent than QB's? No, I don't think so. They're also more injury prone than QB's. Predictability? I'd say it's about even. I'm currently in 3 fantasy football leagues, all keeper leagues. I've been in one since 2004, another since 2005, and the 3rd since 2007. I'VE NEVER WON A PLAYOFF GAME. I think it may be due to my overall approach regarding QB's, which is basically, "to hell with them". I dominate fantasy baseball (4 straight money finishes in my main league), so it's not my approach to fantasy sports in general.

I researched my 3 football leagues to find out who comprised the top 20 last season. 3 leagues X 20 players = 60 players. Of those 60, here's the breakdown:

40 QB's

18 RB's

2 WR's

So what gives? Why is there a perpetual emphasis on RB's? Are QB's really more important?

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think you're looking at those numbers the wrong way.

The saying should still hold true, because (as you saw) you are more likely to grab a Top 20 pick with any QB pick. However, RBs are more exclusive. It’s tough to grab a Top with an RB and the goal of any fantasy game is to grab as many Top 20 players as you can. Unfortunately, you can only play 1 qb in most leagues, and WR’s are flakes from one season to the next, so RBs are what everyone flocks towards. That being said… if you are deciding between LenDale White and Drew Brees… go QB.

Go with the best RB available until you get into the area where RBs are all splitting time, goalline only options, backups, and rookies (yes, I passed on AP). Then go WR. THEN go QB… there is so much depth at QB this year that it’s absurd. I’ve seen some publications ranking Tony Romo as the #11 QB! Don’t worry about taking a QB until you’ve filled your RB and WR slots, maybe even TE… the only exception being if one of the top 3 QBs (Brees, Brady, P-Manning) are still on the board in round 4.

by Jesse R on Aug 6, 2009 12:20 PM EDT reply actions

Just go with the best players available

If all else fails, you can grab lots of sleeper running backs or wide receivers in the later rounds.

Last year, I got Matt Forte and Kevin Smith in the 10th and 11th rounds and pick Steve Slaton off of waivers. I also picked Roddy White in the 8th round and I was set.

Ichiro is my uncle

by twags on Aug 7, 2009 2:23 PM EDT reply actions

Depends

I like to pick near the end of the first round in the “snake” draft. That way, if all the RBs look the same to me I can usually grab either 2 of the top 3 receivers, or the top receiver and one of the top QBs…..I usually wait until very late to get QBs though. After the top 5 or 6, there are a lot of quarterbacks that are interchangeable.

by bluecollarbuffalo on Aug 8, 2009 8:02 AM EDT reply actions

Replacement Value

Most league start just one QB. 12 team league means there are 20 starting QBs freely available. Most teams cary two, though, so that means there will be 8 starting QBs in the free agent pool during the week.

How many starting RBs are in the free agent pool each week? #1 WRs?

That said, I do think the 35 TD QB is so much better than the 4th or 5th best QB. I am open to taking a QB in the 3rd/4th round if one of the top 5 is available. The issue is predicting the 35 TD QB.

Fake Teams - a proud member of the SB Nation

by faketeams on Aug 8, 2009 9:08 PM EDT reply actions

League setup is important too

If your league scores for QB completions and/or gives 6 pts per pass TD (vs 4) and/or doesn’t penalize for INTs, then you can certainly say QBs are more valuable.

Based on the stats you gave, that certainly seems to be the case.

by Skeller on Aug 9, 2009 2:49 PM EDT reply actions