for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

Statistics show why teams should NOT invest in RBs (LONG)

.McL. : 4/6/2018 7:19 am
Time honored beliefs are hard to give up... I get it.

I began watching football at a time when smashmouth footbal won games, and running backs were the most valuable jewels on the team.
Running backs could single handedly turn the fortunes of a team. Earl Campbell took a losing Oiler franchise and made them a playoff team.
Walter Payton was the Bears offense.
The cowboys won with the likes of Danny White at QB because they had Tony Dorsett.
Marcus Allen carried the Raiders to a Super Bowl victory.
The list of great RBs from that era goes on and on. But that era is long gone, and the game is drastically different now.

At the bottom of this post I have linked numerous articles, studies and analysis that will corroborate the rest of the points I am making in this post. I highly recommend reading them.

On offense you need to pass well to win, and on defense you need to stop the pass to win (as Belichik taught us in Super Bowl 25).
In today's NFL rushing for lots of yards, and lots of yards per carry are virtually meaningless when it comes to winning football games. That's not to say the rushing has no place in todays game. But you have to tamper your expectations of what constitues a good rushing attack. A good rushing attack does 3 things (these things have a causality effect and highly correllate with winning):

1. Gets first downs or touchdowns, typically on short yardage situations
2. Does not have 0 or negative yardage plays (these plays kill drives and highly correlate with losing)
3. Create the threat of rushing to enable the play action to be effective

What is not necessary for a good rushing attack is (these do not highly correlate with winning):

1. Getting lots of yards (getting lots of yards rushing happens BECAUSE you are winning and looking to run out the clock. Getting lots of yards does not lead to winning)
2. Achieving a high Yards per Carry (also know as rushing effiencey, and has very little correlation to winning)

Since the glory days of RBs from the 60s to 80s, teams that carried elite RBs have not faired well... Sanders, Tomlinson, Peterson, Alexander, Barber, Jackson, James, Martin and Bell have all failed to elevate their teams to SB wins. Since the late 90s only Marshall Faulk and Marshawn Lynch have been elite RBs still in their prime on SB winners (must have something to do with having a first name that starts with Marsh! LOL). In Faulk's case a strong argument can be made that his impact was more in the passing game than the running game. Having an elite RB does not correlate with overall team success.

I have used the word correlation several times so far. Correlation is a statistical measure of how closely related 2 things are (variable in statistical terms).
Statistical regression analysis uses data to determin if two or more variables are related. The degree of relationship is boiled down to a number that ranges from -1 to 1.
If the value is -1 then the vaiables have a perfect opposite relationship. The obvious example here being scoring less than your opponent always leads to not winning.
A value of 1 indicates a perfect relationship, angain the bovious example is scoring more than your opponent always leads to wins...
A value of 0 indicats there is no relationship at all and the results are random. (For example, whether a given specator had eggs, toast or ceral for breakfast in the morning should have no bearing on the outcome of a football game played later that day)
The closer to 1 the grater the relationship is, and the closer to -1 the greater the inverse relationship is.

Every statistical analysis ever done to determine what on the field performances lead to winning football games have come to the same conclusions

1. Yards per carry has a low correlation with winning
2. Yards per attempt has a high correlation with winning
3. Offensive lines quality/efficiency ratings correlates to better rushing games than do RB ratings (in other words the offensive lines make the RBs, not the other way around)
4. Teams that are winning rush more (to run out the clock), so winning causes more rushing, not the other way around
5. It doesn't really matter where running backs are drafted, they all perform about the same in the running game
6. Spending cap dollars on RBs negatively correlates with winning
7. RBs have the shortest playing life of any position (just over 3 years)
8. RBs have the highest injury rates of any player

What does all this mean?
A successful running game focuses on winning in short yardage, not losing yards, and occasionly braking off an explosive play just so that defenses have to honor the run.
Having a few breakaway runs pads statistics, but if they come with numerous rushing plays that gain negative or 0 yards as well, then its a recipe for losing. The big plays can't make up for too many drives ending because of the losing plays.
The NFL today is a passing first game. We have known this for a while now. Elite running backs have not really elevated their teams or the players around them in any significant way. In fact studies show that allocating cap dollars, and draft capital to RBs actually hurt the team's chances for success.
That RB on your roster today is unlikely to be there 3 years from now.
Building you offensive line is far more important than having a good RB. In fact its far more important to have an offensive line that is efficient in the passing game than it is in the running game. However, try to build a line that is good in short yardage and goal line situations as well.
DO NOT DRAFT RBs high, and DO NOT PAY THEM. The reurn on these investments is extremely poor. My opinion is that you should never draft an RB in the first round, and I would not draft one in the second round either.
I will take this one step further, my opionion is that teams should not allocate more then 4 roster spots to RBs
When looking at RBs the most important attributes they have is how do they do in thpassing game (in order):

1. They must be able to pass block well (pickup blitzes, help linemen when a defender beats them, chip on edge rushers, etc.)
2. They need to be able to leak out and make positive yards on dump off plays
3. Be able to line up in WR spots
4. Be good in the screen game

RBs good at the above, doesn't lose yards on rushes, and is able to power successfully on short yardage is your most valuable RB. And these are not that difficult to find, and get relatively cheaply.

This inevitably leads to this years draft. Plenty of people are pounding the table saying we should draft Saquon Barkley. That he is a generational talent.
However, every statical measure tells us the opposite. That even if Barkley turns into a great player, he is unlikely to help the team that drafts him, and in a few years, the team that pays him will be hurt by allocating those cap dollars to him.
If the Giants were to draft Barkley, that would be a remote throwing event for me!

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1081894-buyer-beware-nfl-running-backs-leading-rushers-equal-leading-losers
http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2007/07/what-makes-teams-win-part-1.html
https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-nfl-teams-make-and-win-in-the-playoffs/
https://www.stampedeblue.com/2017/11/28/16700670/yards-per-carry-and-other-stats-i-hate-rushing-correlation-success-rate
http://thesportjournal.org/article/is-controlling-the-rushing-or-passing-game-the-key-to-nfl-victories/
https://www.besttickets.com/blog/evolution-of-nfl-offense/
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/the-statistics-game/correlation-is-not-causation-why-running-the-football-doesnt-cause-you-to-win-games-in-the-nfl
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/185961-how-nfl-statistics-lead-to-wins-pt-2-quantifying-player-stats-to-wins
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1309665-6-nfl-stats-casual-fans-media-just-dont-understand
https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/8791/establishing-the-run-is-a-recipe-for-losing-in-the-nfl/
http://www.maxmatsuda.com/ONU/IBEC430/Student Works/2008-2009 Winter/Paper/Andrew.pdf
Click on Page 113
https://www.stampedeblue.com/2017/12/28/16801912/psa-like-it-or-not-the-draft-is-about-value-and-other-reasons-not-to-draft-a-rb-early

This next one even questions the wisdom of paying large amount for WR. Which would suggest that paying for OBJ may not be a great idea. I am not sure I am on board with that, but its food for thought.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2014/optimal-roster-design-for-winning-in-todays-nfl

The next two show it really doesn't matter what round you draft your RB in!
https://www.stampedeblue.com/2017/12/30/16831878/is-there-a-best-round-to-draft-a-running-back-rushing-success-rate-ypc-explosive
https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064& context=sport_undergrad

This one shows that best predictor of success at the NFL level for college RBs is... Wait for it... YARDS PER ATTEMPT... But we have just learned that yards per attempt has very little correlation to winning in the NFL. So, elite college running backs are highly unlikely to improve a team's chances of winning. In fact, since you will devote a significant portion of your salary cap to the player, they would seem to have a negative correlation with winning. And indeed, there have been studies showing just this!
https://search.proquest.com/openview/65aff24671603e96ad7e68bfbdb93856/1?pq-origsite=gscholar& cbl=18750& diss=y

These studies show that you should not spend significant cap dollars on RBs..
https://www.choregia.org/images/issues/1205.pdf
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/& httpsredir=1& article=1018& context=joseph_wharton_scholars

There are many more such analysis, but I think the point has been made.
Clarification  
.McL. : 4/6/2018 7:28 am : link
When I say Yards per Attempt, I mean pass attempt
This is where I should have said  
.McL. : 4/6/2018 7:42 am : link
Yards per PASS attempt

2. Yards per <PASS> attempt has a high correlation with winning
There are exceptions  
jtgiants : 4/6/2018 7:47 am : link
To every rule. Again, the cowboys, jags and rams, don't regret taking zeke, Tourette and gurley
Huh?  
Eman11 : 4/6/2018 7:50 am : link
However, every statical measure tells us the opposite. That even if Barkley turns into a great player, he is unlikely to help the team that drafts him.

That line is a head scratcher and just doesn't make sense to me. How can ANY great player NOT help the team that drafts him?

I'd get it if it said not as much as another great player could, but to say if great "he'd" be unlikely to help just doesn't add up.
I have always been a big proponent of getting that  
Big Blue '56 : 4/6/2018 7:57 am : link
difference-making or extremely steady RB later on. That said, When you’re picking 2nd, a position you most likely won’t secure again (hopefully) for a very long time sans a trade of many valuable draft picks AND a consensus generational back that could possibly/probably change your O as Dickerson, Sanders, Payton, Peterson and Elliott for example, did/have, you go for it, if available, imo.

Sure he could turn into a Trent Richardson and other high drafted busts, but UNLESS you have a very strong conviction on the most important franchise position in football, the QB, I don’t see a choice here.

Of course, a boatload of high draft picks for the second spot that would allow us more quality options, could certainly change that equation, imv

I commend you for your hard work in  
DonnieD89 : 4/6/2018 7:59 am : link
putting together your post; however, like another poster said, every team is different and teams that win super bowls are all built differently. Statistics cannot accurately predicts that. Just because Barkley is a RB, doesn't mean they can,t use him as a receiver and limit his carries to 15. That's how Marshall Faulk was able to play longer. Saquon Barkley is not just a RB. He is a 3 weapon that can be used in different ways.
so many links to click.  
Dodge : 4/6/2018 8:07 am : link
Thanks for the effort. Love the science behind stuff.
As a general rule, you may be correct  
JohnB : 4/6/2018 8:09 am : link
but when it comes down to a single individual for a single team, you can throw away your theories and stats.
last year 3rd and one was a passing down  
Chip : 4/6/2018 8:18 am : link
that comes to an end with Mr Barkley
Great analysis and no doubt true.. But off point..  
the mike : 4/6/2018 9:02 am : link
Really appreciate your work here and can truly recognize and appreciate the love of a devout but oft suffering fellow Giant fan... No doubt the best fans in the world and it is an honor to be in the trenches with you every Sunday! And I, like the vast majority of fans on this site, do not disagree that the Quarterback position is by far the most important position in not only the NFL today, but in all of the major team sports. The running back position no doubt pales in comparison...

However! The central disagreement is that a large group of fans, like me, believe strongly that Eli, still has at least two and perhaps four more years of quality football left. Where others point to Eli as the cause of the Giants failures these past seven years, I point to poor coaching and a woeful supporting cast of personnel. Just as I disagreed with Tiki in 2006 that "the Giants cannot win with Eli", I disagree today with fans who believe he is either washed up or too old.

Additionally, Davis Webb is comparable to the top four Quarterback prospects in the draft - both in terms of college career and NFL potential talent. Please watch the 2013 Holiday Bowl, 2017 Senior Bowl, Pac 12 games against UCLA and USC. You simply cannot convince me that Webb, with some improved footwork and decision making, does not have the chance to be as good or better than any prospect in this year's draft. Since we already have him on the roster and since we still have at least two years of Eli, there is no reason for Gettleman to take the extraordinary binary risk of committing such a valuable draft pick on the complete unknown of another quarterback prospect. Yes, there may be a HOF prospect there. But there is just as likely several epic busts. The Giants simply do not need to take this risk.

I agree that running back is not the best choice for a top ten draft pick. But this is not just any running back - this is the best running back prospect ever to be graded in advance of the draft. And no doubt the best player available. Gettleman simply cannot do anything in this draft except take Barkley if he believes this or trade the pick for a haul of value if he does not. The second pick this year has enormous trade value to other teams who do not have the quarterback position already well covered... We can still get a HOF talent as well as several other top pics with this asset if he plays his cards right.

And this approach will be the shortest path to the next championship run... believe again my fellow suffering Sunday soldier - the days in the bleak wilderness are coming to an end!

According to these statistics, the ideal RB  
CT Charlie : 4/6/2018 9:05 am : link
would be bruising, short-yardage guy who's a great blocker and who can catch a screen pass, i.e., a FULLBACK with decent hands! This makes a lot of sense, but it makes you wonder why the NFL has almost eliminated the position.
Why do so many insist there is still a "correct"  
Mike from Ohio : 4/6/2018 9:05 am : link
way to win in the NFL? Go back through all the past Superbowl champions and you will see teams built many different ways. All of this analysis is interesting, but nobody is going to show the "right" way to build a winner.
Having hard..  
FatMan in Charlotte : 4/6/2018 9:09 am : link
and fast rules rarely work out well. The best teams are the ones who can be fluid. They can adapt to the personnel they have and the personnel they are in the position to acquire. If you have a defensive oriented team, having a solid RB is a key. You only have to look back at the seahawks with Marshawn as an indication of this.

Also, we are coming off of a postseason that saw several of the top teams utilizing RB's. Fournette was a good piece for a team with a strong D. Gurley was a perfect sidekick to a young QB.

Look at what happened to the Cowboys once Elliott was gone

You can win without a top RB, but saying that one should never be drafted high or paid well is narrow-minded thinking. I hope Gettleman and competent GM's are open minded about all situations.
All of this...  
Zepp : 4/6/2018 9:12 am : link
to try to convince you that Barkley wouldn't help a team just shows that people can't knock Barkley as a prospect they can only come up with convoluted theories about why you should NEVER EVER draft a RB 2nd.

Truth is they guy has been compared to LaDanian Tomlinson or Marshall Faulk and I am sorry there is no statistic out there can reasonably convince anyone that having Marshall Faulk on this current Giants team wouldn't help them win games.
I'm inclined to agree even without the supporting data  
David B. : 4/6/2018 9:17 am : link
My reasoning was more basic.

1. RBs receive more wear and tear and have shorter-than-average NFL careers.
2. The position makes the injury risk higher.
3. The long-term impact of injuries such as ACLs can turn a great RB into an average one (even moreso than of other positions).
4. If you're going to go against all that and draft one in the first round, you could make the case he'd better be a bell-cow. FWIW, Barkley isn't that.

5. Good/Great RBs come from all draft rounds, and this draft is loaded with them. So the value for RB just isn't there at 2. Thus:
a) You don't give up the opportunity to get your next QB.
b) If you don't love any available QB at 2, you take Chubb, Nelson, or trade down.
c) Draft a good RB later.

I'll say this, though. There were 2 years or so where Marshall Faulk was easily the best (and biggest impact) player in the NFL. He was phenomenal. But he also had a LOT of great, HOF type pieces around him. Warner, great WRs and an OL that had Orlando Pace among others.

Conversely, Jim Brown in is PRIME would have done poorly behind last year's Giants OL -- especially with the WR corps decimated.

UNTIL THE GIANTS HAVE A SERVICEABLE OL, NO RB IS GOING TO BE ALL THAT EFFECTIVE. And we don't know for a fact that it's going to be improved other than at OLT (provided Solder stays healthy)

And if you draft a QB at 2nd overall (my preference), you certainly don't play that guy until the OL is truly fixed.

Thanks for the links  
Pascal4554 : 4/6/2018 9:17 am : link
and well researched post.
RE: As a general rule, you may be correct  
Pascal4554 : 4/6/2018 9:27 am : link
In comment 13902415 JohnB said:
Quote:
but when it comes down to a single individual for a single team, you can throw away your theories and stats.


Disagree. Stats and theories (science) have a place in decision making.
RE: Having hard..  
MetsAreBack : 4/6/2018 9:34 am : link
In comment 13902471 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:


Look at what happened to the Cowboys once Elliott was gone



Nothing. They had the same record with and without. and I'd argue losing their left tackle, most notably in the Atlanta game, had a bigger impact. As did Dez Bryant losing all separation ability and talent.

And to the person above who said the Cowboys/Rams/Jags all love their RBs - true. Theyve also had a collective 3-3.5 good years. Its way too early to declare anything. The point of the post above is that the position is such high injury risk, the wear and tear can be so brutal over a few seasons, and the position is so dependent on a good offensive line (as great as Elliott looks, lets see him behind an average o-line where he's actually getting hit in the backfield or even first line of defense once in a while)...

I dont argue RBs can be great compliments particularly to young QBs. Coughlin and maybe Eli dont survive here without the Tiki Barber crutch their first 3 seasons. But I do think gems can be found in later rounds at this position too (Ahmad Bradshaw as one example)
Great post  
oldutican : 4/6/2018 9:35 am : link
It's exciting to have a great RB, but the correlation to winning just isn't there. Teams realize that, so it has become rare for a RB to be picked in the top 10.
Thanks for giving empirical and analytical support  
Don in DC : 4/6/2018 9:39 am : link
to my own strong gut suspicions. Great post.
This is a good post  
AcesUp : 4/6/2018 9:48 am : link
There is definitely some merit to it but like Fatman said, you have to be fluid. You can't be a slave to hard rules. I would be really curious to see a statistical analysis like this isolate the significance of an every down back that is capable of contributing in the passing game, say 225+ rushes and 50+ receptions per season. I have a feeling you'll see a notable bump in positional value if you have one of those guys.
thanks for the articles  
giants#1 : 4/6/2018 9:51 am : link
One point to consider: if passing stats are so critical, then wouldn't it be beneficial for a team to have an elite receiving RB? One could argue that NE has been taking advantage of this for a few years (Vereen/Lewis/etc) as many of their RBs (Blount aside) are better receiving threats than between the tackle RBs.
Elliott/Fournette/Gurley  
giants#1 : 4/6/2018 9:59 am : link
Elliott - I think Elliott and the 'boys are a special case because of how dominant their running game is, partly due to the OL. Losing Elliott hurt because he had a higher percentage of "successful runs" than their other RBs, which is correlated with wins (see one of the articles).

Fournette - keep in mind the Jags went 3-0 without him last season.

Gurley - he's arguably more impactful in the receiving game (64 rec, 788 yds, 6 TDs, 12.3 y/r) then the running game and thus likely had a significant impact on the passing efficiency of the Rams too. Goff averaged 8.0 y/a overall but a tad over 9.0 y/a when targeting Gurley.
Excellent post and  
TMS : 4/6/2018 10:00 am : link
discussion. All the extra picks we can get for trading down, might turn this team around quickly if used wisely. ON paper we look to have a very competent group that will be contributing to that discussion. The future is now not in 2/3 years.
This is a good post  
Giantophile : 4/6/2018 10:11 am : link
well researched and written.

While I don't agree 100% with a hardline rule about RBs (I actually consider Barkley to be an exception given what a remarkable prospect he is) I do think the RB position is less important than it once was and teams can easily find production without investing a lot of money or picks into the position.
RE: Great analysis and no doubt true.. But off point..  
lax counsel : 4/6/2018 10:20 am : link
In comment 13902462 the mike said:
Quote:
Really appreciate your work here and can truly recognize and appreciate the love of a devout but oft suffering fellow Giant fan... No doubt the best fans in the world and it is an honor to be in the trenches with you every Sunday! And I, like the vast majority of fans on this site, do not disagree that the Quarterback position is by far the most important position in not only the NFL today, but in all of the major team sports. The running back position no doubt pales in comparison...

However! The central disagreement is that a large group of fans, like me, believe strongly that Eli, still has at least two and perhaps four more years of quality football left. Where others point to Eli as the cause of the Giants failures these past seven years, I point to poor coaching and a woeful supporting cast of personnel. Just as I disagreed with Tiki in 2006 that "the Giants cannot win with Eli", I disagree today with fans who believe he is either washed up or too old.

Additionally, Davis Webb is comparable to the top four Quarterback prospects in the draft - both in terms of college career and NFL potential talent. Please watch the 2013 Holiday Bowl, 2017 Senior Bowl, Pac 12 games against UCLA and USC. You simply cannot convince me that Webb, with some improved footwork and decision making, does not have the chance to be as good or better than any prospect in this year's draft. Since we already have him on the roster and since we still have at least two years of Eli, there is no reason for Gettleman to take the extraordinary binary risk of committing such a valuable draft pick on the complete unknown of another quarterback prospect. Yes, there may be a HOF prospect there. But there is just as likely several epic busts. The Giants simply do not need to take this risk.

I agree that running back is not the best choice for a top ten draft pick. But this is not just any running back - this is the best running back prospect ever to be graded in advance of the draft. And no doubt the best player available. Gettleman simply cannot do anything in this draft except take Barkley if he believes this or trade the pick for a haul of value if he does not. The second pick this year has enormous trade value to other teams who do not have the quarterback position already well covered... We can still get a HOF talent as well as several other top pics with this asset if he plays his cards right.

And this approach will be the shortest path to the next championship run... believe again my fellow suffering Sunday soldier - the days in the bleak wilderness are coming to an end!


Very nice analysis by the OP. And, I agree with many of your points as well. However, I could not disagree more with Davis Webb. He isn't on the same okaner as the top 2 to 4 qbs in this draft. I watched many of his FULL game tapes and can assure you that the draft analysis of him is highly accurate. He has tremendous issues throwing the ball over 10 yards to, his accuracy is not NFL quality. Second, he has little to no pocket awareness, is often clumsy and seems to not feel the rush at all. Third, he failed to even read a basic defense. I understand the offense was not designed to give him multiple reads, but he couldn't even discern when a CB was strong on his primary target, and would still force the ball .

These are the primary reasons why most scouts had him pegged as a career backup, with which I can't disagree. This is why he was a late third round pick, and was probably a reach at that point. Unfortunately, given his flaws, he's probably more Ryan Nassib than Russell Wilson. It's not prudent to pin your hopes to a pure lottery ticket.

On the Eli point, I understand the trouble letting him go. He's an all time great Giant. However, if the Giants were to go the route of all in in Eli the next two seasons, than anything less than at least one SB championship would have to be unacceptable to this fan base. Playoff appearances and early exists can and should be unacceptable, given that the Giants staff has sacrificed the next 15 years for just 2. Now ask yourself, this team has had a losing record 4 of the last 5 seasons, culminating in 13 losses last year. Is this team, even with Barkley, better than the Cowboys, Eagles, Rams, Saints, Steelers, Patriots, 49ers, Falcons, Panthers, etc. If that answer to that is no, I don't see how a SB championship is possible over the next two years. Then, you've passed up on one of the better qb classes in a while for an undesired result.

Now, I've read the counter point about simply trading up for a qb next year. This assumes two thing (1) a team is at the top of the draft that has its qb in place and (2) there is a qb worth drafting in the top 5. Now, if you follow college football closely and objectively, there is only 1 qb worthy of a top pick next year (Clayton Thornson), and if Rosen's injury history scares you, this guys will make you down right cringe. The other qbs out there are guys who were projected to be mid to late round picks this year (Lock and Finley) and went back to school in hopes of looking comparatively better in a weaker class. Is that what we all want, to trade up and sell the farm for a guy in the first round who would have been a 4th or 5th round pick this year? That is the definition of reaching. Something the Giants do not have to do this year, in a quality class. Now the Giants are truly stuck because Eli couldn't lead them to a title and Webb proves to be nothing more than a back up. That is where we enter a decade of medicority from which Barkley would not save the team.

McL...  
M.S. : 4/6/2018 12:20 pm : link

...fascinating post.

Lots and lots of food for thought.

Thanks for your work!
McL..  
M.S. : 4/6/2018 12:26 pm : link
...hit the return to quickly.

Wanted to simply add that there's a huge benefit to running the ball that's hard to quantify... if a defense must honor the run, it opens up huge swaths of open areas for the passing game.

And as an aside, it has driven me fricking crazy for the last 5 years that the Giants would be first and goal within the 5-yard line and go empty backfield. It was an invitation to the LBers to drop back, get your depth and forget about the possibility of a run.

Also, I sure wish the Giants could turn back the clock to when their QB would actually turn his back to the defense, fake a hand off and then drop back to pass. That can work with devastating effect, but it also depends on the defense honoring the run!!!
save it  
djm : 4/6/2018 12:35 pm : link
if the team thinks Barkley is a future pro bowl RB that won't come off the field, he's worth the highest pick.

Some of you over think this shit. The objective is to find star players that tilt the field. Guys that make plays against the best of the best. That's who you draft.

RB, WR, DL the hell cares. Ask the Rams if they'd give back Gurley. Ask Dallas if they'd give back the idiot Zeke Eliiot...well maybe they would...

Draft great players. Watch great players win games. Not hard.
Super solid post  
Thegratefulhead : 4/6/2018 12:41 pm : link
One of the best posts I have read here. Factual and supported. Very solid reasoning. It also supports my belief that the biggest problem the Giants have had for the last five years is their inability to convert 3rd & 4th and short in the running game. It is a drive killer.
RB's are Dinosaurs  
Giantslifer : 4/6/2018 1:56 pm : link
In todays NFL.
The game has moved on from 4yards and a cloud of turf. It is better to swing out a 5 yard pass and see if it turns into 20 yards ... TD.
Plus is sadder for the RB, instead of being tackled by a 300 lb DT, he is facing a CB
or slower LB.
Look at the dominant teams. NE, Philly, Pitt , MN they use interchangeable RB's . In Pitts case Bell receives as well as he runs up middle.
AS always if the OL is superior the RB will be. No RB can run behind a below average OL.
That is exactly why the GIANTS should NOT draft Barkley or QB in round 1.
Trade down and get OL/DL/LB set. Then worry about who is RB.
RE: RB's are Dinosaurs  
giants#1 : 4/6/2018 2:00 pm : link
In comment 13902883 Giantslifer said:
Quote:
In todays NFL.
The game has moved on from 4yards and a cloud of turf. It is better to swing out a 5 yard pass and see if it turns into 20 yards ... TD.
Plus is sadder for the RB, instead of being tackled by a 300 lb DT, he is facing a CB
or slower LB.
Look at the dominant teams. NE, Philly, Pitt , MN they use interchangeable RB's . In Pitts case Bell receives as well as he runs up middle.
AS always if the OL is superior the RB will be. No RB can run behind a below average OL.
That is exactly why the GIANTS should NOT draft Barkley or QB in round 1.
Trade down and get OL/DL/LB set. Then worry about who is RB.


Isn't the first part, combined with the success of NE's RBs, and to a lesser extent Phi's, catching the ball a reason to consider Barkley who excels catching the ball?

And I'd argue PHI/MN haven't had any sustained success (yet).
A team that "overthinks this shit"  
V.I.G. : 4/6/2018 2:01 pm : link
and makes bad roster construction decisions is the redskins.

the teams that overthink this shit make the playoffs.

great post, spot on analysis
- if you don't want a QB, that's fine, trade back
- but a RB at 2 is insane.
in other words  
giants#1 : 4/6/2018 2:06 pm : link
If leaning towards a pass heavy offense increases your odds of winning, then it follows that you'd want as many receiving weapons as possible to maximize your passing game. Thus, teams should give even more weight to RBs like McCaffrey last season or Barkley this year because of their proficiency out of the backfield.
RE: I have always been a big proponent of getting that  
Essex : 4/6/2018 2:11 pm : link
In comment 13902402 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
O as Dickerson, Sanders, Payton, Peterson and Elliott for example, did/have, you go for it, if available, imo.


Only one of these guys has a super bowl and he got his somewhat late in his career.
Put another way  
giants#1 : 4/6/2018 2:18 pm : link
here are the receiving stats for the Giants RBs in 2017:

97 rec, 129 tgts, 559 yards, 5.8 y/r, 4.3 y/t

Those yards/rec and yards/tgt numbers are roughly half what the top receiving backs (e.g. Gurley) produce and they were targeted on ~23% of Eli's passes last year so it wasn't insignificant. And before someone blames Eli for those shitty #s, Vereen averaged a respectable 8.5 yards/rec in 2015-16 (obviously with Eli) which was statistically equal to the 8.6 y/r he averaged in his final season in NE.

Drafting Barkley could upgrade the passing offense as much as the running offense.
You don't need stats  
arniefez : 4/6/2018 2:22 pm : link
RB's have a very short NFL shelf life and there is plenty of replacement supply. it's low priority position. So is WR. Almost everything has changed since George Young was the Giants GM in the 80's. Pretty much the only thing that hasn't is that you need a very good QB and very good lineman on both sides of the ball to win. The supply of those is way less than RB's & WR's.
RE: Great analysis and no doubt true.. But off point..  
LakeGeorgeGiant : 4/6/2018 2:42 pm : link
In comment 13902462 the mike said:
Quote:
Really appreciate your work here and can truly recognize and appreciate the love of a devout but oft suffering fellow Giant fan... No doubt the best fans in the world and it is an honor to be in the trenches with you every Sunday! And I, like the vast majority of fans on this site, do not disagree that the Quarterback position is by far the most important position in not only the NFL today, but in all of the major team sports. The running back position no doubt pales in comparison...

However! The central disagreement is that a large group of fans, like me, believe strongly that Eli, still has at least two and perhaps four more years of quality football left. Where others point to Eli as the cause of the Giants failures these past seven years, I point to poor coaching and a woeful supporting cast of personnel. Just as I disagreed with Tiki in 2006 that "the Giants cannot win with Eli", I disagree today with fans who believe he is either washed up or too old.

Additionally, Davis Webb is comparable to the top four Quarterback prospects in the draft - both in terms of college career and NFL potential talent. Please watch the 2013 Holiday Bowl, 2017 Senior Bowl, Pac 12 games against UCLA and USC. You simply cannot convince me that Webb, with some improved footwork and decision making, does not have the chance to be as good or better than any prospect in this year's draft. Since we already have him on the roster and since we still have at least two years of Eli, there is no reason for Gettleman to take the extraordinary binary risk of committing such a valuable draft pick on the complete unknown of another quarterback prospect. Yes, there may be a HOF prospect there. But there is just as likely several epic busts. The Giants simply do not need to take this risk.

I agree that running back is not the best choice for a top ten draft pick. But this is not just any running back - this is the best running back prospect ever to be graded in advance of the draft. And no doubt the best player available. Gettleman simply cannot do anything in this draft except take Barkley if he believes this or trade the pick for a haul of value if he does not. The second pick this year has enormous trade value to other teams who do not have the quarterback position already well covered... We can still get a HOF talent as well as several other top pics with this asset if he plays his cards right.

And this approach will be the shortest path to the next championship run... believe again my fellow suffering Sunday soldier - the days in the bleak wilderness are coming to an end!


Really having a hard time seeing Eli going 4 more years, that's just wishful thinking.

Having a harder time imagining the Giants giving him another contract.

The reality of the situation is that Eli will likely have one more season here. Cutting him then makes financial sense.

If he plays well this coming year they might keep him for his final contract year, but no way, no how would they extend him beyond that. It would simply be bad resource management. Barring a mental breakdown by Gettleman they won't throw any more money at Eli.

I think some of you want Eli to be the answer, and want Barkley so badly that you've let all reason go out the window. You believe what you want to believe and ignore all evidence.
RE: RE: RB's are Dinosaurs  
Giantslifer : 4/6/2018 3:47 pm : link
In comment 13902885 giants#1 said:
Quote:
In comment 13902883 Giantslifer said:


Quote:


In todays NFL.
The game has moved on from 4yards and a cloud of turf. It is better to swing out a 5 yard pass and see if it turns into 20 yards ... TD.
Plus is sadder for the RB, instead of being tackled by a 300 lb DT, he is facing a CB
or slower LB.
Look at the dominant teams. NE, Philly, Pitt , MN they use interchangeable RB's . In Pitts case Bell receives as well as he runs up middle.
AS always if the OL is superior the RB will be. No RB can run behind a below average OL.
That is exactly why the GIANTS should NOT draft Barkley or QB in round 1.
Trade down and get OL/DL/LB set. Then worry about who is RB.



Isn't the first part, combined with the success of NE's RBs, and to a lesser extent Phi's, catching the ball a reason to consider Barkley who excels catching the ball?

And I'd argue PHI/MN haven't had any sustained success (yet).


The point is their RB's are interchangeable. RB's have a short life, pick up the style you like in round3 or later.Build OL/DL/LB the rest will follow.
There will be a Barkley type next year, following year etc..
Build team from inside out.
had the 2016 Falcons won the Super Bowl  
santacruzom : 4/6/2018 4:02 pm : link
They would have become a recent team whose Championship could largely be attributed to their ability to run the ball well. But for some dumb-ass reason, they decided not to keep feeding Freeman when it was apparent early that he was going to tear the Pats' defense apart.
Sorry, been busy and unable to respond until now  
.McL. : 4/6/2018 4:11 pm : link
Some of the responses I have seen

1. This analysis doesn't apply to a player as special as Barkley.
Yes it does. It applies to Tomlinson and Peterson. If it applies to them, it applies to Barkley. As a rusher Barkley has had a large number of negative or 0 yardage plays as compare to other backs in this draft. I have seen such analysis before, sorry I don't have the link, but its out there. As a rusher he is exactly the type that does NOT help. We have all watched enough football for this to make sense. How often have you seen a stat like <insert great RB> has only 18 yards on 12 carries today, the defense is doing a great job of sopping the run. Then the team is on the 20 and <insert great RB> rips off a 60 yard run that leads to a field goal. Suddenly <insert great RB>'s stat line looks pretty good, 78 yards on 13 carries over 6 YPC. The question is how many drives stalled during those first 12 carries? 4? 5? Those stalled drives hurt far more than the 60 yarder helped. Now that team is a couple scores behind and starts throwing. The defense backs off. <insert great RB> gets a few more carries getting a few good runs, gaining another 25 yards on 5 carries for a final stat line of 18 carries for 103 yards. But his team just can't catch up, because it has too few possessions left. That great RB had great stats but he hurt his team that day! The highlight reel runs are fun, but they come at a cost of far too many drive stalling failed plays.

Also, RB success in the NFL is very different from college. Defenders are faster and stronger. A great RB can't dominate the way they can in college. In fact the studies show that successful running plays are far more the product of a great OL than the product of a great RB. Soif you really want to run the ball well, build a great OL, like Dallas has. Or that Seattle had in the Marshawn Lynch days. You will be more successful for a smaller investment, and that investment will directly pay dividends in the passing game also.

2. Wouldn't this argue that the ideal RB be a FB who gains 2 YPC, block well and has good hands, if so then why is the position being phased out?
Actually I think that RB is pretty close to the ideal. The problem is you don't want 2 of those on the field at the same time. You want more players that provide a dynamic passing attack. But a cheap guy that can bull for 2 yards consistently especially on short yardage, can block and has good hands is ideal. A guy like Blount... Who just so happens to have 3 rings!

3. This would not apply to Barkley because he is such a good receiver.
To a certain extent I agree with this. As I said above I think Marshall Faulk had a greater impact on the passing game than he did the running game for the Rams. However, Barkley will still have to carry the ball some, and will still take a lot of wear and tear and will likely start breaking down early. He will likely command a huge contract at some point, but at that point he is shelf life will dictate that he won't really be worth it.

4. It depends on how you build your team, a great RB can really help a team that wants to control the clock and have a strong defense.
Ok... This is mixing stuff up. Having a great defense is a good thing whether you want to run the ball or throw the ball. Its never a bad idea to have a great defense. In other words there is no correlation between having a great defense and the type of offense you have to be successful. Running the ball and controlling the clock is not really a good recipe for winning. You still need to be efficient in the passing game. I didn't link them, but there are studies that show that there is a correlation between time of possession and winning. However, deeper analysis shows that that correlation does not hold in the early parts of the game when a team is building a lead. At that point in the game, there is almost no correlation. In fact, I think I saw one that showed s slight negative correlation. What that means is that teams that are winning, will run the ball more, and and increase their time of possession to help get the game over and get the win. In other words winning leads to time of possession, time of possession does not lead to winning. Its too hard to string together long series of 14 - 16 plays running down the field. At some point you have a bad play and find yourself in a hole. I would argue that teams that win with great defense and strong running games and a less than ideal passing attack, win because their defense is so good it overcomes the deficiencies of the offense. As a Giants fan, you should be all too familiar with this scenario. About the only team I can think of that falls in this category that has won it all was the 2000 Ravens. And before you say what about the Seahawks... Go check their passing efficiency, it was pretty darn good! 63.6% Completion rate, 27 TD, 9 ints, 8.4 yards per attempt, QB rate of 101.2!!!

Its no accident that the Patriots win and win consistently. They don't overpay for skill positions other than QB. They focus on building a good OL, having a great QB, and a defense that doesn't give up points (even if it gives up yards).



Very nice effort...  
bw in dc : 4/6/2018 4:29 pm : link
The other problem with RBs is the decline of Oline play in the running game. See that article Eric posted the other day.

The majority of the college product - olinemen - spend so much time in pass protection mode that their run/driving blocking techniques are either completely broken or the learning curve to fix them is much, much longer.

More responses  
.McL. : 4/6/2018 4:40 pm : link
How can ANY great player NOT help the team that drafts him?
I think I have addressed this alread... People call a RB great when they have lots of highlight reel plays. The problem is the highlights usually come with a lot a bad plays too. Read my post above... Furthermore, its not just about the short term benefit. Yes there is likely to be short term gains. But sustained winning gives you a greater chance of winning SBs, see the Patriots, and any other period dominated by a dynasty. RBs simply don't last long enough at an elite level to justify the draft capital or the cap dollars.

Having hard.. and fast rules rarely work out well. The best teams are the ones who can be fluid.... If you have a defensive oriented team, having a solid RB is a key. You only have to look back at the seahawks with Marshawn as an indication of this. Look at what happened to the Cowboys once Elliott was gone
Sure, teams should be fluid, tailor their game to the players they have. The question here is, when you have the choice, where do you spend draft capital and cap dollars to increase your probability of winning. If you happen to get a great RB in the 6th round... Wonderful, use him while you can. How long did Seattle sustain greatness? And as I pointed out above, Seattle had a pretty darn good passing game, and that correlates to winning much moreso than running efficiency. As Seattles OL deteriorated, so did their ability to win. The argument here has been to invest in the OL rather than RB. I think Seattle is an excellent example of this. Was Lynch's success due to a great OL or visa versa. Lynch was good, but was he nearly as successful before he got to the Seahawks? Which led to the great running game do you think the OL or the RB?
As for Dallas and Elliot... I think MetsAreBack already nailed it. Actually they barely missed a beat until their All Pro tackle Tryon Smith went down. THAT had a huge impact.

just shows that people can't knock Barkley as a prospect they can only come up with convoluted theories about why you should NEVER EVER draft a RB 2nd. Truth is they guy has been compared to LaDanian Tomlinson or Marshall Faulk and I am sorry there is no statistic out there can reasonably convince anyone that having Marshall Faulk on this current Giants team wouldn't help them win games.
I mentioned Faulk in my post, he is an outlier here. And as I said that is largely due to his impact on the passing game. And I agree players like Faulk to help teams win. But most will still have a short shelf life, and will command too much salary cap after their rookie contract is up. The links show that paying RBs is a disasterous way to build a team. There are always exceptions, but gambling on them is not a good idea. If you go to the roulette table and always bet on 00, yeah you will have some huge wins once in a while. But you will more likely lose money fast.

Wanted to simply add that there's a huge benefit to running the ball that's hard to quantify... if a defense must honor the run, it opens up huge swaths of open areas for the passing game.
Actually its not that hard to quantify. Some of the studies I linked attempt to do this. And the threat of a running game is included in my analysis. But the key is to not lose yards.

as many receiving weapons as possible to maximize your passing game. Thus, teams should give even more weight to RBs like McCaffrey last season or Barkley
Back to the recieving back. Yes these have a higher correlation of winning because they impact the passing game. Like Marshall Faulk. But they still have a short lifespan. There has only ever been only player like Marshall Faulk who was on a team that won it all. A truly elite RB who is alo great in the passing game. Faulk is special case. And he was on a team loaded with offensive talent, including a great OL. Betting on that singular type of player to come again is not a good way to allocate your resources. Low probability of success. Injuries being a major concern here...
RE: Very nice effort...  
.McL. : 4/6/2018 4:42 pm : link
In comment 13903103 bw in dc said:
Quote:
The other problem with RBs is the decline of Oline play in the running game. See that article Eric posted the other day.

The majority of the college product - olinemen - spend so much time in pass protection mode that their run/driving blocking techniques are either completely broken or the learning curve to fix them is much, much longer.


Yes, I agree with this as well... I have been posting articles about the decline of oline play as well... I just didn't start a separate thread. Although I have been considering a post like this with lots of links....

The question in my mind is how to fix the problem.
One more thing to be clear on  
.McL. : 4/6/2018 5:29 pm : link
This is all about how you choose to spend Draft capital and cap dollars, and the PROBABILITY that your choices will lead to winning.

Sure if you find you have a great RB on your roster (and a great RB should be one that has a high YPC, and very few 0 or negative plays, blocks and has good hands) and he is not costing you an arm and a leg against the cap, I am not suggesting that you get rid of the player as fast as possible. Nor am I suggesting that you don't use him and take advantage of his talents. But that is not the question.

The question is, should you spend draft capital and cap dollars on such a player. The math clearly shows that if you do, you are betting on long odds, your PROBABILITY of success is low.
And finally...  
.McL. : 4/6/2018 5:44 pm : link
There are still some hardcore Barkley fans here...

Can any of you show me any evidence whatsoever that taking a player such as Barkley high in the draft INCREASES your probability of winning.

Something other than you gut and fandom...

I have linked a mountain of evidence to show otherwise. Evidence that says that even if Barkley is the player you think he is, that the team that picks him is not likely to win more over the long term.

Show me evidence to back up your claim!
I was encouraged by Gettleman's statements during his introductory  
baadbill : 4/6/2018 6:11 pm : link
news conference (at least I think it was that one) ... when he stated his philosophy hasn't changed ... building a great team starts and ends with (1) being able to control the LOS and run the ball; (2) stopping the run and making your opponent one dimensional.

I don't care what team you are, if your opponent is successfully running the ball and totally shutting down your running game - you are almost certainly going to lose.

I do not interpret Gettleman's statements to be a belief in running backs. Rather, it is a belief in physicality; a philosophy of ball control; and controlling both sides of the LOS (i.e. big men). But he made it very clear: his focus will be very much on running the ball on offense and stopping the run on defense.
Also, the myth that the NFL is a passing game today  
baadbill : 4/6/2018 6:26 pm : link
is exactly that. A myth. Not that it isn't a passing game. Because it most certainly is. Rather, it's a myth by the implication that there was a time when it wasn't (and that is true back in the 1930s and 40's when passing was against the rules).

But as far back as the 1950s up until today, the greatest players were mostly QBs. The greatest teams had great QBs. Johnny U didn't become famous because he was good at handing the ball off to the RB. The same for every other QB whose names are still legendary right up until today. There is a reason their names are legendary (hint: it had nothing to do with the way they threw screen passes).

To suggest that the importance of the passing game is of relatively recent origin is to ignore the importance of every great QB in the HOF. Sure, the rules have changed to make the passing game easier - but that doesn't mean it wasn't important.

And as Gettleman said in his news conference - running the ball and stopping the run are key ingredients to winning - and that has always been true in the QB oriented league that the NFL has always been.
RE: I was encouraged by Gettleman's statements during his introductory  
.McL. : 4/6/2018 6:27 pm : link
In comment 13903166 baadbill said:
Quote:
news conference (at least I think it was that one) ... when he stated his philosophy hasn't changed ... building a great team starts and ends with (1) being able to control the LOS and run the ball; (2) stopping the run and making your opponent one dimensional.

I don't care what team you are, if your opponent is successfully running the ball and totally shutting down your running game - you are almost certainly going to lose.

I do not interpret Gettleman's statements to be a belief in running backs. Rather, it is a belief in physicality; a philosophy of ball control; and controlling both sides of the LOS (i.e. big men). But he made it very clear: his focus will be very much on running the ball on offense and stopping the run on defense.


And the best way to do that is through building the offensive and defensive lines, which pays dividends in the passing game/defending the passing game.

Gettleman has been pretty clear he favors building teams from the trenches out.

One thing to be clear about, the analysis done isolates the running game. It shows that an efficient running game without an efficient passing game is a recipe for losing. Much of the analysis shows that you can win with an efficient passing game and sub optimal running game. But while there is nothing in the analysis about having both an efficient running game together with an efficient passing game, I am certain that if such an analysis was done, that having both would have an extremely high correlation with winning. Offensive production in general has a high correlation with winning, surprisingly higher than defensive production.
Here's Gettleman's actual statement:  
baadbill : 4/6/2018 6:39 pm : link
Quote:
In terms of team building, I’m old fashioned. Offense scores points, defense wins championships. There’s been six matchups, I believe, in the Super Bowl of No. 1 offenses versus No. 1 defenses and the defenses have won five of the six. So, I truly believe in that. I’m going to say this right now, style of offense has changed; obviously there’s that college influence, so obviously the style of defense has changed to a certain degree. But, at the end of the day, it’s the same three things you had to do in ’35 that you got to do now in 2018. You got to run the ball. You got to stop the run. You got to pressure the passer. Everywhere I’ve been and with the great teams that I’ve been associated with – those were three very big staples. Another philosophy about team building, Tom said it to me. Tom Coughlin said it to me my first year, his first when he came in here. He said big men allow you to compete, and that’s really just so true. The o-line and the d-line, I believe in the hog mollies. We’ve had some great groups here, had great groups everywhere I’ve been, and we’re going to get back to that. They do allow you to compete.

Link - ( New Window )
RE: Elliott/Fournette/Gurley  
One Man Thrill Ride : 4/6/2018 6:59 pm : link
In comment 13902555 giants#1 said:
Quote:
Elliott - I think Elliott and the 'boys are a special case because of how dominant their running game is, partly due to the OL. Losing Elliott hurt because he had a higher percentage of "successful runs" than their other RBs, which is correlated with wins (see one of the articles).

Fournette - keep in mind the Jags went 3-0 without him last season.

Gurley - he's arguably more impactful in the receiving game (64 rec, 788 yds, 6 TDs, 12.3 y/r) then the running game and thus likely had a significant impact on the passing efficiency of the Rams too. Goff averaged 8.0 y/a overall but a tad over 9.0 y/a when targeting Gurley.


Original poster. McLovin' -- THRILL RIDES LOVES YOUR STYLE.

You typed a lot of words to defend your stance; the Thrill Ride will piggyback off of this post to condense your argument.

1. The opportunity cost at #2 is monumental.
2. The depth of RB talent both in this class and across the league is significant.
3a. RBs have comparatively short careers due to the brutality of the position
3b. Star RBs are a blessing and a curse because the cost of their second contract (and impending physical decline) defies the team-building economics that Warren Sharp outlined in your addendum.

(1) Opportunity Cost. This one is easy. As great as Saquon could be, sacrificing a long-term solution at QB for perhaps a half decade of elite RB production amounts to poor investing.

(2) Along the line of opportunity cost, difference-making RBs are not difficult to find. Ezekiel Elliot is great, but the Dallas Cowboys would be a better team with Jalen Ramsey (pick 1.05) and Derrick Henry. Similarly, as giants#1 noted, Fournette's team didn't miss a beat without him. In fact, all the other RBs on the Jags were more effective on a per play basis; meanwhile, star RBs like Alvin Kamara, Dalvin Cook, and Kareem Hunt were all picked out the top-50. Even Todd Gurley was rendered an afterthought during the Rams atrocity of 2016, further proof that an elite RB brings less value added in today's game; btw David Johnson was picked 86th in Gurley's draft class.

(3a) Short careers. They get tackled a lot and subsequently injured at much higher rate than other positions. The data speaks for itself.

(3b) Cost of Second Contract. The Steelers are living this double-edged sword with Le'Veon Bell. They clearly don't want to commit long-term dollars to a guy with so much existing mileage. The economics of the league have changed dramatically, and RBs are not highly valued. Paying someone $14M when you can get 80% of his contribution for a fraction of that cost -- negative team-building model.
any attempt  
santacruzom : 4/6/2018 7:25 pm : link
to establish probability of whether players picked high in the draft will help their team win a Championship has to consider that:

-most teams who pick high in the draft earn such a high pick by sucking, and:
-most teams that suck in one year sucked in years prior, and will suck in years after, because:
-a lot of teams in the NFL suck and suck for a long time, on account of being owned, run, and/or coached by morons for long periods of time.
RE: RE: Elliott/Fournette/Gurley  
.McL. : 4/6/2018 7:27 pm : link
In comment 13903200 One Man Thrill Ride said:
Quote:
In comment 13902555 giants#1 said:


Quote:


Elliott - I think Elliott and the 'boys are a special case because of how dominant their running game is, partly due to the OL. Losing Elliott hurt because he had a higher percentage of "successful runs" than their other RBs, which is correlated with wins (see one of the articles).

Fournette - keep in mind the Jags went 3-0 without him last season.

Gurley - he's arguably more impactful in the receiving game (64 rec, 788 yds, 6 TDs, 12.3 y/r) then the running game and thus likely had a significant impact on the passing efficiency of the Rams too. Goff averaged 8.0 y/a overall but a tad over 9.0 y/a when targeting Gurley.



Original poster. McLovin' -- THRILL RIDES LOVES YOUR STYLE.

You typed a lot of words to defend your stance; the Thrill Ride will piggyback off of this post to condense your argument.

1. The opportunity cost at #2 is monumental.
2. The depth of RB talent both in this class and across the league is significant.
3a. RBs have comparatively short careers due to the brutality of the position
3b. Star RBs are a blessing and a curse because the cost of their second contract (and impending physical decline) defies the team-building economics that Warren Sharp outlined in your addendum.

(1) Opportunity Cost. This one is easy. As great as Saquon could be, sacrificing a long-term solution at QB for perhaps a half decade of elite RB production amounts to poor investing.

(2) Along the line of opportunity cost, difference-making RBs are not difficult to find. Ezekiel Elliot is great, but the Dallas Cowboys would be a better team with Jalen Ramsey (pick 1.05) and Derrick Henry. Similarly, as giants#1 noted, Fournette's team didn't miss a beat without him. In fact, all the other RBs on the Jags were more effective on a per play basis; meanwhile, star RBs like Alvin Kamara, Dalvin Cook, and Kareem Hunt were all picked out the top-50. Even Todd Gurley was rendered an afterthought during the Rams atrocity of 2016, further proof that an elite RB brings less value added in today's game; btw David Johnson was picked 86th in Gurley's draft class.

(3a) Short careers. They get tackled a lot and subsequently injured at much higher rate than other positions. The data speaks for itself.

(3b) Cost of Second Contract. The Steelers are living this double-edged sword with Le'Veon Bell. They clearly don't want to commit long-term dollars to a guy with so much existing mileage. The economics of the league have changed dramatically, and RBs are not highly valued. Paying someone $14M when you can get 80% of his contribution for a fraction of that cost -- negative team-building model.


Thank you Thrill Ride... One thing... the is another poster name McLovin... I am just .McL.

And thank you for summarizing.

Although I didn't say anything about QBs, the data does lead to the belief that investments made in QBs and OLs have a much higher probability to leading to success than RBs.

Some of the data suggests that investing in star WRs does not pay off either. My gut tends to disagree with that, and would need to research it more thoroughly. But there is some empirical/anecdotal evidence that having good but not great WRs along with a very good OL and a very good QB is a winning formula.
RE: any attempt  
.McL. : 4/6/2018 7:38 pm : link
In comment 13903231 santacruzom said:
Quote:
to establish probability of whether players picked high in the draft will help their team win a Championship has to consider that:

-most teams who pick high in the draft earn such a high pick by sucking, and:
-most teams that suck in one year sucked in years prior, and will suck in years after, because:
-a lot of teams in the NFL suck and suck for a long time, on account of being owned, run, and/or coached by morons for long periods of time.


My contention is that RBs should not be picked anywhere in the first round. That kind of belies your argument about teams that suck.... Good team pick in the first round too. Furthermore, I recommend against picking RBs even in the 2nd round.

That numbers show that it really doesn't matter what round an RB is picked, their rushing production is about the same. The evidence strongly suggests that the offensive line is the far more critical component to a strong running game than is the RB. This can be easily explained. The skills that allowed a RB to dominate on the college level, speed, quickness, cutting ability vision are far less impactful at the pro level. Defenders are faster, quicker and stronger across the board. The variability of college athletes is far greater than at the pro level. So its easier to pick on certain players and their weaknesses. Defensive schemes at the pro level are far more sophisticated and capable of taking away large running lanes. Teams that run successfully are able to block better... The RB is secondary to the success of the play. In other words, even great RBs need good blocking. But if you have good blocking, you don't need a great RB...
Really fine posts..  
Q v2.0 : 4/6/2018 8:33 pm : link
..Just a thought with no impending consequences, for the Giants to take RB Barkley at #2, someone in the room will have to convince John Mara that this list of past expenditures of draft gold on first round RBs, is a thing of the past, and that Barkley will be the best first round RB since Rocky Thompson.

Player, Year, Pick in the first round.
Butch Woolfork 1982 18
George Adams 1985 19
Rodney Hampton 1990 24
Jarrod Bunch 1991 27
Tyrone Wheatley 1995 17
Ron Dayne 2000 11

Man, I thought Bunch, Wheatley, and Dayne would just pound the division into the playoffs. Not arguing against taking a RB at #2 in this quality of a draft.
RE: Why do so many insist there is still a  
.McL. : 4/6/2018 9:59 pm : link
In comment 13902467 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
way to win in the NFL? Go back through all the past Superbowl champions and you will see teams built many different ways. All of this analysis is interesting, but nobody is going to show the "right" way to build a winner.


Well, the data I linked does not show the that there is singular sublime formula for building a winning team. It does however show that there are certainly WRONG formulas... Overpaying at RB is shown without a doubt to be the WRONG formula. If you overpay at RB and still win, you are lucky, not smart.
RE: I commend you for your hard work in  
.McL. : 4/6/2018 11:42 pm : link
In comment 13902404 DonnieD89 said:
Quote:
putting together your post; however, like another poster said, every team is different and teams that win super bowls are all built differently. Statistics cannot accurately predicts that. Just because Barkley is a RB, doesn't mean they can,t use him as a receiver and limit his carries to 15. That's how Marshall Faulk was able to play longer. Saquon Barkley is not just a RB. He is a 3 weapon that can be used in different ways.


I'm sorry Donnie, but this does not seem to be well thought out... Are you really saying you want to invest so much draft capital and so much cap space in what amounts to a part time player. How much impact will he really have on a game in this case?
RE: And finally...  
giants#1 : 4/7/2018 7:05 am : link
In comment 13903150 .McL. said:
Quote:


Can any of you show me any evidence whatsoever that taking a player such as Barkley high in the draft INCREASES your probability of winning.


- The Giants averaged a (pitiful) 6.1 yards/attempt and 9.9 yards/completion last season. Both good for 31st in the league
- Their top RBs (Vereen/Gallman/Darkwa/Perkins) combined for 105 rec on 139 tgts for 608 yards (5.79 y/r and 4.37 y/a)
- The 139 tgts were 23% of the team's total
- Case 1 (average RB): Increasing the y/r to 9.0 (18th in the league for RBs with >20 rec, so roughly average) would increase the team's y/r to 10.77 and the team's y/a to 6.61. That would've ranked them 26th in Y/R and 25th in Y/A respectively.
- Case 2 (Kamara like rookie production): Barkley's expected stats would be Y/R = 10.2 and Y/T = 8.26. The team's numbers would improve to: Y/R = 11.11 and Y/T = 6.81

So just getting 'average' production from the RBs in the passing game, would've provided an 8% improvement in the team's overall yards/reception numbers and ranked them 5-6 spots higher in that category which the article you linked states is the stat most correlated with wins:

Quote:
The regression coefficients are stated in terms of wins per unit of the variable. For example, the coefficient for offensive pass efficiency (yds/att) is 1.43. So for every 1 yard improvement in pass efficiency a team can expect 1.43 additional wins.


So by simply upgrading the RB to an average pass catcher, the Giants would add ~0.7 wins. If Barkley were to have a Kamara-like season (still only 9th best), then you could expect them to add ~1.0 win. And that's solely due to his ability in the passing game and ignores secondary effects that he might have such as providing Beckham/Shepard/Engram with more space so that they could improve their Y/R numbers.


Link - ( New Window )
So by this research ...  
FStubbs : 4/7/2018 7:55 am : link
You'd actually have more value picking Nelson #2 than Barkley.
RE: RE: And finally...  
.McL. : 4/7/2018 9:52 am : link
In comment 13903743 giants#1 said:
Quote:
In comment 13903150 .McL. said:


Quote:




Can any of you show me any evidence whatsoever that taking a player such as Barkley high in the draft INCREASES your probability of winning.




- The Giants averaged a (pitiful) 6.1 yards/attempt and 9.9 yards/completion last season. Both good for 31st in the league
- Their top RBs (Vereen/Gallman/Darkwa/Perkins) combined for 105 rec on 139 tgts for 608 yards (5.79 y/r and 4.37 y/a)
- The 139 tgts were 23% of the team's total
- Case 1 (average RB): Increasing the y/r to 9.0 (18th in the league for RBs with >20 rec, so roughly average) would increase the team's y/r to 10.77 and the team's y/a to 6.61. That would've ranked them 26th in Y/R and 25th in Y/A respectively.
- Case 2 (Kamara like rookie production): Barkley's expected stats would be Y/R = 10.2 and Y/T = 8.26. The team's numbers would improve to: Y/R = 11.11 and Y/T = 6.81

So just getting 'average' production from the RBs in the passing game, would've provided an 8% improvement in the team's overall yards/reception numbers and ranked them 5-6 spots higher in that category which the article you linked states is the stat most correlated with wins:



Quote:


The regression coefficients are stated in terms of wins per unit of the variable. For example, the coefficient for offensive pass efficiency (yds/att) is 1.43. So for every 1 yard improvement in pass efficiency a team can expect 1.43 additional wins.



So by simply upgrading the RB to an average pass catcher, the Giants would add ~0.7 wins. If Barkley were to have a Kamara-like season (still only 9th best), then you could expect them to add ~1.0 win. And that's solely due to his ability in the passing game and ignores secondary effects that he might have such as providing Beckham/Shepard/Engram with more space so that they could improve their Y/R numbers.
Link - ( New Window )


You get average production from improving the line not the RB...
RE: So by this research ...  
.McL. : 4/7/2018 9:53 am : link
In comment 13903761 FStubbs said:
Quote:
You'd actually have more value picking Nelson #2 than Barkley.


You probably would... I don't think a guard is enough value though.
RE: RE: any attempt  
the mike : 4/7/2018 10:33 am : link
In comment 13903248 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13903231 santacruzom said:


Quote:


to establish probability of whether players picked high in the draft will help their team win a Championship has to consider that:

-most teams who pick high in the draft earn such a high pick by sucking, and:
-most teams that suck in one year sucked in years prior, and will suck in years after, because:
-a lot of teams in the NFL suck and suck for a long time, on account of being owned, run, and/or coached by morons for long periods of time.



My contention is that RBs should not be picked anywhere in the first round. That kind of belies your argument about teams that suck.... Good team pick in the first round too. Furthermore, I recommend against picking RBs even in the 2nd round.

That numbers show that it really doesn't matter what round an RB is picked, their rushing production is about the same. The evidence strongly suggests that the offensive line is the far more critical component to a strong running game than is the RB. This can be easily explained. The skills that allowed a RB to dominate on the college level, speed, quickness, cutting ability vision are far less impactful at the pro level. Defenders are faster, quicker and stronger across the board. The variability of college athletes is far greater than at the pro level. So its easier to pick on certain players and their weaknesses. Defensive schemes at the pro level are far more sophisticated and capable of taking away large running lanes. Teams that run successfully are able to block better... The RB is secondary to the success of the play. In other words, even great RBs need good blocking. But if you have good blocking, you don't need a great RB...



Again, this analysis is true as a general rule only and is for all intents and purposes not applicable in practice. The decision point is always the risk and return choice of the two players involved and completely depends on who is taken instead of the running back. If Ki-Jana Carter is taken #1 ahead of Steve McNair at #3, as it happened in 1995, then it is unequivocally true. But there are literally dozens of examples of brutal mistakes in selecting quarterbacks ahead of running backs in the top 10 during the super bowl era: (just a few examples below)

1) 1967 49ers take Steve Spurrier leave HOF Floyd Little to Broncos at #6
2) 1975 Falcons take Steve Bartkowski #1 and leave HOF Walter Payton to Bears at #4
3) 1982 Colts take Art Schlichter #3 and leave HOF Marcus Allen to Raiders at #10
4) 1999 Browns take Tim Couch #1 AND Bengals take Akili Smith #3 and leave future HOF Edgerrin James to Colts at #4
5) 2007 Raiders take JaMarcus Russell #1 and leave future HOF Adrian Peterson to Vikings at #7

Since the 2006 draft, there have been 9 running backs selected within the top 10 - only one, Trent Richardson, has been a bust. Two are virtually certain HOF players (Peterson and Gurley) and two others (Elliott and Spiller) have been pro bowl players. Bush, McFadden, Fournette and McCaffrey have been or will be, at the very least, very solid players in the league.

During this same period, there have been 20 quarterbacks selected within the top 10. Six have been busts: Locker, RGIII, Russell, Young, Leinart and Gabbert; five are solid starters who have not or will likely not achieve their top 10 billing: Bradford, Sanchez, Tannehill, Winston and Mariota; five are pro bowl quarterbacks - Ryan, Stafford, Newton, Wentz and Goff; two are unknown - Trubiski and Mahomes; and only one appears to be a future HOF - Luck, though this is by no means certain.

In advance of any draft, a highly graded running back has a virtual certain "high level of return" whereas a highly graded quarterback has a virtually certain "unknown level of return". In the current situation, the risk of selecting one of the four quarterback prospects over the much higher graded Barkley is just not justified or necessary given Manning and Webb already covering the quarterback position...
RE: RE: Great analysis and no doubt true.. But off point..  
the mike : 4/7/2018 10:47 am : link
In comment 13902586 lax counsel said:
Quote:
In comment 13902462 the mike said:


Quote:


Really appreciate your work here and can truly recognize and appreciate the love of a devout but oft suffering fellow Giant fan... No doubt the best fans in the world and it is an honor to be in the trenches with you every Sunday! And I, like the vast majority of fans on this site, do not disagree that the Quarterback position is by far the most important position in not only the NFL today, but in all of the major team sports. The running back position no doubt pales in comparison...

However! The central disagreement is that a large group of fans, like me, believe strongly that Eli, still has at least two and perhaps four more years of quality football left. Where others point to Eli as the cause of the Giants failures these past seven years, I point to poor coaching and a woeful supporting cast of personnel. Just as I disagreed with Tiki in 2006 that "the Giants cannot win with Eli", I disagree today with fans who believe he is either washed up or too old.

Additionally, Davis Webb is comparable to the top four Quarterback prospects in the draft - both in terms of college career and NFL potential talent. Please watch the 2013 Holiday Bowl, 2017 Senior Bowl, Pac 12 games against UCLA and USC. You simply cannot convince me that Webb, with some improved footwork and decision making, does not have the chance to be as good or better than any prospect in this year's draft. Since we already have him on the roster and since we still have at least two years of Eli, there is no reason for Gettleman to take the extraordinary binary risk of committing such a valuable draft pick on the complete unknown of another quarterback prospect. Yes, there may be a HOF prospect there. But there is just as likely several epic busts. The Giants simply do not need to take this risk.

I agree that running back is not the best choice for a top ten draft pick. But this is not just any running back - this is the best running back prospect ever to be graded in advance of the draft. And no doubt the best player available. Gettleman simply cannot do anything in this draft except take Barkley if he believes this or trade the pick for a haul of value if he does not. The second pick this year has enormous trade value to other teams who do not have the quarterback position already well covered... We can still get a HOF talent as well as several other top pics with this asset if he plays his cards right.

And this approach will be the shortest path to the next championship run... believe again my fellow suffering Sunday soldier - the days in the bleak wilderness are coming to an end!




Very nice analysis by the OP. And, I agree with many of your points as well. However, I could not disagree more with Davis Webb. He isn't on the same okaner as the top 2 to 4 qbs in this draft. I watched many of his FULL game tapes and can assure you that the draft analysis of him is highly accurate. He has tremendous issues throwing the ball over 10 yards to, his accuracy is not NFL quality. Second, he has little to no pocket awareness, is often clumsy and seems to not feel the rush at all. Third, he failed to even read a basic defense. I understand the offense was not designed to give him multiple reads, but he couldn't even discern when a CB was strong on his primary target, and would still force the ball .

These are the primary reasons why most scouts had him pegged as a career backup, with which I can't disagree. This is why he was a late third round pick, and was probably a reach at that point. Unfortunately, given his flaws, he's probably more Ryan Nassib than Russell Wilson. It's not prudent to pin your hopes to a pure lottery ticket.

On the Eli point, I understand the trouble letting him go. He's an all time great Giant. However, if the Giants were to go the route of all in in Eli the next two seasons, than anything less than at least one SB championship would have to be unacceptable to this fan base. Playoff appearances and early exists can and should be unacceptable, given that the Giants staff has sacrificed the next 15 years for just 2. Now ask yourself, this team has had a losing record 4 of the last 5 seasons, culminating in 13 losses last year. Is this team, even with Barkley, better than the Cowboys, Eagles, Rams, Saints, Steelers, Patriots, 49ers, Falcons, Panthers, etc. If that answer to that is no, I don't see how a SB championship is possible over the next two years. Then, you've passed up on one of the better qb classes in a while for an undesired result.

Now, I've read the counter point about simply trading up for a qb next year. This assumes two thing (1) a team is at the top of the draft that has its qb in place and (2) there is a qb worth drafting in the top 5. Now, if you follow college football closely and objectively, there is only 1 qb worthy of a top pick next year (Clayton Thornson), and if Rosen's injury history scares you, this guys will make you down right cringe. The other qbs out there are guys who were projected to be mid to late round picks this year (Lock and Finley) and went back to school in hopes of looking comparatively better in a weaker class. Is that what we all want, to trade up and sell the farm for a guy in the first round who would have been a 4th or 5th round pick this year? That is the definition of reaching. Something the Giants do not have to do this year, in a quality class. Now the Giants are truly stuck because Eli couldn't lead them to a title and Webb proves to be nothing more than a back up. That is where we enter a decade of medicority from which Barkley would not save the team.


Very fair points and I do not disagree with your description of the 2017 Davis Webb... he may even have been a reach in the third round. His footwork and decision making were not good... but I would argue that CAL was not very good and he only had one year to learn the system. But I believe he is the type of kid who has a very high ceiling and can grow. So we will see where he is this summer and can only assume that Gettleman and Shurmur will have some certainty on April 26th...

The one thing that is important here is that we do not need a HOF quarterback to win a super bowl, which is the goal every year and must be unacceptable to Giants fans every season - including this upcoming season. Jeff Hostetler was not a great quarterback and had lots of flaws, but he did just fine in leading the team in 1990 to our second super bowl. Nick Foles, another third rounder, had a terrific late season run in leading the Eagles this past year. We do not necessarily need Andrew Luck or Dan Marino to win a super bowl in the even that Eli cannot perform in the next 2-4 years... Webb may be just as good as Hostetler, Foles, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer etc. if he has the right supporting cast...
RE: RE: RE: any attempt  
.McL. : 4/7/2018 12:35 pm : link
In comment 13903890 the mike said:
Quote:
In comment 13903248 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13903231 santacruzom said:


Quote:


to establish probability of whether players picked high in the draft will help their team win a Championship has to consider that:

-most teams who pick high in the draft earn such a high pick by sucking, and:
-most teams that suck in one year sucked in years prior, and will suck in years after, because:
-a lot of teams in the NFL suck and suck for a long time, on account of being owned, run, and/or coached by morons for long periods of time.



My contention is that RBs should not be picked anywhere in the first round. That kind of belies your argument about teams that suck.... Good team pick in the first round too. Furthermore, I recommend against picking RBs even in the 2nd round.

That numbers show that it really doesn't matter what round an RB is picked, their rushing production is about the same. The evidence strongly suggests that the offensive line is the far more critical component to a strong running game than is the RB. This can be easily explained. The skills that allowed a RB to dominate on the college level, speed, quickness, cutting ability vision are far less impactful at the pro level. Defenders are faster, quicker and stronger across the board. The variability of college athletes is far greater than at the pro level. So its easier to pick on certain players and their weaknesses. Defensive schemes at the pro level are far more sophisticated and capable of taking away large running lanes. Teams that run successfully are able to block better... The RB is secondary to the success of the play. In other words, even great RBs need good blocking. But if you have good blocking, you don't need a great RB...




Again, this analysis is true as a general rule only and is for all intents and purposes not applicable in practice. The decision point is always the risk and return choice of the two players involved and completely depends on who is taken instead of the running back. If Ki-Jana Carter is taken #1 ahead of Steve McNair at #3, as it happened in 1995, then it is unequivocally true. But there are literally dozens of examples of brutal mistakes in selecting quarterbacks ahead of running backs in the top 10 during the super bowl era: (just a few examples below)

1) 1967 49ers take Steve Spurrier leave HOF Floyd Little to Broncos at #6
2) 1975 Falcons take Steve Bartkowski #1 and leave HOF Walter Payton to Bears at #4
3) 1982 Colts take Art Schlichter #3 and leave HOF Marcus Allen to Raiders at #10
4) 1999 Browns take Tim Couch #1 AND Bengals take Akili Smith #3 and leave future HOF Edgerrin James to Colts at #4
5) 2007 Raiders take JaMarcus Russell #1 and leave future HOF Adrian Peterson to Vikings at #7

Since the 2006 draft, there have been 9 running backs selected within the top 10 - only one, Trent Richardson, has been a bust. Two are virtually certain HOF players (Peterson and Gurley) and two others (Elliott and Spiller) have been pro bowl players. Bush, McFadden, Fournette and McCaffrey have been or will be, at the very least, very solid players in the league.

During this same period, there have been 20 quarterbacks selected within the top 10. Six have been busts: Locker, RGIII, Russell, Young, Leinart and Gabbert; five are solid starters who have not or will likely not achieve their top 10 billing: Bradford, Sanchez, Tannehill, Winston and Mariota; five are pro bowl quarterbacks - Ryan, Stafford, Newton, Wentz and Goff; two are unknown - Trubiski and Mahomes; and only one appears to be a future HOF - Luck, though this is by no means certain.

In advance of any draft, a highly graded running back has a virtual certain "high level of return" whereas a highly graded quarterback has a virtually certain "unknown level of return". In the current situation, the risk of selecting one of the four quarterback prospects over the much higher graded Barkley is just not justified or necessary given Manning and Webb already covering the quarterback position...


Forget examples 1, 2, and 3... Different era....

4. 1999 James - he was not the engine that made the Colts go. Don't even try to make that argument. Then, when he finally leaves the colts, the Colts win the SB. So how much return did the colts really get from James. Being a HOF RB doesn't mean much if your contribution isn't driving wins. By the fact that they won it all AFTER he left, James was not driving the wins. Therefore he was not worth the #4 overall pick, Gold Jacket and all. This is the argument that I am making, the evidence is, that even if Barkley is fantastic, he probably won't produce extra wins.

5. Petersen. Do I really have to go here? What did the Vikings ever do with Petersen? Their best year with him was 2009... What was different in 2009. Petersen had a good but not great year. 2009 marked the arrival of Brett Favre who put up other worldly numbers: 68% completion rate, 4200 yards, 7.9 YPA, 33 TD, 7 int for a 107.2 rate. And lets be clear, Petersen was running behind an offensive line that feature no less than 4 OL that made multiple Pro-Bowls and All-Pro honors. As the line deteriorates, so does Petersen... After he is gone they go to the NFC championship game, behind a vastly improved OL. One of my points is that to win you need to invest in the OL not RB.

Peterson, Gurley, Elliott, Spiller, Bush, McFadden, Fournette and McCaffrey - I don't care about pro bowls, or HOF credentials. I care about winning. Come back to me with argument that shows that these players are responsible for wins equal to or beyond the value spent on them. I think you will be hard pressed. The only one of them that won anything was Bush, but he was hurt for 11 games during the Saints SB season. He had a huge punt return, but otherwise disappeared int he playoffs. And lets face it its Brees and the passing game that made NO go, certainly not Bush.

And as long as you are bringing up McFadden, he is the poster child that shows its the OL not the RB that's important. With Oakland he was nothing more than pedestrian. His stats are singularly underwhelming, his total rushing yards the 3 years prior to going to Dallas, were just over 1600 yards for a 3.3 YPC average. He goes to Dallas and starts running behind that line and he has a sudden resurgence gaining over 1000 yards and 4.6 YPC. You tell me, do you think McFadden got a heck of a lot better or he ran behind an OL that was a heck of a lot better.
RE: RE: RE: RE: any attempt  
.McL. : 4/7/2018 12:45 pm : link
In comment 13904007 .McL. said:
[quote][/quote]

Also, I never said to pick a QB instead of a RB. I am ambivalent to this class of QBs. I am OK with the Giants taking one, but I am not blown away with any of them. But an efficient/good but not great QB is is worth far more than an RB can ever hope to be worth.
The NFL is an ever changing league and defenses catch up to trends  
BH28 : 4/7/2018 12:55 pm : link
Defenses are finally getting good at stopping the short to intermediate passing that has taken the place of a lot of runs.

This is why the pendulum is swinging back towards running, if you can get a defense to prepare against stopping the short to intermediate pass, it gives you leverage in the run game
Link - ( New Window )
RE: The NFL is an ever changing league and defenses catch up to trends  
.McL. : 4/7/2018 1:16 pm : link
In comment 13904025 BH28 said:
Quote:
Defenses are finally getting good at stopping the short to intermediate passing that has taken the place of a lot of runs.

This is why the pendulum is swinging back towards running, if you can get a defense to prepare against stopping the short to intermediate pass, it gives you leverage in the run game Link - ( New Window )


And yet, the data still shows that its the OL that makes the running game work, not the RB.
RE: RE: RE: RE: any attempt  
the mike : 4/7/2018 3:54 pm : link
In comment 13904007 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13903890 the mike said:


Quote:


In comment 13903248 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13903231 santacruzom said:


Quote:


to establish probability of whether players picked high in the draft will help their team win a Championship has to consider that:

-most teams who pick high in the draft earn such a high pick by sucking, and:
-most teams that suck in one year sucked in years prior, and will suck in years after, because:
-a lot of teams in the NFL suck and suck for a long time, on account of being owned, run, and/or coached by morons for long periods of time.



My contention is that RBs should not be picked anywhere in the first round. That kind of belies your argument about teams that suck.... Good team pick in the first round too. Furthermore, I recommend against picking RBs even in the 2nd round.

That numbers show that it really doesn't matter what round an RB is picked, their rushing production is about the same. The evidence strongly suggests that the offensive line is the far more critical component to a strong running game than is the RB. This can be easily explained. The skills that allowed a RB to dominate on the college level, speed, quickness, cutting ability vision are far less impactful at the pro level. Defenders are faster, quicker and stronger across the board. The variability of college athletes is far greater than at the pro level. So its easier to pick on certain players and their weaknesses. Defensive schemes at the pro level are far more sophisticated and capable of taking away large running lanes. Teams that run successfully are able to block better... The RB is secondary to the success of the play. In other words, even great RBs need good blocking. But if you have good blocking, you don't need a great RB...




Again, this analysis is true as a general rule only and is for all intents and purposes not applicable in practice. The decision point is always the risk and return choice of the two players involved and completely depends on who is taken instead of the running back. If Ki-Jana Carter is taken #1 ahead of Steve McNair at #3, as it happened in 1995, then it is unequivocally true. But there are literally dozens of examples of brutal mistakes in selecting quarterbacks ahead of running backs in the top 10 during the super bowl era: (just a few examples below)

1) 1967 49ers take Steve Spurrier leave HOF Floyd Little to Broncos at #6
2) 1975 Falcons take Steve Bartkowski #1 and leave HOF Walter Payton to Bears at #4
3) 1982 Colts take Art Schlichter #3 and leave HOF Marcus Allen to Raiders at #10
4) 1999 Browns take Tim Couch #1 AND Bengals take Akili Smith #3 and leave future HOF Edgerrin James to Colts at #4
5) 2007 Raiders take JaMarcus Russell #1 and leave future HOF Adrian Peterson to Vikings at #7

Since the 2006 draft, there have been 9 running backs selected within the top 10 - only one, Trent Richardson, has been a bust. Two are virtually certain HOF players (Peterson and Gurley) and two others (Elliott and Spiller) have been pro bowl players. Bush, McFadden, Fournette and McCaffrey have been or will be, at the very least, very solid players in the league.

During this same period, there have been 20 quarterbacks selected within the top 10. Six have been busts: Locker, RGIII, Russell, Young, Leinart and Gabbert; five are solid starters who have not or will likely not achieve their top 10 billing: Bradford, Sanchez, Tannehill, Winston and Mariota; five are pro bowl quarterbacks - Ryan, Stafford, Newton, Wentz and Goff; two are unknown - Trubiski and Mahomes; and only one appears to be a future HOF - Luck, though this is by no means certain.

In advance of any draft, a highly graded running back has a virtual certain "high level of return" whereas a highly graded quarterback has a virtually certain "unknown level of return". In the current situation, the risk of selecting one of the four quarterback prospects over the much higher graded Barkley is just not justified or necessary given Manning and Webb already covering the quarterback position...



Forget examples 1, 2, and 3... Different era....

4. 1999 James - he was not the engine that made the Colts go. Don't even try to make that argument. Then, when he finally leaves the colts, the Colts win the SB. So how much return did the colts really get from James. Being a HOF RB doesn't mean much if your contribution isn't driving wins. By the fact that they won it all AFTER he left, James was not driving the wins. Therefore he was not worth the #4 overall pick, Gold Jacket and all. This is the argument that I am making, the evidence is, that even if Barkley is fantastic, he probably won't produce extra wins.

5. Petersen. Do I really have to go here? What did the Vikings ever do with Petersen? Their best year with him was 2009... What was different in 2009. Petersen had a good but not great year. 2009 marked the arrival of Brett Favre who put up other worldly numbers: 68% completion rate, 4200 yards, 7.9 YPA, 33 TD, 7 int for a 107.2 rate. And lets be clear, Petersen was running behind an offensive line that feature no less than 4 OL that made multiple Pro-Bowls and All-Pro honors. As the line deteriorates, so does Petersen... After he is gone they go to the NFC championship game, behind a vastly improved OL. One of my points is that to win you need to invest in the OL not RB.

Peterson, Gurley, Elliott, Spiller, Bush, McFadden, Fournette and McCaffrey - I don't care about pro bowls, or HOF credentials. I care about winning. Come back to me with argument that shows that these players are responsible for wins equal to or beyond the value spent on them. I think you will be hard pressed. The only one of them that won anything was Bush, but he was hurt for 11 games during the Saints SB season. He had a huge punt return, but otherwise disappeared int he playoffs. And lets face it its Brees and the passing game that made NO go, certainly not Bush.

And as long as you are bringing up McFadden, he is the poster child that shows its the OL not the RB that's important. With Oakland he was nothing more than pedestrian. His stats are singularly underwhelming, his total rushing yards the 3 years prior to going to Dallas, were just over 1600 yards for a 3.3 YPC average. He goes to Dallas and starts running behind that line and he has a sudden resurgence gaining over 1000 yards and 4.6 YPC. You tell me, do you think McFadden got a heck of a lot better or he ran behind an OL that was a heck of a lot better.


Very fair points and, as I said, I agree fully with your thesis in the general sense. All else being equal, virtually every other position is better value in today's NFL game than running back. But again, I would much rather have drafted Adrian Peterson in 2007 than Jamarcus Russell.. every day and twice on Sunday. Additionally, the best edge rusher in that draft was Gaines Adams, who was selected fourth by the Bucs - he never lived up to expectations and died in 2010 from an unexpected heart condition. And the Cards took Offensive Tackle Levi Brown with the fifth pick and he was released within five years never achieving anything close to first round level capability.

Adrian Peterson was by far the most sensible top ten pick in 2007, no matter what position you look at - as is Barkley today. I would much rather have certainty about the lesser value potential of the finest graded running back ever evaluated, than take the risk of the uncertainty that plagues each of these quarterbacks notwithstanding their playing in the highest value potential position. And if Gettleman doesn't grade Barkley where most scouts are rating him, then the team will be best served by trading back and getting a haul of picks...
RE: RE: The NFL is an ever changing league and defenses catch up to trends  
BH28 : 4/7/2018 4:02 pm : link
In comment 13904046 .McL. said:
Quote:
In comment 13904025 BH28 said:


Quote:


Defenses are finally getting good at stopping the short to intermediate passing that has taken the place of a lot of runs.

This is why the pendulum is swinging back towards running, if you can get a defense to prepare against stopping the short to intermediate pass, it gives you leverage in the run game Link - ( New Window )



And yet, the data still shows that its the OL that makes the running game work, not the RB.


Most of the data you posted is 5 years old and doesn't have relevance with the changes in the NFL over the past five years. What links specifically correlate OL w/running game success? Most of them talk about how teams that are winning run more or that having a 100 yard rusher isn't a good milestone of winning as much as it was in the past.

It doesn't take a study to show that an OL will improve the running game, a good OL will improve anything. Would the worst running back in the league have success behind Cowboys OL? Probably. But not the amount of success Zeke had.

At the end of the day, good players make teams better. I'm not sold on Barkley @ 2, but if the combo of him, OBJ, and Engram create one on one match up nightmares, it doesn't really matter what the data says as long as the coaches are exploiting those match-ups.
Nice thoughts and true as a whole  
eli4life : 4/7/2018 6:52 pm : link
But let’s not forget the old adage for every rule there is an exception and I believe mr Barkley is that exception. Personally I’m on the whoever’s they pick I’m fine with train because they know more than me but if they decide Barkley is worth it I’m 100% on board same goes for a qb, Nelson or Chubb. I just prefer to stay at 2 and get a blue chipper if you will
RE: RE: RE: The NFL is an ever changing league and defenses catch up to trends  
.McL. : 4/7/2018 10:28 pm : link
In comment 13904280 BH28 said:
Quote:
In comment 13904046 .McL. said:


Quote:


In comment 13904025 BH28 said:


Quote:


Defenses are finally getting good at stopping the short to intermediate passing that has taken the place of a lot of runs.

This is why the pendulum is swinging back towards running, if you can get a defense to prepare against stopping the short to intermediate pass, it gives you leverage in the run game Link - ( New Window )



And yet, the data still shows that its the OL that makes the running game work, not the RB.



Most of the data you posted is 5 years old and doesn't have relevance with the changes in the NFL over the past five years. What links specifically correlate OL w/running game success? Most of them talk about how teams that are winning run more or that having a 100 yard rusher isn't a good milestone of winning as much as it was in the past.

It doesn't take a study to show that an OL will improve the running game, a good OL will improve anything. Would the worst running back in the league have success behind Cowboys OL? Probably. But not the amount of success Zeke had.

At the end of the day, good players make teams better. I'm not sold on Barkley @ 2, but if the combo of him, OBJ, and Engram create one on one match up nightmares, it doesn't really matter what the data says as long as the coaches are exploiting those match-ups.


First, thank for the link, that was interesting. But the link doesn't say anything about the pendulum swinging back to running. It says that dump off passes are not working as well as they used to work. Since most dump offs go to RBs, it would seen to argue that the RB should be devalued even more!

The issues I raise are not whether Barkley would be better than what we current have at the position or not...

The issue is one of how you spend your resources the value you get and probability of overall team success. The point is spending resources on RB have historically had a very poor return on the investment. RBs need a good line to run behind whether they are good or great RBs. The great RB might get 20% more yards, but that does not represent a significant enough bump to warrant the expenditure. Then there is the fact that NFL teams cannot scout RBs very well. This can be seen in the data since historically speaking the average 1st round RB gains as many YPC as 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th rounder. Even the same as UDFAs. A large part of this effect is because OLs are what is primarily responsible for the yardage.

At the end of the day, Barkley is not a good expenditure of resources. We have to take a shot at a QB eventually, if you really like one from this years class and can get him, then ok take your shot. If you don't like the QBs available at #2, then better to trade back.
Back to the Corner