• By Doug Orth

Once considered a radical way to draft a fantasy football team, “Zero RB” has become the trendiest way to build a team in recent years. Is there merit to this approach? Does it make sense in all formats and/or contests?

Before we begin, let us define what Zero RB is. The Zero RB approach attempts to take advantage of the higher injury tendency of running backs and the general chaos at the position (game-script dependence, fumble issues leading to a benching, etc.) by ignoring the position for the first five or so rounds. By doing this, drafters can usually assemble a trio of high-end receivers, a top-five option at quarterback and a top-five option at tight end. After that, Zero RB advocates tend to low-end starting running backs, backup or committee running backs in strong offensive environments (who may only need the starter to get hurt to see their fantasy value skyrocket) or high-volume pass-catchers (to take advantage of point-per-reception scoring).

The hallmark of the approach reasons that building a fantasy team around the running backs is risky because it is the most physically demanding of the four positions in fantasy (quarterback, running back, receiver and tight end). As such, it makes sense to begin a draft by securing high-end assets at every other position first. At its best, above-average fantasy efforts from the running back position are more of a bonus than a necessity each week.

In an effort to answer the question if Zero RB is a viable strategy, this article will incorporate data over the last four seasons. By making this a four-year study, we should be able to mitigate the erroneous conclusions that often happen with small-sample sizes.

It makes sense why Zero RB could work, but is it the best way – or even a good way – to draft? In theory, if we can find as many surefire starters at running back after the fifth round as receivers, how is Zero RB better than any other approach? That is what we will try to answer. Thus, the primary questions that need to be answered for the purposes of this study are:

1) how reasonable is it to believe we can find top 24 finishers at running back after the fifth round (first 60 picks in 12-team drafts), which would obviously lend a great deal of support to the Zero RB approach?
2) how reasonable is it to believe we can find top 24 finishers at receiver after the fifth round (first 60 picks in 12-team drafts), which would make a strong case to stick with the tried-and-true approach of starting drafts with high-end running backs?

In this piece, we are assuming a starting fantasy lineup of one quarterback, two running backs, two receivers and one tight end. While one could easily argue that three-receiver leagues are more common now (and thus should expand our parameters to the top 24 running backs and top 36 receivers), it could also be argued that WR3-level production is much easier to find than RB1/2 or WR1/2 production. Thus, we will keep our benchmarks are top 24 finishes at both positions. Below are some of the more interesting revelations regarding running backs and receivers from the last four seasons (ADP information courtesy of Fantasy Pros):

 An average of 8.5 top 24 finishers at running back were typically drafted after the fifth round in 12-team leagues. An average of four had ADPs higher than 100.

 An average of 8.3 top 24 finishers at receiver were typically drafted after the fifth round in 12- team leagues. An average of 4.25 had ADPs higher than 100.

 An average of 15.5 of the first 24 backs off the board finished as a top 24 running back.

 An average of 16 of the first 24 receivers off the board finished as a top 24 wideout.

 At least six running backs – among the first 24 drafted at their position – failed to finish inside the top 24 at their position every season. Over the four-year sample, 27 of the non-top 24 finishers at running back missed at least three games – an average of 6.75 players each year.

 At least four receivers – among the first 24 drafted at their position – failed to finish inside the top 24 at their position every season. Over the four-year sample, 23 of the non-top 24 finishers at wideout missed at least three games – an average of 5.75 players each year.

 An average of 8.5 of the top 24 scorers at running back were drafted after 24 running backs were off the board. At least two of them went on to finish as RB1s (1-12) every season.

 An average of 7.75 of the top 24 scorers at receiver were drafted after 24 wideouts were off the board. At least two of them went on to finish as WR1s (1-12) every season.

 An average of 24 running backs were typically drafted among the top 60 players each season. Of those 24 backs, an average of 15.25 (63.5 percent) finished inside the top 24 at their position. Put another way, 36.75 percent of the backs who were top-24 performers at their position were usually drafted after the fifth round.

 An average of 23.5 receivers were typically drafted among the top 60 players each season. Of those 24 receivers, an average of 15.5 (66 percent) finished inside the top 24 at their position. In other words, 34 percent of the top 24 finishers at receiver in 2020 were usually drafted after the fifth round.

Conclusions
One thing to remember about the information above is that it takes significantly more fantasy points for a receiver to finish inside the top 24 at his position than it does for a running back to do the same at his position nowadays. At least 24 receivers topped 200 fantasy points every year over the four- season sample – including 32 in 2023. Only an average of 18 running backs did the same. This suggests the odds of “winning the flex” are better if a manager invests more heavily at receiver early, which lends support to a receiver-heavy build. With only 18 backs topping 200 points and as many as 32 receivers doing the same, it is much easier for a running back to come out of nowhere to be a top-24 finisher at his position than it is for a receiver to do likewise. Running backs typically only need one thing to happen in front of them to lead (or take over) a backfield, which gives them a significant advantage over most of their receiver brethren. Since volume means so much to the running back position, those backs who manage to find their way to 200-plus touches – be it due to promotion or injury – are exceedingly likely to be an every-week starter.

With that said, allow me to admit my bias when it comes to Zero RB: any approach that advocates bypassing the best player available or value on the board for the sake of avoiding injury risk is essentially trading one risk for another. First and foremost, the highest-scoring running backs consistently have higher statistical upsides than the highest-scoring receivers do. The difference is nowhere as stark as it used to be years ago, but most receivers lack the ability and/or efficiency to do on 120-plus targets or 80-plus catches what a running back can do with 200-plus carries and 50-plus catches.

The good news for Zero RB supporters is that very few of those backs exist in today’s NFL. Perhaps more importantly, there is an inherent risk in using a draft approach that encourages managers to ignore potential value at an important position for the sake of reducing risk. Finding one regular starting-caliber option during a fantasy season is difficult enough. Most managers in 12-team leagues will be searching for quality running back depth throughout the year regardless of how they drafted, so finding a good one that comes cheap on the waiver wire will be a pipe dream in most competitive leagues.

Rostering six or seven committee backs (or strong handcuff options) should pay off for the Zero RB advocate as soon as one of the primary backs misses time or is benched, but what happens if the first of those wild-card running back options does not get his big break until Week 10? With that said, IF a Zero RB manager’s first five picks (presumably three receivers, a quarterback and a tight end) all perform at a reasonably high level, the odds are his/her team will remain in the playoff race. If that happens, then there is a good chance that at least one of their wild-card running backs will be able to take advantage of an injury or benching to the starting running back. If the waiver wire yields another potential starting option at running back along the way, then the Zero RB drafter should be in great shape. The counterargument to this line of thinking is that a manager who executed a balanced draft approach and stumbled upon a waiver-wire gem at running back has created depth and can deal from a position of strength in trade talks.

The above analysis suggests Zero RB can work. However, any strategy (Hero RB, Robust RB, Bully TE, etc.) can work in fantasy football if managers can identify and are fortunate enough to draft or acquire enough players capable of outperforming their ADP at the other positions. There was only about a three-percent difference between how many top-24 running backs can be found after the fifth round and top-24 receivers. Based solely on the information, it matters very little if drafters opted for Zero RB or more of a balanced approach.

Zero RB becomes more palatable – if not preferable – in leagues with more than 12 teams or in tournament-style formats where one manager is competing against thousands of others for a huge grand prize. Think about it: if running back is the most likely position to be affected by injury and a manager opts to reduce his/her reliance on that position, then his/her team should be less impacted by injury. By extension, that team should remain more intact throughout the season than a fantasy team that relied on a running back-heavy build.

The Zero RB approach also makes a ton of sense for volume drafters in best-ball leagues as well. Much like a good investor, diversifying your portfolio and spreading risk across multiple high-upside backs in the middle rounds can pay off in a big way if the market fails to acknowledge the upside of those backs or refuses to draft a particular one because he “burned” them before. Alvin Kamara (season-opening three-game suspension) and David Montgomery (perceived to be an average running back) coming off the board after Round 5 in 2023 are two recent examples of Zero RB paying off in a big way.

Receivers are less likely to suffer a major injury and miss significant time, so there is certainly some merit to the Zero RB approach. With that said, there are almost always two receivers on the field and at least two other potential pass-catchers on any given play, so the number of opportunities one particular receiver has to contribute will be more limited than running backs. The odds a teammate will steal some action from – or even outperform – his more highly acclaimed receiver teammate in a given week is much higher than at running back.

Most of the 32 teams employ three-receiver packages at least half of the time in today’s NFL, meaning AT LEAST 96 wideouts are vying for fantasy points during non-bye weeks. If we assume there are roughly eight bell-cow running backs in any given year, then there are likely no more than 56 backs (24 teams times two backs plus eight bell-cow backs) doing the same during a full week of action. Maintaining flexibility and identifying value during the draft will always be of the utmost importance when it comes to building a fantasy football team. Across the hundreds of fantasy teams I have built over my 25 years in this hobby, I have found it much easier (and profitable) to make sure I have at least one foundational running back after three rounds in managed leagues. Why? So I do not have to force a pick and can continue to accumulate as much value as possible in the early rounds. One foundational back also makes it easier to set lineups. It also reduces the amount of desperation a manager usually feels on the waiver wire or the trade market.

This article was written by Doug Orth with research contributions from Evan Bone and Garrett Ball.