Ian Allan
About 15 players into a draft, does it make more sense to go with a running back or a wide receiver?
I think that wide receivers tend to get undervalued in the overall scheme of things. I think they're a little more consistent than running backs -- we know who the good ones are going to be -- and they're certainly less likely to be felled by an injury.
Consider these numbers:
In the last five years, running backs have started all 16 games in a season only 48 times. That's a little less than 10 per season.
In the same five-year span, 155 wide receivers have started all 16 games -- 31 per season.
Those numbers are in part approximations. If a running back is generally a "starter", I gave him credit for starting even if he wasn't on the field for the first play. LenDale White, for example, didn't necessarily "start" every game last year, but he was a consistent part of their running back rotation, so he's one of those 48 16-game starters.
When you're mulling those key picks in the second and third rounds, I tend to like the safety and durability of those receivers. I tend to put those players just a little higher on my draft board.
- Comments [5]
Readers' Comments
Add a Comment
Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.
To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.
Posted by Moishe Steigmann | May. 22 at 02:14 AM
I agree in terms of most likely production. There is, though, a great risk in NOT selecting the RB then. The guys last year who took a chance on Michael Turner, D. Williams, C. Johnson, etc. rather than the safer play were the ones most likely to win championships. So, is it better to get the WR who is a safe bet for 85 catches, 1100 yards and 8 TDs or take a shot on the RB that could go for 1800+ yards and 16 scores (albeit with a higher likelihood of not producing). You're right: statistically, it's probably better to take the sure thing. That should land you in the playoffs, but that's where you'll likely lose to the guy who got lucky... It's a tough balance of when to play it safe and when to take a risk.
Posted by IAN ALLAN | May. 22 at 02:58 AM
Note that DeAngelo Williams and Chris Johnson weren't selected in the second rounds of drafts last year -- they were available later. So it's also possible to select the studly receivers, being strong at that position, then still get the stud backs later. In the Fanex last year, I went with receivers in rounds 2 thru 4, putting together a studly crew, then selected Matt Forte and Kevin Smith in rounds 5 and 6.
Posted by Moishe Steigmann | May. 22 at 03:00 AM
Well noted, Ian. I thought of that, too, but I figured that my post was too long already... :). That being said, the question then becomes when to take the shot on the next Turner, Williams, C. Johnson, etc. The owner who shoots and hits in rounds 2 or 3 comes out way ahead of the play-it-safe type. If you miss, of course... hence the balance of when to take the risk.
Posted by Duane Stay | May. 22 at 01:13 PM
The name DeAngelo Williams will haunt me forever. Last year I traded him in two leagues. Just when you think you know it all you get humbled.
Posted by Moishe Steigmann | May. 23 at 01:00 PM
At least you got value for him, Duane. I dropped him outright mid-season! Ugh...