Challenge Contests — by Justin Eleff

Last week I suggested that many of you have been wrong for at least three years about how the first round of a fantasy draft should go. This week I intend to finish proving the point.

A quick summary of part one:

The common perception is that more NFL teams than ever before are dividing their rushing attempts among multiple running backs, so fewer running backs than ever before are getting what amounts to full-time work.

Ian Allan, who writes the great bulk of our annual magazine, disagrees.

Ian notes that modern teams generally use the fullback position differently than their forebears did; he believes the league's No. 2 tailbacks are mostly taking their extra carries away from fullbacks, not No. 1 tailbacks. Ian cites the fact that there were many more 1,000-yard and 10-touchdown rushing seasons during the last decade than during either of the two previous decades as evidence that our RBBC (Running Back By Committee) troubles have been overstated. As the magazine concludes, "there are still plenty of good running backs to target in the first and second rounds."

So far I've responded in two ways:

First, I've contended that whatever aggravation it may cause, RBBC is not really a first-round problem. We generally know which teams will use committees at tailback, and few fantasy owners will select a committee-limited back with a top pick -- so while there may still be "plenty of good running backs to target," that hardly demonstrates that RBBC has been overblown. If anything, instead of driving running backs out of the first round, RBBC might push a few marginal backs who happen to hold good jobs into it. Last week I named Cedric Benson and Rashard Mendenhall as examples. There may be others in your league.

Second, looking only at the last decade and not comparing it to the '80s or '90s, I've observed something I think is instructive: The top 10 fantasy running backs of each season (that is, the backs who finished each season among the top 10 in fantasy points, as opposed to any projected top 10) have been meaningfully less productive over the last three seasons than they were over the previous seven. From 2000 to 2006, the top 10 backs averaged 271 fantasy points per man per year. From 2007 to 2009, they averaged only 238 -- a drop of about 12 percent.

Before we continue, allow me to acknowledge the possibility that this is simply a fluke. I've compared 30 individual seasons to 70 individual seasons -- decent-sized but hardly definitive samples. While roughly the same thing has happened for three years now, the timing could be coincidental.

But I have theories as to why this has happened and why it will continue to happen, and I have some increasingly concrete notions of what we should do about it. Assuming that what I've observed is no accident, how do we draft winning teams?

* * *

First, a bit more about the past decade, looking beyond the data I presented in part one.

Reader Jason Spann suggested in the comments section after last week's installment that RBBC makes the very best running backs even more valuable first-round picks than they were in the past. Jason's theory -- and I'm sure many of you agree -- is that the dropoff from the top handful of backs to the next handful is steeper than ever. In fact, he proposed that I plot the top running backs' fantasy points on a line graph, to make clear that the slope of the line representing the drop from the top backs' production to the next backs' production was steeper in 2007-09 than in 2000-06.

One problem.

The slope is actually gentler over the last three years than it was over the previous seven.

A few data points along the way:

The No. 1 fantasy running backs of each season from 2000 to 2006 averaged 366 points per season. The No. 1 fantasy running backs of each season from 2007 to 2009 averaged 314 -- 86 percent as many.

The No. 10 fantasy running backs of each season from 2000 to 2006 averaged 211 points per season. The No. 10 fantasy running backs of each season from 2007 to 2009 averaged 200 -- 95 percent as many.

The No. 20 fantasy running backs of each season from 2000 to 2006 averaged 169 points per season. The No. 20 fantasy running backs of each season from 2007 to 2009 averaged 161 -- again, 95 percent as many.

Everyone lost points, but the guys with the most to lose -- the very top running backs -- very nearly lost the most. LaDainian Tomlinson in 2007, DeAngelo Williams in 2008 and Chris Johnson in 2009 did not measure up to the pacesetters of previous years. (No doubt many of you remember how disappointing Tomlinson was in '07, following up on the decade's best individual season in '06.) There was only one drop steeper than that of the No. 1 running backs -- that of the No. 3 running backs, who averaged only 83 percent as many points in 2007-09 as they had in 2000-06.

So Jason may have been exactly right if he meant that you probably don't want to be the third owner taking a running back in your draft in 2010 -- but you didn't need Jason (or me, or anyone else) to tell you that.

Also: I fibbed a moment ago. It isn't exactly true that everyone lost points.

The No. 30 fantasy running backs of each season from 2000 to 2006 averaged 119 points per season. The No. 30 fantasy running backs of each season from 2007 to 2009 averaged 129 -- 108 percent as many.

If we assume that the last three seasons were no fluke, and also that your preseason running back rankings are accurate, then you now get considerably fewer points at the top of the rankings than you did a few years ago. As you move down the rankings, you generally get a bit closer to the number of points you used to, then nearly the same number of points, then eventually -- somewhere around two dozen backs in -- more than you used to.

The backs in the middle of your draft rankings are closer to the top than they used to be. Part of the reason for that, as I hinted last week, is that there are many good running backs in the NFL these days. And part of the reason is that the backs at the top are closer to the middle.

* * *

Why would that be?

Why would the very best fantasy running backs be less valuable now -- possibly in the throes of RBBC -- than earlier in the century?

I have two theories, the second of which suggests (to me) that the last three seasons have not been a fluke, and the first of which is as follows:

With a substantial percentage of NFL teams going to true committees, an equally substantial percentage of NFL running backs are prevented from reaching their full-time potential. Among the eight committees I named last week -- in Carolina, Dallas, Kansas City, New England, New Orleans, New York (Giants), Oakland and Washington -- there appear to be at least three players who rank among the league's top talents at running back: alphabetically, Jamaal Charles, Jonathan Stewart and DeAngelo Williams. Wouldn't you expect at least two of the three to rank among the top 10 fantasy backs of 2010 if they were all being used as full-time players?

What you really say when you answer yes to that question is that you'd expect two of the three to score more fantasy points than whichever back will actually finish as this year's No. 10 -- and thus that you'd expect the league's top 10 to score (and average) more points.

So maybe the competition for carries among the backs on at least a quarter of the NFL's teams serves to reduce the competition for spots among the league's top 10 fantasy backs. Stewart finished 11th among fantasy backs in 2009, Charles 12th, Williams 14th.

Then again, the situation in Carolina is unusual. Rarely does a team have two top talents at any one position. If pressed I might tell you I rank both Williams and Stewart among the NFL's top eight running backs (at least before we know more about the rookies); I know Ian ranks both among the top dozen.

Maybe the situations in New England and Oakland are more typical -- there isn't an especially good running back on either roster, let alone a great one. Maybe this first theory as to why the top 10 fantasy backs have been less productive recently fails, because most true committees consist mostly of true crap.

On to the second theory, and let's simplify things. Forget committee-limited backs who just miss the top 10. What about the top 10 themselves? Point-blank, how many carries are they getting?

Glad you asked.

'00: 304
'01: 317
'02: 312
'03: 339
'04: 319
'05: 328
'06: 308
'07: 280
'08: 295
'09: 286

From 2000 to 2006, the top 10 fantasy running backs averaged 318 rushing attempts per man per year. From 2007 to 2009, they averaged 287. RBBC isn't only limiting players on teams that are obviously using committees; it's limiting everyone. Or maybe what I've observed isn't really a function of RBBC at all.

Know what else keeps happening as rushing production decreases?

Passing production increases.

From 2000 to 2006, the top 10 fantasy quarterbacks averaged 511 pass attempts and 309 fantasy points per man per year. From 2007 to 2009, they averaged 537 and 331.

We're drafting running backs who play in a throwing league. Pass more, rush less -- and differently. Sean Payton shuffling personnel in New Orleans, Tony Sparano still mixing in the Wildcat in Miami. Percy Harvin causing headaches as the Offensive Rookie of the Year in Minnesota, Dexter McCluster looking faster than his 40 times in Kansas City. We are thisclose to some NFL team going full-time to a variation of the spread offense. Unless you see today's space-age schemes giving way to yesterday's stone-age schemes, you can probably expect this to continue indefinitely.

The day of the first-round fantasy running back is hardly done -- but how many real teams will have a hybrid player like Harvin or McCluster (or Reggie Bush, or C.J. Spiller, or even Wes Welker) before we acknowledge that the game has changed?

* * *

What do we do about all of this?

For one thing, we stop being doctrinaire about drafting running backs in the first round. That is as close as I may come in this exercise to "making at least somewhat of an actual point," as reader Jon Costa put it in last week's comments section. If you don't like Rashard Mendenhall as a player, the fact that he holds a full-time job should not be enough to make him your top draft pick. No one enjoys a great song played by an unendearingly terrible band.

Remember that running backs miss more time with injuries than quarterbacks and wide receivers do, and note that Ian freely admits (in large part because of the injuries discrepancy) that his personal "batting average" is higher on the players he recommends at those other positions. If there's more risk of drafting a bust at running back than at quarterback or wide receiver, shouldn't you want to use lower picks on running backs? It always hurts less to draft a fifth-round bust than a first-round bust.

Of course, you do have to draft running backs eventually. The typical fantasy league requires you to start at least two of them; even if you had your choice of starters at the other positions, you could not win most leagues without getting at least some rushing production.

My strategy, therefore -- and it has worked again and again since I devised it in 2008, and this is as doctrinaire and formulaic as I am ever willing to be about anything -- is as follows:

1. Decide which early-round running backs you think are the worst players, and cross them off of your draft lists entirely. I think Mendenhall is just a guy who wears a running back's number. He only started for one year at Illinois, and he didn't start in Pittsburgh until the Steelers had no alternative. I don't care about the no alternative part -- they still have no other viable backs -- as much as the didn't start until part. Good players force their way into lineups. I don't want Mendenhall.

2. Decide which early-round running backs you think are trapped on the worst teams, and cross them off of your draft lists entirely. Bad teams don't usually run the ball late in their games; playing catch-up means playing quickly, with big gains through the air or, failing that, the clock not running between plays. I don't care that Maurice Jones-Drew is a good player individually. I prefer backs who might work for four quarters to ones who will usually work for three. I don't want Jones-Drew in 2010.

3. As to the running backs remaining on your draft lists, decide exactly where you think each one should be taken. Note that this will not correspond perfectly to how good each player is, nor to how good his team is. Adrian Peterson is a great player on what may be a great team, and even I do not dispute that Peterson should be drafted in the first round. But maybe you think Felix Jones is a great player -- when healthy, he certainly appears to be -- and Dallas is even better than Minnesota. Considering the Cowboys' commitment to their committee, and further considering his injury history, you will nonetheless conclude that Jones should be taken in some middle round.

4. Feel free to take either of the two running backs everyone thinks are best in 2010 if one happens to be available to you, but otherwise wait for bargains. If you have Arian Foster rated as a back who should be drafted in the third round, and Felix Jones as one who should be drafted in the fifth, take them in the fourth and sixth rounds, respectively. Just keep picking off backs who slip a round or two past where they should, and have no fear as your leaguemates snatch up lousy backs, or good backs on lousy teams, early on. If the world is so hung up on RBBC that it will try to make chicken salad out of Mendenhall, hey, you and I know better.

5. Meanwhile, draft the best core of quarterbacks and wide receivers (and perhaps Jermichael Finley or Antonio Gates) that your leaguemates will let you have. Again, have no fear as running back after running back comes off the board ahead of you; each one keeps you one spot higher up your draft lists at the other positions.

6. Be sure to take several running backs along the way. Assume that your backs will be less dependable week in and week out than ones who went earlier in the draft (even though that might not be true at all). So your backs' matchups will mean more than those other backs' matchups -- so you should own multiple backs you can mix and match. Also: Take a few chances on high-upside, high-downside players. If Jerome Harrison finishes this season as a top 10 fantasy back, teams that happen to have drafted him will have a big edge on teams whose top backs cost them higher picks. That edge might as well belong to you.

If the numbers I've shown you over the last two weeks say anything of substance, they say that you should not panic as the first ten running backs come off the board, and maybe not the next ten, either. Those guys are doing less than they used to, while quarterbacks and their targets do more. Go higher up your lists at the positions that score more fantasy points than they used to; hunt for bargains at the one that scores fewer.

Remember that eventually -- about two dozen running backs into the final fantasy rankings if not the draft -- the backs of the last three seasons have started to outproduce the ones of previous seasons. Bargains are coming. Even if they come in the persons of Ahmad Bradshaw, Felix Jones and other signature victims of RBBC.

• Comments [0]

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.