The Stud RB Theory has been a mainstay for decades. Is it still viable? Why or why not?
Matt Waldman: Sure it's viable, but as you get into more competitive leagues you have to have a number of approaches in your arsenal. There's a greater variety of publicly acceptable lineup formats and scoring rules now that the Internet has connected and broadened the fantasy football community. The NFL has also made enough rule changes to favor passing that teams have caught up in the past 15-20 years and the stats reflect it and receivers and tight ends have seen their value rise in many league formats.
Drafts set the table for building a successful team, but there's 7-10 weeks of trades, and 16 weeks of waiver wire acquisitions in most leagues that help you build a winner. While still a viable plan, Stud RB Theory is no longer the only viable plan and it hasn't been for quite some time.
Adam Harstad: Everything is viable, the question becomes whether it's optimal... and that's going to depend a lot on your league. When I hear "stud RB theory", I think of the mindset that you have to open RB-RB, or even RB-RB-RB. In a smaller league with only 8 or 10 teams, there's far less positional scarcity, and RB-RB or RB-RB-RB becomes a weaker strategy. In a 14 or 16 team league, however, an already-scarce position becomes positively endangered, and RB-RB becomes a much stronger play. If your league starts four WRs instead of three, or allows you to start one RB instead of two, that will also reduce the relative scarcity of the RB position. If you know the other owners in your league are casual about drafting RBs and you don't expect backs to fly off the board, then that frees you up to wait a bit before drafting your second rusher.
In short, while RB-RB or RB-RB-RB is often a strong strategy, especially in the most common league setups and scoring systems, it has achieved the status of some sort of universal law that must be followed. That's a mistake. Nothing is universal, and nothing should be treated as universal. "Stud RB theory" emerged to address the massive shortage of quality contributors at the RB position, so it makes sense that it works best in leagues where there actually is such a shortage, and where the shortage at RB is more severe than the shortage at other positions. In 2-QB leagues, though, you'd be much better off going with "Stud QB theory" instead.
Identify what assets are rare and draft them with your first picks. In typical leagues, workhorse running backs are rare, so it makes sense to draft them early. Of course, players like Calvin Johnson and Jimmy Graham are rare, too, and also worthy of a top pick. If you're going to pick a strategy and follow it blindly, "draft rare players" is a much better strategy to go with.
Andy Hicks: Adam hit the nail on the head here. It can be a viable strategy, but it depends on the circumstances. Scoring systems, lineup requirements, how many teams in your league, how deep your roster etc all are vital in knowing if Stud RB theory can even be a relevant theory.
Let's assume you are in a traditional league that normally has the right set of circumstances that would result in Stud RB theory. What then? Now we are down to looking at the available players and the coaching systems they have to play under. There are far more teams now that utilize multiple backs depending on what the score is, what part of the field the ball is on, what the weather conditions are, is it on turf or artificial etc. True every down stud running backs are a rarer breed in todays NFL, so to draft a back that may only get 200 carries as if he were a stud running back would be a mistake. As Adam said, you should be drafting the "rare players", be it every down backs, stud tight ends or wide receivers or in some cases elite quarterbacks. Stud RB theory depends on there being Stud RBs in the first place.
Jeff Pasquino: You have to be able to go into your fantasy draft with more than just one strategy, and then let the circumstances dictate how you react. Many are trumpeting the approach of at least two, possibly even three running backs in the first three picks this year, but what if you wind up with Calvin Johnson falling in your lap at the 12th pick in a PPR league? You better be prepared to take the best player available and then react from there. That's exactly why I do my "by committee" pieces every season, so that I know what running backs, wide receivers and tight ends can be paired together to make a solid starter option - because I may need at least one of those committee approaches after I take the best players that fall to me in the first 4-5 rounds.
Will Grant: I think for the top picks in the draft (say #1-#5 overall), the reality of taking two or even three RBS right out of the gate. The key as Jeff said is to be flexible enough to adjust your strategy if the value is falling to you. The RBBC approach in the NFL makes guys like Adrian Peterson, Doug Martin and Arian Foster really hard to ignore if you have one of the first three picks. Even if you're in a PPR league that awards 1.5 points to a tight end, I would have a hard time taking Jimmy Graham over any of those guys. Unless there is a crazy run on running backs, it would not surprise me in the least to end up with 3 RBS if I had pick 1.03, 2.10 and 3.03. Especially if it was a flex league that would allow you to start 3 RB each week.
But after that, it gets a bit edgy. Especially as you get closer to the turn. Several years ago, it was not uncommon to see 10 RBs or more go in the first round, and certainly 18-20 would be off the board by pick 3.01. You'd go RB-RB, with your first two picks, even if you were sitting at 1.10. I'm not sure I'd follow that anymore. Especially if I were looking at Steven Jackson or Matt Forte as my 1st round pick. One of them for sure sure at the turn, but to skip over guys like A.J. Green, Dez Bryant, Brandon Marshall or Jimmy Graham to have Jackson and Forte as my two primary backs seems to be a bit short-sighted. Worst case scenario of going RB-WR at the turn is that the RB run continues and you're faced with having Forte and someone like Montee Ball as your #1 and #2 RB at point but at least you have Bryant or Marshall. Best case scenario, you force a few guys to go WR in the next 20 picks and you score a guy like Reggie Bush or David Wilson as your RB2.
Mark Wimer: The big difference between the NFL now and the NFL even just five years ago is that the league has aggressively moved to protect quarterbacks from taking big hits, and also to circumscribe defensive backs from impeding wide receivers/tight ends from moving down the field. Teams have responded by shifting their attacks more in favor of passing the football, and less in favor of running the football. Additionally, the rise of running-back-by-committee has cut down on the number of truly "featured" running backs to a mere handful of elite running backs.
What all this means is that elite wide receivers (especially in PPR leagues) are now rivals to elite running backs in terms of scoring fantasy points. Calvin Johnson is not going to make it to the bottom of the first round in most fantasy leagues (even non-PPR leagues), and Jimmy Graham is in the conversation as a legitimate first round pick in TE-required leagues. Certainly after the turn into the second round, there are numerous wide receivers worthy of selection (Dez Bryant, Demaryius Thomas, A.J. Green, Julio Jones, Vincent Jackson, Andre Johnson) regardless of scoring system.
Fantasy owners insisting on going RB/RB or even RB/RB/RB are going to miss out on the elite tier of wide receivers this year, and probably bypass the top-two tight ends (Graham and Gronkowski), leaving a big deficit of fantasy points in their receivers' and tight-end stables in comparison to their rivals. Meanwhile, there are numerous players at running back (especially in PPR leagues) that could easily wind up among the top-12 running backs, but who can be drafted in the middle rounds (Darren Sproles and DeMarco Murray are my two prime examples of these high-upside players), and I think Eddie Lacy and Ronnie Hillman could easily land among the top-20. Once you are past the top five-seven running backs, there is not a lot of "sure-thing" running backs to prefer over some dominant wide receivers like those mentioned above.
I think RB/RB or (Heaven forfend) RB/RB/RB is a debilitating draft strategy in most formats this year.
Stephen Holloway: First and foremost, the league's scoring and particularly starter requirements must be applied to your draft strategy. That said, the lack league-wide of three down running backs and the willingness for many NFL teams to use their passing offense to simulate a running game forces fantasy owners to consider running backs for every pick in the first few rounds. The best position to be in throughout your drafts is to have a roster at any particular point that allows the owner flexibility to select among many positions. Once your team gets overloaded at one or two positions, it becomes more challenging to draft for value. Taking running backs in the first two rounds does not necessarily limit later picks, but taking three in a row would definitely challenge that flexibility.
Stub RB strategy for me has modified over the years, both with scoring systems and how the NFL values the passing game so that I really want to have one top tier running back and then always look for value across positions, rather than attempt to load up on running backs to stymie opponents.