"Stud RB" Theory, RIP

I'm from that generation of pre-Internet fantasy players who had to puzzle out the Stud Running Back Theory on our own. People tried all sorts of wild ideas at the top of drafts in the early 1990s, but ever since the rise of the Web and the explosion of professional fantasy pubs and sites, EVERYBODY knows that the key to success is acquiring two stud running backs ASAP.

I see two immediate problems with this development:

First, if everyone has the same strategy, that isn't a strategy anymore -- it's background music. It's the status quo against which you have to develop a new winning strategy.

And second: The Stud RB drafting theory would make a lot more sense if fantasy owners were better at telling the studs from the duds. Consider this "expert" mock draft from a year ago ("these are all fantasy football experts who have played in several leagues per year for at least a decade, so study the picks closely because there is a lot of knowledge here"). Check out how many of the RBs taken in the first and second rounds were either flat-out busts or season-killing under-performers...

Players in bold played above their draft position; Players in plain text played at their expected level based on their draft position; italics means the player underachieved, and ALL CAPS italics means he was a big, fat bust.

1. Larry Johnson
2. SHAWN ALEXANDER
3. LaDainian Tomlinson
4. Tiki Barber
5. CLINTON PORTIS 
   
6. LAMONT JORDAN
   
7. Rudi Johnson   
8. Steven Jackson  
9. DOMANICK DAVIS
   
10. RONNIE BROWN
11. Warrick Dunn 
12. DESHAUN FOSTER  
    
13. Chester Taylor   
14. TATUM BELL  
    
15. DOMANIC RHODES 
16. Brian Westbrook 
17. Corey Dillon
18. CADILLAC WILLIAMS
    
19. JULIUS JONES
    
20. EDGERRIN JAMES
21. REUBEN DROUGHNS
    
22. Peyton Manning 
23. WILLIS MCGAHEE
    
24. JAMAL LEWIS 
    
25. Deuce McAllister   
26. Willie Parker 
27. Ahman Green
28. Thomas Jones   
29. Steve Smith
30. CEDRIC BENSON
31. RANDY MOSS
    
32. Reggie Wayne   
33. Chad Johnson 
34. Anquan Boldin 
35. CHRIS CHAMBERS 
    
36. Torry Holt   
37. Terrell Owens 
38. Marvin Harrison 
39. Larry Fitzgerald 
40. Reggie Bush

I'm singling out this one draft, but their board looks pretty representative of a lot of mock-drafts I saw last year. And see what I mean? Sixteen of the top 40 picks in this "expert" draft were fairly disastrous, but zero in on the running backs. The first 21 picks were all RBs, and 12 of those were busts.

It's not that there weren't high-scoring RBs out there to be taken -- it's just that the expert media consensus on who-is-worth what had consigned those players to later rounds long before your league held its draft. So nobody wanted to "reach" on a guy like, say, Frank Gore, who had just become the clear starter in San Francisco. And people are unwilling to look at other positions high because of the Stud RB Theory.

Here's another thing:  Many of these pending failures were visible to fantasy owners as early as last summer. Consider what we knew about Shawn Alexander last July:

1. Coming off record-setting season (letdown was logical);
2. Had 448 touches in 2005 (that's a lot of collisions);
3. Just lost the best run-blocking guard in football to free agency;
4. Seattle lost Super Bowl, and Super Bowl losers have tended to struggle;
5. Not the most physically gifted runner to begin with (requires more situational support);
6. He had just signed a $62 million contract, making him the highest paid RB ever;
7. He was the cover boy for Madden 2008;
8. There were rumors swirling around him about various injury problems.

In other words, practically ALL the trends and indicators for Alexander suggested a decline in his production, and yet even the fantasy services that expressed caution about Alexander and still ranked him near the top of their boards. Why? Because fantasy services can't afford to be too far out of the group-think consensus. If your board is different than all the other boards, you look weird. And weird doesn't get you customers, ads and magazine sales.

Bottom line?  Theories are really just our way of pretending that there's some secret formula to success. It's hubris, really. Football is far too chaotic and random to be governed by predictive theories. Theories tell us what positions are likely to do. They don't tell us very much about players.

So who are the Top 12 players according to this year's evolving group-think? The basic list looks like this:

1. LaDanian Tomlinson
2. Larry Johnson
3. Steven Jackson
4. Shawn Alexander
5. Frank Gore
6. Willie Parker
7. Brian Westbrook
8. Rudi Johnson
9. Lawrence Maroney
10. Joseph Addai
11. Travis Henry
12. Reggie Bush

History suggests that a third to half of that list will sputter and stumble this year, with unheralded players outperforming many of these "big names."

But let's face it: How many of these players are really "great backs?" Compare that list to some of the running backs who would have been on your board 10 years ago, when the Stud Running Back Theory was first gaining currency:

1. Barry Sanders
2. Terrell Davis
3. Jerome Bettis
4. Dorsey Levens
5. Eddie George
6. Robert Smith
7. Curtis Martin
8. Corey Dillion
9. Ricky Watters
10. Emmit Smith
11. Marshall Faulk
12. Jamal Anderson

There are at least four Hall of Famers on that 1997 list, and maybe more than that. My point is that the position itself is changing, becoming more specialized, with more committees and fewer dominant runners. Sure, if you had Tomlinson last year, there's a really great chance you won your league. But drafting LT was a gift from God, not a strategy.

My advice? You've still got to find two quality RBs to start every week, and since there aren't 24 of them in the NFL, it helps if you can lock them up early on draft day. But stop deluding yourself. The Stud RB Theory is a great observation about fantasy football, but it can be a suicide pact if you start reaching for journeymen players with your high picks.

If the feature backs are gone, get creative.