Why a top WR isn't worth a top RB

Ok, so I have to preface this argument with the fact that sometimes for some teams, it may be worth it to overpay for a top WR by giving up a top RB. However, my argument is that in general, as far as the actual value of the top players at each position is concerned, the worth of RBs (and QBs for that matter) is far superior to that of WRs. This is especially pertinent this year because there was so much talk from the analysts about how RB was so deep and WR was so shallow. While it may be true that RBBC (running back by committee) has spread the production out at the RB position resulting in greater supply of productive backs, and it also may be true that there are fewer "elite" WRs in the game now than there have been in past years. Neither of these facts (if they are facts after all) changes the statistical reality that I am about to present. And that reality is that WR is a much less productive position than RB in fantasy football, and because of this RBs should be valued higher in drafts and in trades.

For starters, lets just look at the average production for the two positions. Below I've posted some stats for the two positions. What these stats show very clearly is that the RB position is much more productive than the WR position. The numbers are the averages over the past 2 years for each ranking bracket for each position.

Average production for the top 5 RB- 275pts
Average production for the top 5 WR- 235pts Difference -40pts
(Keep in mind this includes the Brady/Moss crazy 2007 record year that will never be repeated.)

Average production for the 5-10 RB- 235pts
Average production for the 5-10 WR- 204pts Difference -31pts

Average production for the 10-15 RB- 203pts
Average production for the 10-15 WR- 185pts Difference -18pts

Average production for the 15-20 RB- 188pts
Average production for the 15-20 WR- 168pts Difference -20pts

Average production for the 20-25 RB- 163pts
Average production for the 20-25 WR- 155pts Difference -8pts

Ok, so a couple of things that we can see clearly here.

1) Running backs score a heck of a lot more points than WRs. Last year there was a total of...count em...1 WR in the top 25. Johnny Lee Higgens was the #23 overall ranked player. There were only 10 in the top 50.

2) This isn't only the case for the top guys, the trend continues throughout the ranks. Last year the #15 RB outscored the #15 WR by 46 points. The #20 RB outscored the #20 WR by 22 points.

3) If you listened to the talking heads at all this preseason you heard all about how "you'd better grab up one of the top WRs cause the production really drops off after the top 8 or 9 guys." Well sorry Matthew Berry, but the stats say the opposite. At all but one ranking position the drop off is greater for RBs than it is for WRs.

Top 5 to 5-10 drop off- RBs- 40 WRs- 21
5-10 to 10-15 drop off- RBs- 32 WRs- 19
10-15 to 15-20 drop off- RBs- 15 WRs-17
15-20 to 20-25 drop off- RBs- 25 WRs-13

So what does all this mean? I think it shows pretty clearly that there is no way around the fact that the top 25 RBs are much more valuable than the top 25 WRs. And a reasonable conclusion from this is that a strong RB corps is much more valuable to a FF team than a strong WR corps.

And before you ask, no it doesn't matter that we start 3 WRs and only 2 RBs. The drop off for WR ranks 26-36 is a measly 18 more points.

So, I'm sure only a couple of you are nerdy enough to take the time to read this and actually think about it, but let me know what you think, especially if you disagree. (It's kind of hard to disagree with cold hard facts though.)