Paying Running Backs Large Sums is Dumb

Printable View

02-28-2017, 01:42 PM
pbmax

Paying Running Backs Large Sums is Dumb

Alternate title: C'mon Bobble, let's have an argument.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...drian-peterson

Quote:

In 2015, the spread among the 32 teams was 2.3 EPA when passing, measured in terms of standard deviation. When running, the spread among the 32 teams was 0.7 EPA, less than a third of the impact of passing. In terms of WPA, the difference was only slightly less stark. The standard deviation among teams for passing was 1.1 WPA, and for running it was 0.4 WPA. In other words, a team should greatly prefer being a top passing team than a top running team by a factor of 3 to 1. Another way to look at this disparity is that being the most dominant running offense in the league would equate to being a modestly above-average passing offense.

EPA: expected points added
WPA: win probability added

Quote:

EPA is our best measure of overall scoring productivity, measuring an offense's ability to move the ball, limit turnovers, and even suppress opponents' opportunities to score. WPA does the same thing, but also considers game situation factors like score, time, and timeouts remaining.
02-28-2017, 01:48 PM
red

Not to mention rb seems to have the shortest shelf life
02-28-2017, 02:36 PM
Joemailman

Looking at the teams who had the biggest cap hits at RB last year pretty much says it all.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/.../running-back/
02-28-2017, 05:51 PM
gbgary

big bucks doesn't bother me but looong term does when it comes to rbs.
02-28-2017, 08:07 PM
texaspackerbacker

[QUOTE=gbgary;921720]big bucks doesn't bother me but looong term does when it comes to rbs.[/QUOTE
Of course, the NFL ain't like MLB where you're stuck with a guy's contract. Anything beyond the first year and bonus is meaningless beyond the cap hit for the bonus. So the thing to avoid is big bonuses/guaranteed money.

I don't see RB out there who is remotely likely to be available that is worth big money at all.
02-28-2017, 08:46 PM
bobblehead

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbmax

Alternate title: C'mon Bobble, let's have an argument.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...drian-peterson

EPA: expected points added
WPA: win probability added

But I agree 100% with the thread title. Its the OL that makes a running game, backs are a dime a dozen.

Its like you don't even know me :(
03-01-2017, 08:57 AM
pbmax

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobblehead

But I agree 100% with the thread title. Its the OL that makes a running game, backs are a dime a dozen.

Its like you don't even know me :(

Just sending out a ping to get a response.

Actually worried about Patler not being around.
03-01-2017, 01:40 PM
3irty1

Paying running backs a lot of money maybe foolish for the reasons listed, but I'm still a fan of drafting RB's in the early rounds of the draft. Running backs are one of the positions that tends to produce immediately if they'll produce at all. With most positions in football the first year or two of that dirt cheap 4 or 5 year rookie deal is spent learning on the bench.

The running game vs passing game analysis is a bit of a false dichotomy. Having the ability to run and run well opens up a lot of opportunities passing.
03-01-2017, 02:56 PM
pbmax

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3irty1

Paying running backs a lot of money maybe foolish for the reasons listed, but I'm still a fan of drafting RB's in the early rounds of the draft. Running backs are one of the positions that tends to produce immediately if they'll produce at all. With most positions in football the first year or two of that dirt cheap 4 or 5 year rookie deal is spent learning on the bench.

The running game vs passing game analysis is a bit of a false dichotomy. Having the ability to run and run well opens up a lot of opportunities passing.

But given the drastically different returns, its a case of running to make passing more effective. Its a constraint play now, not the primary philosophy.
03-01-2017, 02:57 PM
Guiness

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joemailman

Looking at the teams who had the biggest cap hits at RB last year pretty much says it all.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/.../running-back/

Highest team on the list to qualify for the playoff is the Texans at #7.

Four divisional finalists were 23, 35, 37 and 53rd.
03-01-2017, 08:49 PM
run pMc

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbmax

But given the drastically different returns, its a case of running to make passing more effective. Its a constraint play now, not the primary philosophy.

Is that a bad thing? If all a team does is throw, or their RBs are crap, defenses will drop 8 and force the QB to make good choices and throws. We saw that with teams dropping extra men into coverage against Rodgers and he struggled. Imagine Bortles or Eli Manning in that scenario. Minnesota had a terrible running game and look at their offense. I'm not suggesting a return to 45 runs per game, but I think a running game that a defense has to respect is worth something.

I'm not a fan of 1st round RB picks but if Fournette or Dalvin Cook fell to them, I'm not sure I'd be mad if GB picked them. (FWIW, I'd rather they picked an OLB or CB in R1 and signed Lacy to a 1-2 year contract)
03-01-2017, 11:03 PM
pbmax

Quote:

Originally Posted by run pMc

Is that a bad thing? If all a team does is throw, or their RBs are crap, defenses will drop 8 and force the QB to make good choices and throws. We saw that with teams dropping extra men into coverage against Rodgers and he struggled. Imagine Bortles or Eli Manning in that scenario. Minnesota had a terrible running game and look at their offense. I'm not suggesting a return to 45 runs per game, but I think a running game that a defense has to respect is worth something.

Not a bad thing at all. Bobble's typical point, about the importance of being able to run well (forget balance for a minute), still holds.

You want to be able to run decently, even if the purpose of your run calls is not to dominate the LOS, nor shorten the game, nor make it a lower scoring affair. You might want to run to constrain how crazy the defense can get to stop your passing. To punish it occasionally for sticking a safety in as nickel backer, etc. Not to mention specific goal line/short yardage/end of game situations.

You just don't want to devote franchise level money to do it.

This is where the front office and coaches have to meet in the middle. You aren't going to get a League Top 10 run game when you devote a lot of resources to the pass (esp. with veteran Pro Bowl QB). So you need to devise a run game that works with talent that is young and vets that tend to be average.
03-02-2017, 02:04 PM
bobblehead

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbmax

But given the drastically different returns, its a case of running to make passing more effective. Its a constraint play now, not the primary philosophy.

But this has always been my point regarding running the ball. A team must run effectively or they won't be able to pass well. When a team realizes you are no threat to run the ball, they pin the ears back on first and second down. This makes the OL job impossible. Plus, running wears down a DL, passing wears down the OL.

If you have hopes of picking up 15-20 yard chunks to flip the field you have to run well. And if you are REALLY good at running you can eat up field position and wear down a D at the same time.

The flip is also true. You must be able to throw the ball at least well enough of a D will stack 8 in the box. If you can't audible to a pass and punish them you're done.
03-02-2017, 02:09 PM
bobblehead

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbmax

Not a bad thing at all. Bobble's typical point, about the importance of being able to run well (forget balance for a minute), still holds.

You want to be able to run decently, even if the purpose of your run calls is not to dominate the LOS, nor shorten the game, nor make it a lower scoring affair. You might want to run to constrain how crazy the defense can get to stop your passing. To punish it occasionally for sticking a safety in as nickel backer, etc. Not to mention specific goal line/short yardage/end of game situations.

You just don't want to devote franchise level money to do it.

This is where the front office and coaches have to meet in the middle. You aren't going to get a League Top 10 run game when you devote a lot of resources to the pass (esp. with veteran Pro Bowl QB). So you need to devise a run game that works with talent that is young and vets that tend to be average.

And precisely what i am a fan of. Spend money on QB, one WR, and the OL. RB's need only be good enough to hit a normal hole or cutback lane. "other" wr need only be able to defeat man coverage. TE should be balanced...i.e. Block the ILBs that defend the pass well, and beat the ILB that play the run well.
03-03-2017, 01:49 PM
gbgary

Quote:

Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker

Of course, the NFL ain't like MLB where you're stuck with a guy's contract. Anything beyond the first year and bonus is meaningless beyond the cap hit for the bonus. So the thing to avoid is big bonuses/guaranteed money.

I don't see RB out there who is remotely likely to be available that is worth big money at all.

but a signing bonus and guaranteed $ is what it takes to sign a Bell or the like. pit will do it with Bell. dal will do that when Elliot's time comes up...i guarantee it. just depends on who we're talking about. the running backs are a dime a dozen people can't complain when we need two and only get one because we got cheap. dallas thought that when they had murray. he kicked ass, they thought it was their line, let him go and were shit until they got elliot. so it's not just the line...it's both. we're not a running team but we do need a pretty good running back. Lacy's been good when he wasn't fat or hurt. he shouldn't be too expensive to get back but if he proves to be i think we'll be ok.
03-05-2017, 08:19 AM
BZnDallas

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbgary

but a signing bonus and guaranteed $ is what it takes to sign a Bell or the like. pit will do it with Bell. dal will do that when Elliot's time comes up...i guarantee it. just depends on who we're talking about. the running backs are a dime a dozen people can't complain when we need two and only get one because we got cheap. dallas thought that when they had murray. he kicked ass, they thought it was their line, let him go and were shit until they got elliot. so it's not just the line...it's both. we're not a running team but we do need a pretty good running back. Lacy's been good when he wasn't fat or hurt. he shouldn't be too expensive to get back but if he proves to be i think we'll be ok.

If memory serves me correctly Murray got 1800 yards behind the Dallas line, McFadden got 1400 the next year, and Zeke with 1600 this last year? That Oline is elite. Dallas's problem during the McFadden year was a hurt Romo and hurt Dez. That Oline is scary good. Without Zeke, Alfred Morris goes for 1200+ last year.

RBs are a dime a dozen. However there are exceptions to every rule. Bell and Zeke are those exceptions. Peterson was.