Fantasy football managers always seek an edge in their drafts, and in this age of analytics and sometimes preachy advice, it’s easy to get carried away with cute, catchy-named draft strategies.
If you’ve played for any length of time, surely you’ve heard of some of these: Zero RB, Hero RB, Late-round QB, Elite QB, Zero WR, Elite TE. And that’s just to name some of the most prominent. As each gives fantasy managers a feeling of being clever and one step ahead of the competition, any might understandably lure you in.
But here’s the real question: What are your chances at victory by employing any of these specific strategies? Are any of them truly worth a try?
No two leagues’ drafts or in-season transactions play out in exactly the same way, so there is no be-all, end-all answer. That said, we can use data from the past five fantasy football seasons to illustrate how successful each was. That might help guide you as you decide whether to put one to the test.
Why only five years and not 10? That’s simple: The lengthier the sample, the more likely we’d be drawing from seasons played under different enough circumstances and/or with different enough NFL personnel from today’s game. Recency is an important thing for a study like this, closely mirroring the current fantasy landscape.
Below, we’ll provide a quick synopsis of what each strategy entails, then we’ll get into the nitty gritty of how successful it was during the 2019-23 seasons and, ultimately, grade it. For these purposes, we’ll examine each using the lens of an ESPN standard league (10 teams, PPR scoring).
Zero RB
This strategy stipulates that a fantasy manager avoids selecting a running back through at least the first three, and generally five, rounds of the draft, aiming to capitalize upon the position’s week-over-week volatility while loading up on top-shelf talent at the three other skill positions. Zero RB managers lean heavily upon late-round picks and in-season pickups at running back. An extreme Zero RB approach might mean waiting until at least Round 9 to address the position.
League context has a huge bearing on this one, even though we’re primarily taking an ESPN standard approach to this analysis. For example, how many teams are in your league? Eight, 10, 12, 14, perhaps even more? How many running backs are started each week? Two, one with the option of starting one or more from a flex position, or are there more? Is the scoring non-PPR, full PPR, half-point PPR or something else? The deeper the league — and the greater the scoring emphasis on the position — the tougher it is to pull off the Zero RB strategy.
Returns from 2019-23 suggested waiting to select a running back until at least beyond Round 2 was a fruitful strategy. Among top-10 positional scorers in those seasons, 50% were selected after the second round (pick 21 or later in an ESPN standard league). Running backs selected in Round 1 or 2 returned top-10 positional value 49% of the time and top-five value 26% of the time.
To compare that to wide receiver and tight end, the two most likely alternative positional targets in those rounds, wide receivers selected in the first two rounds returned top-10 positional value 56% of the time and top-five 44% of occasions, while all six tight ends (Travis Kelce, to be fair, accounted for five of these seasons in the sample) returned at least top-four positional value. You stood a much better chance at turning a profit at those positions with your first two picks.
But in defense of Zero RB, 10% of the position’s top 20 scorers — accounting for the two required starters for each of 10 teams in a standard league — were either selected outside the top 150 selections on average or available via free agency in-season. An important takeaway there is that wide receiver was not as fruitful at that late draft stage, with only 5% selected outside the top 100 or picked up as in-season free agents returning top-20 value. Your chances of garnering a greater return on investment from a running back than a wide receiver improved significantly beginning in Round 8. There is legitimate reason to leave your later-round picks to speculative running back selections rather than from the other spots.
Those employing this strategy in the past five seasons might’ve stumbled upon such success stories as Austin Ekeler (2019 ninth round, RB4 finish), David Montgomery (2020 eighth round, RB4), James Robinson (2020 undrafted, RB7), James Conner (2021 11th round, RB5), Leonard Fournette (2021 ninth round, RB6), Rhamondre Stevenson (2022 10th round, RB7), Tony Pollard (2022 10th round, RB8), Raheem Mostert (2023 12th round, RB5) or Kyren Williams (2023 undrafted, RB7). These were backs who faced competition within their own backfields but nevertheless emerged as go-to guys.
Among similar 2024 targets are similarly set up running backs, such as Zack Moss, Tyjae Spears and Javonte Williams, talented options in competitive backfields.
Strategy grade: A-
Hero RB
This twist on the Zero RB strategy demands the selection of one early-round running back — the higher in the draft rankings the better — then follows the Zero RB template for the draft’s remainder and during the regular season. This year, for example, a team drafting in the top spot might be most likely to employ this strategy, considering running back Christian McCaffrey is generally being drafted No. 1 overall.
But what about those managers who aren’t picking first?
Many of the prior findings apply here, so let’s specifically examine those running backs selected early who might’ve fit the strategy in the previous five seasons.
Among first-rounders, 49% of running backs returned top-10 positional value, compared to 60% for the wide receivers, quarterbacks and tight ends. Running backs selected in the first three rounds, meanwhile, returned top-10 value 47% of the time, compared to 50% for the other three positions.
That said, if it’s potentially position-leading upside you desire at running back, spending one of your first two picks on RBs was much more likely to result in success: 31% of running backs selected in the top two rounds finished top five at the position in scoring. Only two running backs selected later than 84th overall — and none beyond 118th — managed a top-five positional finish. Running back always has risk, but the reward is considerably greater in the higher ADP tiers.
Strategy grade: B-, if only because of the strong returns reflected by top-tier quarterbacks, wide receivers and tight ends in the past half-decade. This might be better graded as a C, if going with a Round 1 Hero RB, but B+, if taking your Hero RB in Rounds 2-4 instead.
Late-round QB
A tried-and-true strategy among ESPN staffers, this one demands fantasy managers’ patience at the quarterback position, waiting as long as possible to pick one. Often, it means the team’s first quarterback selected comes after Round 10, and it might mean selecting a tandem near the end of the draft.
Three or four seasons back, this was a near no-brainer strategy, but the position’s scoring total has declined in each of the past two years, so that’s no longer necessarily the case. Here’s a telling statistic: 63% of the quarterbacks selected in the first four rounds the past five seasons managed a top-five positional point total, easily the best among the skill positions.
But quality QBs can be found in the later rounds, too. In the past five years, 36% of the position’s top-10 seasonal finishers were drafted in Round 11 or later. What is sacrificed by utilizing this strategy, however, is the prospect of upside, as only 16% of those drafted in Round 11 or later finished in the top five at the position. In just the past three seasons, the top four scoring quarterbacks had an average ADP of 42.9, and none made it beyond the ninth round.
Strategy grade: C, because of the greater demand it puts on turning profits with your early-round running backs and wide receivers.
Elite QB
The converse of “Late-round QB,” this strategy stresses that the quarterback position typically generates fantasy teams more points than the other three skill positions and prompts managers to select one of the position’s best. This strategy does not require the selection of a quarterback in the first round, rather suggesting picking one of the year’s best in the first three or four rounds.
Let’s dig deeper into those early-round quarterback successes. Taking only 2021-23, seven of the 11 quarterbacks selected within the first four rounds on average managed a top-four positional fantasy point total, a staggering 64% hit rate. Additionally, the 17 quarterbacks who finished those seasons averaging 20-plus fantasy points (and started at least half their teams’ games) had an ADP of 46.6. We have become considerably better at projecting quarterback success in recent years.
Strategy grade: B
Zero WR
A popular strategy in non-PPR leagues, especially mainstream formats around the turn of the century and through the aughts, this stresses that running back production is paramount in fantasy football, often calling RBs the game’s “lifeblood.” In ESPN standard leagues, which start only two wide receivers, this presumes the wide receiver position is deep and can be more easily filled in the late rounds. Like “Zero RB,” Zero WR stipulates waiting at least three rounds, and often five, before addressing the position.
Returns from 2019-23 make this a difficult one to support, as 64% of the top 20 scorers at wide receiver (and 56% of the top 10 producers) came from those taken in the first or second round, significantly greater rates than seen at any of the other three positions. In short, fantasy managers on the whole were dramatically undervaluing the position during that half-decade.
Managers adopting a Zero WR strategy should primarily do so if they specifically do not believe in the talent or durability of the position’s upper tier. That would mean a belief that, say, the recent injury histories of Ja’Marr Chase or Justin Jefferson might extend into 2024, or that CeeDee Lamb or Puka Nacua is likely to experience significant regression.
Strategy grade: D+
Elite TE
This is another self-explanatory strategy precipitated by Travis Kelce, who has been the No. 1 scoring tight end in six of the past eight seasons and often in extremely dominant fashion. Elite TE says it is worth investing in a steady, top-shelf tight end in the second or third round (and sometimes the first round, if the projection versus the position’s depth warrants). This year, this strategy effectively says that Kelce or Sam LaPorta warrants a top-25 overall selection, or Mark Andrews is worth a top-35 pick.
It’s perhaps the toughest strategy of them all to evaluate, in that Kelce alone greatly influences the results with his annually early ADP and Hall of Fame-worthy career performance. Including Kelce in the analysis netted an 82% return rate of a TE pick in the first three rounds returning top-five positional value from 2019-23. It was approximately Round 5 where the chances of netting a top-five finisher plummeted sharply, then gradually declined thereafter, indicating it best to either select one of the position’s best or wait until the end of the draft.
But what if we excluded Kelce? Surprisingly, it didn’t change things much, as four of the other six tight ends selected in the first three rounds returned a top-five positional fantasy point total. These success stories included Andrews (2022), George Kittle (2019, 2021) and Zach Ertz (2019), and note that Andrews missed out on making it 5-of-6 by finishing sixth among tight ends in PPR fantasy points in 2020.
This year’s tight end class has that clear top tier of Kelce and LaPorta, both of whom were top-20 performers overall last season in terms of value relative to replacement. Selecting either in the third or fourth round appears to be an underrated strategy.
Strategy grade: B+
