Yesterday a reader made a terrific observation--a call-out of my belief that if I draft Nick Chubb, I'll reach early for Kareem Hunt. In that scenario, I wrote, I'd prefer Hunt over a WR3/4. His response: "Why would you pass on someone you can start the whole season, for someone who can’t play til week 10 and might not have a huge impact?"
As with many fantasy football questions, there's no objective "right" answer. Every roster decision we make--starting with the draft (or with which keepers we want), all the way through setting our Week 16 lineup--is a risk calculation. How much risk are we will to take to draft Player A, to trade away Player B, to bench Player C in favor of Player Z?
There are a couple of realities (mostly subjective, but partly objective) that influence my thinking. First, per previous columns, we know RBs are a higher-than-normal injury risk compared to other positions. If I draft Nick Chubb, historically speaking there's a great chance he'll miss games than, say, Kenny Golladay. We don't *know* this. But it's part of the risk calculation. Chubb's upside, and the value of elite RBs, make him the better buy. So we jump on him despite his higher injury risk. And because of RBs' higher injury risk, the calculations don't end after we draft him. We have to weigh the value of his handcuff (or in this case, likely future handcuff). Hunt might be worthless all season. But if Chubb gets hurt at the wrong time, Hunt will be a difference maker.
And suppose we draft both Chubb and Golladay in the early rounds. In 12-team leagues, Hunt (based on ADP) is coming off draft boards in the mid-9th round, while Golladay's "handcuff" (Detroit's presumed #2 receiver) Marvin Jones is going a few spots earlier. So what's the right call? A WR3/4 like Jones, or Hunt--a "worthless" RB with massive upside?
This leads to the second reality influencing my thinking. Last year Larry Fitzgerald finished 25th in WR fantasy scoring while averaging 11.6 points per game, playing in all 16 contests. Zay Jones finished 35th, averaging 10.3 points per game (also playing in every game). Courtland Sutton was 50th with 8.5 points per game (also playing all 16 games). Currently, the 25th best preseason WR owns a 60 ADP, the 35th best has an 85 ADP, and the 50th best has a 127 ADP.
So in a 12-team league, people are drafting a 2018 Larry Fitzgerald-type receiver (11.6 ppg) in the late 5th / early 6th round, a 2018 Zay Jones-type receiver (10.3 ppg) two rounds later, and a 2018 Courtland Sutton-type receiver (8.5 ppg) about three-and-a-half rounds after that.
In posts earlier this summer I showed how unheralded RBs had a much better chance of achieving fantasy relevance than unheralded WRs and TEs. So when we draft a WR3/4 or a WR5 or a WR6, they're highly unlikely to achieve top-10 WR scoring. But RB3/4s, RB5s, and RB6s have a better chance of breaking through, by virtue of the RB position's greater fluidity (injuries, depth chart shifts, etc.).
And so my question is, if your RB1's high-upside handcuff is available, why pick a WR3/4 in the eighth round when that receiver might not score two points more per game than a WR5 you could take 3-4 rounds later? Why settle for a two-points-per-game "advantage" when you can take a chance on a potential huge RB payday?
Sure, it's a risk. But that WR3/4 probably won't win you a title, and his comparative advantage is minimal. You're nibbling around the edges of mediocrity. You're settling for adequate points instead of going for a crushing blow.
When I draft a bellcow RB, I'm reaching for his handcuff early. Because if my starter gets hurt and an opponent has his backup, we might be looking at a 30+ points swing.
And no WR3/4 is worth that much.
---
Sign up for Pre-Draft Top 300 Rankings: http://www.fantasyfootballforwinners.com/
Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/_FF4W
As with many fantasy football questions, there's no objective "right" answer. Every roster decision we make--starting with the draft (or with which keepers we want), all the way through setting our Week 16 lineup--is a risk calculation. How much risk are we will to take to draft Player A, to trade away Player B, to bench Player C in favor of Player Z?
There are a couple of realities (mostly subjective, but partly objective) that influence my thinking. First, per previous columns, we know RBs are a higher-than-normal injury risk compared to other positions. If I draft Nick Chubb, historically speaking there's a great chance he'll miss games than, say, Kenny Golladay. We don't *know* this. But it's part of the risk calculation. Chubb's upside, and the value of elite RBs, make him the better buy. So we jump on him despite his higher injury risk. And because of RBs' higher injury risk, the calculations don't end after we draft him. We have to weigh the value of his handcuff (or in this case, likely future handcuff). Hunt might be worthless all season. But if Chubb gets hurt at the wrong time, Hunt will be a difference maker.
And suppose we draft both Chubb and Golladay in the early rounds. In 12-team leagues, Hunt (based on ADP) is coming off draft boards in the mid-9th round, while Golladay's "handcuff" (Detroit's presumed #2 receiver) Marvin Jones is going a few spots earlier. So what's the right call? A WR3/4 like Jones, or Hunt--a "worthless" RB with massive upside?
This leads to the second reality influencing my thinking. Last year Larry Fitzgerald finished 25th in WR fantasy scoring while averaging 11.6 points per game, playing in all 16 contests. Zay Jones finished 35th, averaging 10.3 points per game (also playing in every game). Courtland Sutton was 50th with 8.5 points per game (also playing all 16 games). Currently, the 25th best preseason WR owns a 60 ADP, the 35th best has an 85 ADP, and the 50th best has a 127 ADP.
So in a 12-team league, people are drafting a 2018 Larry Fitzgerald-type receiver (11.6 ppg) in the late 5th / early 6th round, a 2018 Zay Jones-type receiver (10.3 ppg) two rounds later, and a 2018 Courtland Sutton-type receiver (8.5 ppg) about three-and-a-half rounds after that.
In posts earlier this summer I showed how unheralded RBs had a much better chance of achieving fantasy relevance than unheralded WRs and TEs. So when we draft a WR3/4 or a WR5 or a WR6, they're highly unlikely to achieve top-10 WR scoring. But RB3/4s, RB5s, and RB6s have a better chance of breaking through, by virtue of the RB position's greater fluidity (injuries, depth chart shifts, etc.).
And so my question is, if your RB1's high-upside handcuff is available, why pick a WR3/4 in the eighth round when that receiver might not score two points more per game than a WR5 you could take 3-4 rounds later? Why settle for a two-points-per-game "advantage" when you can take a chance on a potential huge RB payday?
Sure, it's a risk. But that WR3/4 probably won't win you a title, and his comparative advantage is minimal. You're nibbling around the edges of mediocrity. You're settling for adequate points instead of going for a crushing blow.
When I draft a bellcow RB, I'm reaching for his handcuff early. Because if my starter gets hurt and an opponent has his backup, we might be looking at a 30+ points swing.
And no WR3/4 is worth that much.
---
Sign up for Pre-Draft Top 300 Rankings: http://www.fantasyfootballforwinners.com/
Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/_FF4W