Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

Zero RB Strategy 2020


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

 

Yes and so...I don't entirely see your point 😃. Is it that I should have gone 0-RB? I'm happy with Cook and Jones, thanks. Is it that people were laughing at you for going 0-RB and it worked out? That's great. If you drafted one of the first three non-RBs to go in my league (Julio, Michael Thomas, Davante Adams) you're probably not as happy.

Like FFCollusion said back in June:

"I do not recommend blindly picking a draft strategy, without catering it to the available player talent pool of the current NFL scene to make it effectively work. Evaluate what is realistically available for EACH season and design a draft strategy that can best suit the resources at your disposal.  Don't use a blanket strategy every year, without accounting for the strengths and weakness of the talent in the league."

Here's the other thing, you've gone 0-RB and your WRs are Juju, Tee Higgins, Aiyuk & Shenault. I presume this is at least a 12- or 14-teamer. I went RB-RB, and my WRs are Godwin, Golladay, Robert Woods etc. I'll take those three please.

It's the same thing as always. If you pick the right guys, your strategy works well. If you don't, it doesn't. If Aaron Jones hadn't been there I'd have gone for somebody else etc. You make your evaluations, draft, and then cross your fingers and pray.

My point is that many people got hate, not for who they got but for the mere thought of thinking something other than rb/rb was smart. And yea those are my wr’s. I’m cool with them considering my qb and te play is one of the highest every week and where i “missed” at on wr’s, i hit on rb’s. Yes 12 team and must start 3 wr’s. 1 ppr.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I went RB/RB and still ended up with zero RB.

Zero RB can work, but people tend to oversimplify these things.  First of all, if you were in a snake and had one of the top six spots, you probably drafted either McCaffrey, Barkley, Elliott, Kamara,

Posted Images

12 minutes ago, vercrazy said:

 

Exactly this.

If you went Zero RB and grabbed Gibson and Hunt as your primary RB's, you're probably pretty happy and think Zero RB is an awesome strategy.

But if you got:

Fournette/Akers/Dobbins/Swift/Mack/Howard/Kerryon/Lindsay/Bredia/etc... as your primary RB's and didn't get lucky on waivers you're probably pretty unhappy and think Zero RB is a terrible strategy.

The truth is in the middle, all strategies can work, all strategies can fail.

I agree all strategies can work. Again my point was the mere suggestion was look at as ridiculous and that rb/rb was the far superior strategy miles ahead any other thought. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SkittleMania said:

This is going to end up being a "Hindsight 20/20" thread, right?

I think Zero-RB has it's utility, and I've tried it in the past, but this season has been extraordinarily awful for RB injuries and WR is so deep this year. I don't think going RB-RB to start your draft this year was a bad strategy, especially with some stud WRs missing time already.

Yes you are right. Going rb/rb wasn’t a bad strategy. But nobody would have said anything to you during the draft if you went rb/rb. But anything outside of rb/rb is considered outside the box thinking. Which it shouldn’t be. Any strategy can work. That’s the main point I’m trying to get across.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jnerica said:

My point is that many people got hate, not for who they got but for the mere thought of thinking something other than rb/rb was smart. And yea those are my wr’s. I’m cool with them considering my qb and te play is one of the highest every week and where i “missed” at on wr’s, i hit on rb’s. Yes 12 team and must start 3 wr’s. 1 ppr.

If you go zero rb in a 3 WR PPR league, you really should be stacked at WR.  You should be very deep at WR even if you didn't go zero RB.  WR is the most important position in these leagues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for reference, as of now, 6 of the top 13 draft picks (per Fantasy Pros) have missed (or are about to miss...Ekeler)  multiple games.   Three of those are RBs (CMC, Barkley, Ekler) and three are WR (Thomas, Adams, Godwin).  This is assuming Julio plays this week.   So it really is close to a 50/50 shot that you got a totally healthy player at this point in the season with your first pick.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jnerica said:

Yes you are right. Going rb/rb wasn’t a bad strategy. But nobody would have said anything to you during the draft if you went rb/rb. But anything outside of rb/rb is considered outside the box thinking. Which it shouldn’t be. Any strategy can work. That’s the main point I’m trying to get across.

Oh, I totally agree. Out of habit, I've always hoarded RBs, but I've gone RB-WR, WR-WR, WR-TE, RB-QB (when QBs were routinely drafted in earlier rounds) in drafts before. More often, then not, it's a best available situation. 

Edited by SkittleMania
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, K197040 said:

The real problem in going Zero RB is that if no one else does it, you could be screwed.   If everyone else is RB heavy, then you don't get Hunt (for example) in the 5th. 

This year has actually been pretty good if you mssed out in the draft.  Flames RB1son, Mckinnon, Davis, the Rams RB's other than this week, have all posted consistent RB1-2 numbers.  Screwed last year though up until the back of the season with Mostert and Drake.  Murray chipped in a couple good weeks I remember.

Edited by ccimore
edit
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, K197040 said:

The real problem in going Zero RB is that if no one else does it, you could be screwed.   If everyone else is RB heavy, then you don't get Hunt (for example) in the 5th. 

Again, it depends. If you got Robinson plus JET you're probably doing great. Or Mike Davis off waivers. And you've probably got receivers to spare, so while you can go to any owner to get a solid rb, they all have to go to you for a wr. Of course if your league hates trading it puts you in a difficult position.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ccimore said:

This year has actually been pretty good if you mssed out in the draft.  Flames RB1son, Mckinnon, Davis, the Rams RB's other than this week, have all posted consistent RB1-2 numbers.  Screwed last year though up until the back of the season with Mostert and Drake.  Murray chipped in a couple good weeks I remember.

Yeah...but those all super late hits that needed an injury to happen.   Which is fine and definitely part of the strategy.   But if I bypass RBs for the first 3 or 4 rounds, I'm hoping to get someone like Hunt as my RB1.    Looking at the final ADP board,  there aren't many RBs that are startable.   After Round 4, I see Singletary, Hunt, and Montgomery in the middle rounds.    Maybe guys like Akers and Moss get healthy and contribute at some point.   

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, K197040 said:

Yeah...but those all super late hits that needed an injury to happen.   Which is fine and definitely part of the strategy.   But if I bypass RBs for the first 3 or 4 rounds, I'm hoping to get someone like Hunt as my RB1.    Looking at the final ADP board,  there aren't many RBs that are startable.   After Round 4, I see Singletary, Hunt, and Montgomery in the middle rounds.    Maybe guys like Akers and Moss get healthy and contribute at some point.   

 

Agreed.  Based on pre-season ADP, this was not a year I was interested in trying zero RB.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero RB can work, but people tend to oversimplify these things.  First of all, if you were in a snake and had one of the top six spots, you probably drafted either McCaffrey, Barkley, Elliott, Kamara, Cook, or Michael Thomas.  If you were in the top three, you basically had to pick McCaffrey/Barkley/Elliott.  Picking a non-RB there would have made no sense.  Elliott is looking good; the other two have gotten hurt.  Either way, "zero RB" wasn't viable for you.  Thomas has been a bad pick.  Kamara and Cook are looking good.  If you claim you had the foresight to take Hopkins at 5 or something I'd have a hard time believing you.

So Zero RB is really for people at the back of the first round.  (Note: ESPN's PPR cheat sheet - ran from perfect but widely used - had only one non-RB in the first 15 picks - Michael Thomas - so if you didn't take a RB in the first round you were already reaching based on consensus picks unless you took Thomas, which has already been ugly.)  There I cannot blame you if you thought guys like Drake, Sanders, Jacobs, Chubb, etc. had enough question marks that you'd rather go WR.  (Although that's hardly a list of busts.)  If you picked 10th and 15th you could've gotten Adams and Hopkins, or one of them and Kelce, for instance, and then Lockett and someone like Kupp the next time through.  But people who do Zero RB in hindsight always tend to find all the "hits" and minimize the fact that they could have just as easily done Zero RB and ended up with not this start:

WR Hopkins, Lockett, Kupp
TE Kelce

....

But this start:

WR Julio Jones, Tyreek Hill, AJ Brown
TE Ertz

A lot of people will say "I'm going Zero RB next year, look at that first team!" but will forget that if your strategy is "pick all the guys who hit big, none of the busts," it doesn't matter what your strategy is - if you can do that you'll win regardless.

Another problem is people assume they'll find the "hit" RBs that go low and get those waiver wire gems.  Robinson, Gibson, Hunt, Mike Davis all look good.  But remember who the top Week 1 RB adds were?  Benny Snell and Nyheim Hines.  Both appear completely worthless right now and might have cost you $60 in FAAB.  In hindsight, you never would have made that mistake, right?  But lots of Zero RB builds did, and, what's more, they had to spend big on those guys because Zero RB often puts you chasing castles in the sky on the wire and feeling like you are desperate to find that "hit."  And another thing - what job security do James Robinson, Antonio Gibson, Kareem Hunt, and Mike Davis have for the playoffs?  None, that's what.  Davis will be drop city in a few weeks when McCaffrey returns.  Who knows what Washington will do with Gibson.  Hunt will likely be in a timeshare again at playoff time.  Jacksonville has no investment at all in UDFA Robinson, may be tanking by season's end, and could just as likely decide to give Ryquell Armstead (remember him?) some burn.  You know that, absent injury, Elliott, Kamara, McCaffrey, Cook, and Saquon (RIP) would have gotten their bellcow workloads in the playoffs.  Are you so confident about Josh Kelley and Ronald Jones getting big work in December?

In summary, people tend to vastly overestimate their ability to find all the "gems" in the 6th round and later and off the waiver wirewhen in reality they are just as likely to find the "misses" as the next guy.  And Zero RB is a strategy that requires you be that guy who finds all the hits.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i used to be a zero rb guy but after this yr never again. i went zero wr this yr based on being at the 3 spot....IMO even if u are at the end of the draft u should try to take at least 3 rbs to start....there is a chance u will whiff on at least 1 of those backs (see drake this yr) but u have to go for as many as u can because as in drake this year a situation can change from year to year and rb is such a scarce position as we all know...the trade value of rbs are always better than receivers as well..i feel like zero rb works best in non ppr because although receptions are important for rbs...it becomes a huge diff in ppr between a rb1 and rb3...there really isnt an rb2 in ppr...u either catch passes or u dont...and if u dont its very hard to bank on tds every week..in zero rb u are likely ending up with rb3s in ppr unless u get real lucky and hit on one but those picks tend to have baggage...austin ekeler last yr is a great example..that was a crazy train ride always wondering if he is going to get enough play time and then off of 5 catches would manage a 20 point game...i will never go through that again..have an inventory of rbs and build the rest around late round/waiver wire wrs, tes, & qbs..if u hit on any rbs later in the draft or on the wire u now have leverage and are playing with the houses money theoretically

Edited by Power-O
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Louiezo6 said:

After losing CMC and now ekeler,  next year in going zero rb strategy.

 

u read my post? after u losing those 2 its even more important to have a plethora of rbs so that u can keep a foundation...u could at that point trade cmc and get something without destroying your team..ekeler is prob done for the season but that could happen to a WR as well...i already lost mack this yr but have been able to fill the void and not skip a beat...luckily though he wasnt a 1st rounder but i did expect a huge year out of him

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mjb said:

2020, the year  0 RB drafters are winning titles🙃

 

The leader in our league by miles (3-0, 500pts scored) is the guy just before me in the draft who went Kamara/Ekeler. I'm second (2-1, 400pts scored) and I went Cook/Aaron Jones. Just saying.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

 

The leader in our league by miles (3-0, 500pts scored) is the guy just before me in the draft who went Kamara/Ekeler. I'm second (2-1, 400pts scored) and I went Cook/Aaron Jones. Just saying.

BUT look at the top 10 RB's that have injuries, CMC, Barkley, Ekeler, Chubb.. Mixon AWFUL for 3 weeks.. All top 10 RB's

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Flyman75 said:


I haven’t seen any “hate” directed toward the strategy itt. 

Trust me.. if you looked up this strategy this year almost 90% of “experts” at least that I seen would discuss it however recommend not doing it saying you need 2 rb’s in first three rounds. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jnerica said:

Trust me.. if you looked up this strategy this year almost 90% of “experts” at least that I seen would discuss it however recommend not doing it saying you need 2 rb’s in first three rounds. 


That isn’t “hate”, and it isn’t people pitting one strategy against another. It’s a portion of guys saying they believe one strategy is best and suggest going with it. I’m not sure how that equates to hating on zero-RB. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Flyman75 said:


No need to abide by any particular strategy. 

Exactly the reason why I bumped this thread. No need to abide by any strategy in particular rb/rb or 2 rb’s in the first 3 rds... that’s the only point I was trying to make. Rb/rb was seen as smart regardless who the rb’s were. You just needed two early. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...