RB's Don't Matter

RB Lives Matter

The premise that RBs don’t matter is plain silly. I agree completely that a team should not invest heavily in a RB. A blanket statement like “they don’t matter” is ridiculous on many levels. Few teams can survive if they don’t have a decent RB group.

For instance, few teams will lose if they can rack up 150-200 run yards by committee. And as has been said, RBs are crucial for most teams in the short, behind LOS passes. Running game, opens up a lot of room for passing game and play action.

Rock Strongo said:

the one thing this doesnt account for, is skill set outside of simply carrying the ball. thats like 1/3 of a RB's job these days.

Click to expand...

IIRC, the strongest correlation to winning for RB's is the ability to pass protect.

RBs do matter. WTF is wrong with you people.

noonthirtyjoe said:

RBs do matter. WTF is wrong with you people.

Click to expand...

It's all about the offensive line. With the exception of a few, RB's are pretty much plug and play. Field a good o-line and almost any pro RB will have a great season.

Scooby-Doo said:

It's all about the offensive line. With the exception of a few, RB's are pretty much plug and play. Field a good o-line and almost any pro RB will have a great season.

Click to expand...

There is truth in that but as a Chicago fan I have watched some great RBs with really bad olines and they still are HOF RBs.

Dude said:

The premise that RBs don’t matter is plain silly. I agree completely that a team should not invest heavily in a RB. A blanket statement like “they don’t matter” is ridiculous on many levels. Few teams can survive if they don’t have a decent RB group.

For instance, few teams will lose if they can rack up 150-200 run yards by committee. And as has been said, RBs are crucial for most teams in the short, behind LOS passes. Running game, opens up a lot of room for passing game and play action.

Click to expand...

RB's don't matter does not = Running game doesn't matter

Those are two entirely separate statements. Nobody here is saying that the run game isn't important. We are saying that having a star feature back doesn't make you more or less likely to have a successful ground game. In turn - it doesn't make you more or less likely to succeed as an offense.


For instance, few teams will lose if they can rack up 150-200 run yards by committee

Yes, by committee. Therefore, this statement does not contradict anything which has been put forth in this thread.

Draft RB's mid-late rounds, use them for the duration of their contract and tell them not to let the door hit them in ass on the way out. Next man up... That is how RB's should be treated.

Interesting statistic but hardly tells the story. Depends on the team (QB/O-Line), score, the defense you're playing against, etc. Running backs also don't just run. They are a VERY integral part to the blocking and receiving/screen/check down play. Also, backup runningbacks often come in after a team is getting demolished or the starting back is injured so teams may defensively setup against the pass more.

RB in a lot of cases does more than a receiver... I still think paying a WR HUGE money is stupid lol. There's been VERY few Super Bowl winning teams with a massively paid/stud WR.

noonthirtyjoe said:

There is truth in that but as a Chicago fan I have watched some great RBs with really bad olines and they still are HOF RBs.

Click to expand...

that is why I said aside from a select few. Sweetness and Barry Sanders are in that select few category

When you have a 3 down back that can run/catch/Block there is a lot of advantages that dont show up on his stat sheet.
You dont tip off defenses with certain packages. It is the same guy back there no matter what. I think 3 down backs do matter.

Now a back that is apart of a committee is much easier to replace without adjusting your offense.

There is a difference between muscling out 3 yards in a stacked box vs. a prevent defense. Not controlling for the defensive scheme makes these garbage stats IMO.

It's not that they aren't important it's just that the gap between one you draft in the 1st round and one you sign as an undrafted FA isn't all that big.

The offensive line and scheme are more important when it comes to running the ball. The 49ers are a perfect example of this as they have 3 RBs averaging over 4 yards a carry and their running game only slowed down last week because they are missing both starting tackles and their FB that was a critical piece to their running game.

If you have a choice between drafting an RB or offensive lineman in the 1st round it's a better investment to draft the offensive lineman.

I'm having a tough time trusting this guys data analysis with the type-o in his year range. Plus, when you are dealing with this much data, averages by themselves aren't very meaningful without standard deviations. If the standard deviations of the back ups is much higher than the starters, that is significant to any conclusions you draw. I'd suspect it would be.

I'm also not convinced he didn't include some WR runs/reverses in there as back up data as well, maybe even QB rushing data. The averages overall seem a little high. In 2018 all running backs combined have a 4.4 yards/attempt when taking total yards divided by total attempts. If you average yards per attempt for all RBs, you lose some and get 4.3 because of the rounding they do with the stat. His averages are higher than both of those, but I guess by not that much.

Sometimes just looking at things over a season is more meaningful. You actually lose a lot of information when you use statistics over large time periods.

Let's take Elliot as an example. Last season:

Elliot: 304 attempts, 1434 yrds, 4.7 yards/attempt
Smith: 44 attempts, 127 yards, 2.9 yards/attempt
Jackson: 6 attempts, 16 yards, 2.7 yards/attempt
Backups: 50 attempts, 143 yards, 2.86 yards/attempt

Not going to include the couple of runs by defensive players or WRs. Clearly Elliot was much better than his backups in 2018.

Finally, this completely neglects the value the RBs add in both the receiving and blocking game, not to mention what they might open up for other players. There is a better way to do this.

Sharkonabicycle said:

Interesting statistic but hardly tells the story. Depends on the team (QB/O-Line), score, the defense you're playing against, etc. Running backs also don't just run. They are a VERY integral part to the blocking and receiving/screen/check down play. Also, backup runningbacks often come in after a team is getting demolished or the starting back is injured so teams may defensively setup against the pass more.

RB in a lot of cases does more than a receiver... I still think paying a WR HUGE money is stupid lol. There's been VERY few Super Bowl winning teams with a massively paid/stud WR.

Click to expand...

Alshon's contract was very high among WR's in 2017.

And the data was controlled to only include carries in games with a win probability between 20% and 80% for the team handing the ball off. Therefore, no blowout or already decided games taking place.

No one is saying RB's don't serve a purpose beyond running with the football. That's not the point here. Just that it is a big part of what they do and the difference between the "elite" and the "peasant" is minimal.

Schmoopy1000 said:

When you have a 3 down back that can run/catch/Block there is a lot of advantages that dont show up on his stat sheet.

Click to expand...

Yes a top 3 down back can effect the defensive scheme for example.

night said:

There is a difference between muscling out 3 yards in a stacked box vs. a prevent defense. Not controlling for the defensive scheme makes these garbage stats IMO.

Click to expand...

Agree

Jikkle said:

It's not that they aren't important it's just that the gap between one you draft in the 1st round and one you sign as an undrafted FA isn't all that big

Click to expand...

Then your drafting wrong, it should be the difference of Elliot type and his back up.

Jikkle said:

The offensive line and scheme are more important when it comes to running the ball.

Click to expand...

Don't disagree that the OL can make a big difference. However not that many really special OLs in the league, thus the quality of the back matters for the majority of teams IMO.

Jikkle said:

If you have a choice between drafting an RB or offensive lineman in the 1st round it's a better investment to draft the offensive lineman.

Click to expand...

Only if there is a quality OL to draft. In truth it's very hard to hit on a OL that succeed in the NFL and much easier to identify a RB that can succeed.

TheRangerDude said:

Let's take Elliot as an example. Last season:

Elliot: 304 attempts, 1434 yrds, 4.7 yards/attempt
Smith: 44 attempts, 127 yards, 2.9 yards/attempt
Jackson: 6 attempts, 16 yards, 2.7 yards/attempt
Backups: 50 attempts, 143 yards, 2.86 yards/attempt

Click to expand...

This is the type of difference you should see unless the team is using RBBC type backs and so many team do because it's the latest fad/trend and this is a copy cat league with fans that love to embrace the latest hot fad going around. In truth most of the league is copying what ever BB is doing and claiming it as their own.

richig07 said:

And the data was controlled to only include carries in games with a win probability between 20% and 80%

Click to expand...

Controlled to fit a preconceived notion.

richig07 said:

View attachment 220165

Just for some clarity as to how they are "adjusting for game script"

Click to expand...

That's what I thought. Play with the stats until they say what you want. Then call it "Analytics."

richig07 said:

RB's don't matter does not = Running game doesn't matter

Those are two entirely separate statements. Nobody here is saying that the run game isn't important. We are saying that having a star feature back doesn't make you more or less likely to have a successful ground game. In turn - it doesn't make you more or less likely to succeed as an offense.


For instance, few teams will lose if they can rack up 150-200 run yards by committee

Yes, by committee. Therefore, this statement does not contradict anything which has been put forth in this thread.

Draft RB's mid-late rounds, use them for the duration of their contract and tell them not to let the door hit them in ass on the way out. Next man up... That is how RB's should be treated.

Click to expand...

Got it. Yep, I agree with that. By committee is the way to go, and they must be able to catch & block.

3 runs for 15 yards is better than 1 run for 5 yards.

RB's don't matter fags BTFO.

Scooby-Doo said:

that is why I said aside from a select few. Sweetness and Barry Sanders are in that select few category

Click to expand...

BULL SHIT
Emmitt played with a separated shoulder to win a championship mattered
Jim Brown mattered everytime he took the field.
McCafferty sure as hell matters this year, as does Barkley, Kamara and Elliott. Shit the Cards RB matters.

No question the RB position has been devalued, but you fuckers who claim it's a plug and play position are just plain dumb

PDay8810 said:

BULL SHIT
Emmitt played with a separated shoulder to win a championship mattered
Jim Brown mattered everytime he took the field.
McCafferty sure as hell matters this year, as does Barkley, Kamara and Elliott. Shit the Cards RB matters.

No question the RB position has been devalued, but you fuckers who claim it's a plug and play position are just plain dumb

Click to expand...

Of course the position matters numbnuts. I’m not making that claim.