Fantasy Football News and Rumors

[TREFF]

Well that's a little misleading.

Calling it now .understatement of today's internet winner^^^^

And a current year's salary is no measure as to what a RB means to a teams success. Especially in one singular game.

A savvy GM making shrewd, smart investments does not degrade the RB value or contribution, only means that GM did his job well that year

 

[TREFF]

Not for nothing, but if Pete Carrol had simply handed the ball to his teams best player, rather than let RW throw it, the leading rusher that year would've made 6.5M..compounding the simple truth of the RB being valuable...shoulda used him Pete

 

[averagejoe]

Lynch was their running back and he made $7.5 million

Maybe @SmokingMonkey can do the homework this time...

Off the top of my head, for most super bowl champs, they basically have a misdirection type gameplan.

While the defense is focusing on the opponents "star" player, the team is planning to use the less relevant players.

 

[TKOSpikes]

Not for nothing, but if Pete Carrol had simply handed the ball to his teams best player, rather than let RW throw it, the leading rusher that year would've made 6.5M..compounding the simple truth of the RB being valuable...shoulda used him Pete

Being in an argument, afterward wishing that you said something better… that sucks. I can’t imagine the feeling Pete Carroll has for that call.

The only thing that outdoes it, is something even you can understand.

1998 Gold Medal Game: shoot out
Team Canada picks five shooters…

Theo Fleury
Ray Bourque
Joe Nieuwendyk
Eric Lindros
Brendan Shanahan


…left on the bench: Wayne Gretzky

Canada lost the shootout 1-0.
Coach Marc Crawford will hold “dumbest coaching decision in sports history” forever.

 

[SmokingMonkey]

Calling it now .understatement of today's internet winner^^^^

And a current year's salary is no measure as to what a RB means to a teams success. Especially in one singular game.

A savvy GM making shrewd, smart investments does not degrade the RB value or contribution, only means that GM did his job well that year

I was just chatting with someone on these boards yesterday and they brought up a point about not making exceptions the rule, sure does look like Lynch would be the exception in this instance.

 

[TREFF]

Maybe @SmokingMonkey can do the homework this time...

Off the top of my head, for most super bowl champs, they basically have a misdirection type gameplan.

While the defense is focusing on the opponents "star" player, the team is planning to use the less relevant players.

That'd be a tough one. most often the 'stars' on those teams would be the QB's, but if the measure of 'misdirect-planning to use the less relevant players' -then usage would be the stats to look at, yes? Touches. Keeping in mind that RB's always touch the ball about %75 more than receivers-an average day for a good starting RB these days is about 15-20 touches, average day for a #1 WR is somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-10 so the numbers are naturally skewed their direction anyways
Just quickly going down that list Monkey posted:

-The '20 Bucs had Brady, Evans, Godwin, AB, Gronk as their "stars" - Fournette and Jones touched the ball 20 and 12 times respectively, no receiver had more than 6 catches (Gronk)

- '19 Chiefs had Mahomes, Kelce, Hill - DAm. WIlliams touched the ball 21 times (and should have been the MVP, Hill had 9 Kelce 7

- '18 Patriots- Brady and Gronk, Edelman, Michel (short on stars offensively that year) - Michel 18 touches, Edelman 10, Gronk 6

- '17

Being in an argument, afterward wishing that you said something better… that sucks. I can’t imagine the feeling Pete Carroll has for that call.

The only thing that outdoes it, is something even you can understand.

1998 Gold Medal Game: shoot out
Team Canada picks five shooters…

Theo Fleury
Ray Bourque
Joe Nieuwendyk
Eric Lindros
Brendan Shanahan


…left on the bench: Wayne Gretzky

Canada lost the shootout 1-0.
Coach Marc Crawford will hold “dumbest coaching decision in sports history” forever.

YES! a hockey reference I can understand, cuase Hockey was actually relevant in everyday life during that era..I know most of those names!!

 

[SmokingMonkey]

Not for nothing, but if Pete Carrol had simply handed the ball to his teams best player, rather than let RW throw it, the leading rusher that year would've made 6.5M..compounding the simple truth of the RB being valuable...shoulda used him Pete

but he didn't make that call, and they team with the cheap RB ended up winning the game

woulda coulda shoulda does not make one a champion

 

[TREFF]

I was just chatting with someone on these boards yesterday and they brought up a point about not making exceptions the rule, sure does look like Lynch would be the exception in this instance.

yes, but the rule is based on nothing..tiny slices. its like eating only the crust of a pumpkin pie and wondeirng why it was so dry. your entire rule, IS an exception

 

[SmokingMonkey]

Maybe @SmokingMonkey can do the homework this time...

Off the top of my head, for most super bowl champs, they basically have a misdirection type gameplan.

While the defense is focusing on the opponents "star" player, the team is planning to use the less relevant players.

odds of making it to the SB with a bad defense are slim
not sure I can think of too many good defenses that don't have some kind of shutdown capability, whether that's shutting down the run or the pass, forcing teams to become one-dimensional or forcing teams to funnel touches to their secondary players

 

[SmokingMonkey]

yes, but the rule is based on nothing..tiny slices. its like eating only the crust of a pumpkin pie and wondeirng why it was so dry. your entire rule, IS an exception

can't wait for all the teams that fork over big contracts to RBs to start winning SBs again

 

[TREFF]

can't wait for all the teams that fork over big contracts to RBs to start winning SBs again

again..please find where I ever said you have to fork over a big contract for a RB, I'm beggin'

you have to make an investment in a real RB that you can lean on and who will get the job done, you do not have to overpay for a big name. And all the super bowl winners for the past two decades, minus Mahommes and Manning's teams, have done just that. The salary $ amount is irrelevant. the recognition that they needed a decent RB is what matters. The fact they found one cheaply is a mark agianst the rest of the league for undervaluing them, not proof that they are not valuable

 

[TREFF]

That'd be a tough one. most often the 'stars' on those teams would be the QB's, but if the measure of 'misdirect-planning to use the less relevant players' -then usage would be the stats to look at, yes? Touches. Keeping in mind that RB's always touch the ball about %75 more than receivers-an average day for a good starting RB these days is about 15-20 touches, average day for a #1 WR is somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-10 so the numbers are naturally skewed their direction anyways
Just quickly going down that list Monkey posted:

-The '20 Bucs had Brady, Evans, Godwin, AB, Gronk as their "stars" - Fournette and Jones touched the ball 20 and 12 times respectively, no receiver had more than 6 catches (Gronk)

- '19 Chiefs had Mahomes, Kelce, Hill - DAm. WIlliams touched the ball 21 times (and should have been the MVP, Hill had 9 Kelce 7

- '18 Patriots- Brady and Gronk, Edelman, Michel (short on stars offensively that year) - Michel 18 touches, Edelman 10, Gronk 6

- '17

YES! a hockey reference I can understand, cuase Hockey was actually relevant in everyday life during that era..I know most of those names!!

geesh, I blew that response..that's what I get for trying to do two things at once. I give up on Joe's homework assignment--going through those boxscores, it became far too obvious that the RB's always got significantly more usage/touches than anyone else outside the QB's, but I'm sure there'd be some weird reason why that information was irrelevant and RB's still don't matter.
So @HaroldSeattle could you kindly delete my mistaken double quoted response at your earliest convenience?

 

[SmokingMonkey]

again..please find where I ever said you have to fork over a big contract for a RB, I'm beggin'

something about pie crusts making the rule of 'SB winning teams not investing in RBs' an entire exception or something when none of the recent teams have invested in RBs besides Seattle. you lost me on that analogy, but sure seemed like you were making an argument that was in favor of an antiquated game plan that doesn't win in today's NFL unless you have a rushing QB

 

[eaglesnut]

again..please find where I ever said you have to fork over a big contract for a RB, I'm beggin'

you have to make an investment in a real RB that you can lean on and who will get the job done, you do not have to overpay for a big name. And all the super bowl winners for the past two decades, minus Mahommes and Manning's teams, have done just that. The salary $ amount is irrelevant. the recognition that they needed a decent RB is what matters. The fact they found one cheaply is a mark agianst the rest of the league for undervaluing them, not proof that they are not valuable

Yup, the Eagles 2017 team were a good running team with tough runners Blount and Ajayi, and Corey Clement caught ten passes in the game. They added Ajayi in a trade mid-season and the whole passing offense was designed around the threat of the run. Patriots and Belichick's defense had NOTHING. The running backs had 255 total yards. Eagles had 3 guys they could really trust.

 

[TREFF]

something about pie crusts making the rule of 'SB winning teams not investing in RBs' an entire exception or something when none of the recent teams have invested in RBs besides Seattle. you lost me on that analogy, but sure seemed like you were making an argument that was in favor of an antiquated game plan that doesn't win in today's NFL unless you have a rushing QB

you're entire premise is based on a fallacy though..they DID invest in a RB..as I went line by line a week ago and proved to you. Why you don't accept that fact because of an arbitrary dollar figure, I can't explain, but that's between you and your conscience. The reality is though, whether through draft capital, saavy free agent signings, or trades, they ALL, minus the unicorns of Mahommes and Manning, did in fact, invest in a REAL RB with proven production ability, not random committee members that have never proven anything in this league and just hoped it would work out

BTW, that Seattle example, the antiquated gameplan, running the ball, was the winning move, passing, like is sexy today, is why they lost

 

[averagejoe]

Coach Marc Crawford will hold “dumbest coaching decision in sports history” forever.

He may be the dumbest, but not the most hated. (Well, maybe in the Great White North.)

Spoiler

Always disliked Babcock

 

[SmokingMonkey]

you're entire premise is based on a fallacy though..they DID invest in a RB..as I went line by line a week ago and proved to you. Why you don't accept that fact because of an arbitrary dollar figure, I can't explain, but that's between you and your conscience. The reality is though, whether through draft capital, saavy free agent signings, or trades, they ALL, minus the unicorns of Mahommes and Manning, did in fact, invest in a REAL RB with proven production ability, not random committee members that have never proven anything in this league and just hoped it would work out

BTW, that Seattle example, the antiquated gameplan, running the ball, was the winning move, passing, like is sexy today, is why they lost

NFL salary cap isn't an arbitrary dollar figure, its part of the parameters of building a team. you have to fill roster spots, and the teams that committed higher percentage of their cap to the RB position are on the outside looking in. why can't you accept that fact?

 

[averagejoe]

that committed higher percentage of their cap to the RB position are on the outside looking in

Looking at the highest paid RB...
Only 4 were on the 14 playoff teams.
Zero in this year's SB.

Disclaimer: i only looked at the short list. (I'm just killing time in TJ Maxx while my wife shops.)

 

[TREFF]

NFL salary cap isn't an arbitrary dollar figure, its part of the parameters of building a team. you have to fill roster spots, and the teams that committed higher percentage of their cap to the RB position are on the outside looking in. why can't you accept that fact?

I most certainly can and have accepted that fact..and for the third time during this debate, I have never suggested teams give an inordinate amount/percentage of their cap to a RB, so where are you coming from with all this chatter about over paid, high dollar contracts, and examples of lowly paid SB winning leading rushers?
What type of investment does a team have to make for you to quantify it as an investment, and why is it tied to a dollar amount?
Why isn't the Eagles acquiring of Blount and Ajayi to get them to the Super Bowl and win it a qualifying argument, when it is a very prime example of a team making a recognition of a need, and filling it with a real asset, not just some schmuck off the street and hoping it pans out?
Why isn't the Rams drafting Akers in the second and trading for Michel a qualifying point jsut because both were on rookie contracts and cheap?
Why isn't Fournette a prime example? the Bucs needed a RB, there was a multiple 1000 yard back avaialabe, they signed him rather than just hope Ronald Jones was good enough

thos are INVESTMENTS..the dollar figure attached is irrelevant

I mean every time you bring up salary, its a moot point in my opinion. you can overpay for POS's like Edmonds, doesn't make Edmonds a good signing, doesn't mean you invested in a real RB..it means you royally screwed up by signing a sub par committee member instead of addressing a need on your team and acquiring a real RB..had they signed Melvin Gordon, likely wouldn't have been a totally egregious contract, likely would've panned out better than Edmonds, but maybe not, and to me, I'd say, well, they definitely tried to get a real RB in there, it just didn't work out, but the effort was made, and Id' stop raking themover the coals for ignoring the position every year. they tried.

But they didn't

 

[wilwhite]

Really you want to count spending on the whole RB room.

The game has changed more and more to favor passing, and whatever great rushing performances we’ve seen by SB winners probably have to do with the defenses having to respect the pass (historically it was the opposite). So you don’t have to be a great rusher to have a great SB.

The last star RB to take over a SB and win it was Terrell Davis in the ‘90s.