Why is so much emphasis put on RB in fantasy football?

Question

The last couple of seasons it's been basically all RB's in the first 2 rounds of drafts. Why is this? I mean I understand a few years ago when the RB dominated the fantasy scoreboards, but unless you're getting yourself LT or AP, I really don't think it's worth it, at least not now with almost every NFL team turning to 2 RB's in their offense rather then giving 1 RB all the carries. The top 2 scorers in fantasy last season were Tom Brady and Tony Romo. Out of the top 25 fantasy scorers last season only 5 were RB's. Do I think Brady is going to throw another 50 TD's? No. Do I think he can throw at least 35 TD's and over 4,000 yds? Absolutely. So why not hold off for a Thomas Jones and a Earnest Graham and instead load up on a Tom Brady, a Reggie Wayne and a Larry Fitzgerald in your first 3 rounds while everyone else snags all the top RB's off the board. The way I see it is, would you rather have a solid RB with a mediocre 2nd back or a top QB and 2 top WR's and just get by with RB's, especially with sleepers out there like Detroits Kevin Smith, Chicago's Matt Forte and Carolina's Jonathon Stewart that can just explode out of nowhere. Worked for me last season with Marshawn Lynch.

Thoughts or comments?

Answer 1

Go ahead buy into the year of the QB II, draft your Brady or Romo or Manning while everyone is snagging up RBs, then wait for the draft to get back to you & see what's left. you will end up in the same boat as the guys in 2005 after Manning & Culpepper had the year of the QB 1.

it is a game of chance, none of us can tell you what's going to happen & you will have years that don't conform but i've been doing this since the early 90's & i have learned that in general RBs win fantasy championships. you don't have to agree, i know you don't & your BAs go to guys that agree w/ you (i have benefitted from it)

Answer 2

true, i think before good RBs were hard to get, now there are more of them bursting on the scene and many teams use 2 RBs now than just 1. i think you have a legit argument. RBs get the most touches and have more chances to score than WRs. plus a lot has to do with league settings. some leagues have QB TDs worth 4 while RB and WR worth 6 and some have 50yrds = 1 pt while for rbs and wrs they have 10 or 20yrds=1 pt. so in this case it might make sense to get top notch RBs first.

for me i go with best available player. i dont necessarily reach for a RB in the 1st 2 rounds because it is the normal thing to do because you can easily get a guy like ronnie brown in the 3rd or 4th who will put up #1 RB stats.

Answer 3

The reason why is that most leagues require you to have 2 RBs. If you are in a 12 team league, this means 24 RBs are spoken for-not counting any back-ups.

Too many teams don't have a dominant back who will carry the load, so this makes them in even shorter supply.

Another reason is that RB is the most consistent scoring position in most fantasy leagues. A great RB can carry your team.

A good one can really increase your chances of winning.

Think of how inconsistent even the best WR's are.

Sure the high scoring QB is a good strategy is a good one, but while you grab Brady or Manning, some one is grabbing your RBs. It's usually much easier to find a top QB later in the draft. Think Derek Anderson and Romo.

RBs don't usually do that. Ryan Grant was an exception.

Overall, scarcity of quality at the position is the driving force behind that theory.

It's possible that can change, but think of it this way: Would you take Brady over Tomlinson if you had the first pick?

Answer 4

It's not that RB's score more total points than QB's. You're right about that. The reason RB's are generally taken first is the difference in points between them. The point margins of the starting QB's in the league are closer than those of the starting RB's. The varying degree of points between all-star RB's and the other starters is why they're taken before QB's.