Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I know what Matt pointed out is the intended consequence, and I don't have a huge problem with that (though, with all the things we do to make managing a team difficult, I'm not sure why we want to give freebies on the issue of starting lineups). I just think this kind of change can have effect we do not forsee. Such as a team that pays through the nose for a stud RB now has an easier way of filling out his starting lineup. Instead of having to find another starter caliber RB to go with his LT or Alexander, or whatever, now all he has to do is find another WR3 caliber player. Maybe this will drive up WR prices, and drive down 2nd/3rd tier RB prices. I don't know. I do think people are going to keep this in mind going into the RFA period, draft and free agency.
I'd rather see something like a limited number of 1 RB lineups allowed through the season to allow for byes and short term injuries (long term injuries should have an effect on all but the best managed teams), or larger rosters/TS/PS to allow teams more flexibility during the season.
We make teams make hard choices throughout the season, such as decided which limited number of players they will keep through RFA, which limited number of rookies will be kept on the roster, how long of a contract will a player get? These are all tough choices that impact a teams success, and all have real consequences. Why the free pass when you haven't made good choices among those to have so many choices as to who you are going to start?
That's rhetorical. I'm not interested in debate, or selling people at this point.
|
Not that we need to bring this back up but I was thinking about this and if it would ever make sense for someone to try go big for one RB and then go with 4 WR’s (or 2 WR’s and 2 TE’s).
To try and skew this as much as possible (to make a point) I looked a team that had the top RB and the top 4 WR’s. Here is what that team would like based on points per game (for players with enough points to qualify for Top 300 status at the end of last year):
Position => Pos # => Player => Points => GP => Avg
RB => 1 => Tomlinson, Ladainian SDC RB => 541.9 => 16 => 33.9
WR => 1 => Smith, Steve CAR WR => 222.2 => 13 => 17.1
WR => 2 => Harrison, Marvin IND WR => 255.1 => 16 => 15.9
WR => 3 => Colston, Marques NOS WR (R) => 188.8 => 12 => 15.7
WR => 4 => Owens, Terrell DAL WR => 246.5 => 16 => 15.4
For the comparison I looked at a team that took the next two RB’s and the next 3 WR’s available:
Position => Pos # => Player => Points => GP => Avg
RB => 2 => Johnson, Larry KCC RB => 462.5 => 16 => 28.9
RB => 3 => Jackson, Steven STL RB => 460.9 => 16 => 28.8
WR => 5 => Jackson, Darrell SEA WR => 197.1 => 13 => 15.2
WR => 6 => Houshmandzadeh, T.J. CIN WR => 210.5 => 14 => 15.0
WR => 7 => Wayne, Reggie IND WR => 232.0 => 16 => 14.5
The 1 RB and 4 WR group would score 99.5 points between them (based on their averages). The 2 RB and 3 WR group would score 104.0 points between them (based on their averages).
I know that this is not a scientific study but I think it proves out that going with a 2nd RB is almost always going to be the better play.