I think a lot of you are misunderstanding the purpose of RB zero. An RB zero team will almost always look terrible in comparison with a well balanced team or even one that is more of a "WR zero" after the draft. I don't think most RB zero proponents would disagree with this. The advantage comes with that RB is the easiest position to improve throughout the season and conversely those with strong RBs are more likely to get weaker as the season progresses as RBs are more injury prone and bust more often (outside of 2017). This concept was referred to as "antifragility" in the original article by Shawn Siegele that originally made the argument for RB zero. Personally, I don't necessarily ascribe to full-on RB zero unless it falls that way, but I would rather RB2 to be one of my weakest positions with the trade-off that other positions would be stronger as you can most easily improve this throughout the year. My goal in the draft isn't to have the best team week 1, it is to have the best team weeks 14-16 and while any strategy if you get the right players can work that way, the theory of RB zero is that it is more likely to end up that way than the alternatives.
Personally, picking at the tail-end of the first round in my primary league the plan for now is I will either be taking 2 WRs or 1WR/1RB if one of my top 8 RBs makes it to my pick. In another league I pick 1st and I'll be taking RB rd 1 and probably WR/WR or WR/Gronk at the 2/3 turn.