RB NFL Fantasy Football

[Kuro]

The most annoying thing to me is the modern over-emphasis on the quarterback. He isn't even the most important part of his own side of the ball, let alone the answer to everything...which makes people thinking Andrew Luck is so important make me laugh.

Some others are sometimes simply a sheer lack of common sense and the fact the media loves to overblow things. But those aren't new.

[Cyneheard]

The most annoying thing to me is the modern over-emphasis on the quarterback. He isn't even the most important part of his own side of the ball, let alone the answer to everything...which makes people thinking Andrew Luck is so important make me laugh.

See Colts, Indianapolis for a counter-argument there.

[sunrise089]

The most annoying thing to me is the modern over-emphasis on the quarterback. He isn't even the most important part of his own side of the ball, let alone the answer to everything...which makes people thinking Andrew Luck is so important make me laugh.

Some others are sometimes simply a sheer lack of common sense and the fact the media loves to overblow things. But those aren't new.

In non-fantasy who do you think is the most important?!

But yes, I agree his importance is overstated. He doesn't always "win the game" for the team.

[Kuro]

In non-fantasy who do you think is the most important?!

But yes, I agree his importance is overstated. He doesn't always "win the game" for the team.

Offensive line.

[Kuro]

For reference, my general order of importance for an offense/defense:

Offensive Line
Quarterback OR Runningback(Depending on if you want to be pass or run first. I prefer run first)
Wide Recievers OR Quarterback (Wideouts if you're a pass first, Quarterback if run first)
Runningback OR Wide Recievers (RB takes a backseat in pass first, though you still need a decent one to open up the running game, wideouts take a backseat in run-first)

And everything else is complementary and seperates good offenses from great ones.

Defense starts at the defensive line(Or Linebackers in a 3-4), then Cornerbacks, then Linebackers(Defensive line in 3-4), then Safeties.

[sunrise089]

Offensive line.

I misread, sorry. I thought you meant QB was not the most important single player. I concede that it's possible the O-Line combined may be more important (though I don't actually think so).

My ranks:
QB >> O-Line > WRs > TE >>>>> RB
DE/CB > DE/CB > DT > LB > Safety

If I was an NFL GM I'd rarely have another offensive starter make less than my RB. I think most of the ten most recent league champs support this plan.

[Kuro]

I misread, sorry. I thought you meant QB was not the most important single player. I concede that it's possible the O-Line combined may be more important (though I don't actually think so).

My ranks:
QB >> O-Line > WRs > TE >>>>> RB
DE/CB > DE/CB > DT > LB > Safety

If I was an NFL GM I'd rarely have another offensive starter make less than my RB. I think most of the ten most recent league champs support this plan.

The 2001 Ravens, 2002 Patriots, 2003 Bucs, 2005 Steelers, arguably the 2006 Colts(Getting a running game got Peyton the complete offense he needed) and 2007 Giants(Eli Manning certainly wasn't why they got so far) called. They asked if you wanted to see their Pogeymanz. I mean running backs.

[scooter]

Kuro - I get irked by ignorance that gets repeated frequently, but unfortunately the QB thing really is becoming true. The game is being changed dramatically by a few factors.

1) Most importantly, the rule changes. First they made it much harder to jam receivers by changing CB contact rules. Then they started making it much harder to punish opposing QB's by tightening those rules. Then they changed rules so that WR's can now just fly straight over the middle against zone coverage with NO fear of getting lit up because of the new rules. Those factors together drastically shift balance in favor of the passing game. Frankly, it's kind of ridiculous, because it's always been a cardinal rule that you HAVE to be careful sending WR's across the middle against zone coverage because they WILL get lit up. Not anymore. There's a reason Brady + Welker has been torching anything and everything that's willing to attempt defense against them.

2) Teams are wising up and noticing that it's more efficient to play out of the shotgun and spread the field with receivers. The reason is simple - it's much easier to get 4 talented WR's than it is 4 talented CB's on an NFL roster. The Saints and Packers in particular are shining examples of this - Saints have four above-average WR's, and no team has 4 above-average CB's. It's simple mismatches. Same deal for the Packers. Statistics have shown that it's simply more efficient to come in a pass-first attack. Patriots have Brady in the shotgun over 50% of the time because they've recognized this, and it should be no surprise that their offense is fantastic.

3) As a result of this, defenses have shifted towards being pass-rush heavy, and a counter for that is the screen game. Saints for example run very rarely, but they frequently get 100+ yards per game out of screen passes. This is more or less slowly "replacing" the run in many offenses in today's NFL. Not replacing, but certainly making it less prevalent.

My point is simple. Team A has an elite QB and a 30th or worse ranked rushing attack. Team B has a lousy QB and an elite RB. They both have average defenses. Team A will be the better team every time. That may not have been true 10 years ago, but it's absolutely true now. See the Rams (last few years when Jackson was still in his prime), Titans, Jaguars, and then Packers, Colts (before this year), and Chargers (before this year) as examples. First 3 teams ranged from awful to average with elite RB's and meh QB's. Last 3 teams were bad running attacks (Colts and Chargers were 31st and 32nd a couple years ago and both were in the playoffs) but top QB's.

Edit: OL is absolutely important... But last few years Ben Roethlisberger and Aaron Rodgers have proven to us you can have success with even an awful offensive line. It's definitely much harder (thankfully both those guys are extremely mobile), but you can be a super bowl-caliber team with spotty OL play. You can't with bad QB play at this point in time.

[Gaspar]

The 2001 Ravens, 2002 Patriots, 2003 Bucs, 2005 Steelers, arguably the 2006 Colts(Getting a running game got Peyton the complete offense he needed) and 2007 Giants(Eli Manning certainly wasn't why they got so far) called. They asked if you wanted to see their Pogeymanz. I mean running backs.

RBs grow on trees. They're almost never worth a big contract because their shelf-life is so short. The names of the RBs for the teams you mentioned are Jamal Lewis, Antowain Smith, Michael Pittman, Willie Parker, Joseph Addai and Brandon Jacobs. I don't think I could possibly prove the point that RBs are overrated with self-selection. Only Lewis of that bunch had anything remotely approaching a career of significant length or consistency which warranted a big contract, which is the point I think sunrise089 was making. I'd also argue the importance of the running game to those teams winning in general wasn't necessarily all that high, but that's not the point that was in question.

Bottom line, if you asked all the NFL GMs if they'd rather have Aaron Rodgers or Adrian Peterson, I'd bet you'd get 100% saying they'd rather have Rodgers, because its a lot easier to find a competent RB than it is to find a competent QB.

For that matter, while I think the O-line is important, a good QB can make a bad O-line look pretty darned good. Manning's been doing that in Indy for years, Marino was pretty famous for doing the same in Miami - Roethlesberger nearly won a SB last year behind a truly horrendous O-line.

The run first, game is won in the trenches bit is a great soundbite that game announcers love to parrot but its just no longer true in todays NFL. Guys like Brady and Manning aren't just dominant, they're dominant in such a way that they cover for mediocre performance elsewhere on the field (NE Defense, Indy O-line/Running game.) There just aren't any comparable RB performances to point to in the last 20 years, let alone 10. There's a reason Barry Sanders never won anything.

[sunrise089]

The 2001 Ravens, 2002 Patriots, 2003 Bucs, 2005 Steelers, arguably the 2006 Colts(Getting a running game got Peyton the complete offense he needed) and 2007 Giants(Eli Manning certainly wasn't why they got so far) called. They asked if you wanted to see their Pogeymanz. I mean running backs.

How many of those RBs got signed to new deals? How many of the QBs? Which teams had enduring success?

Counter-examples - 2010 Packers, 2009 Saints, 2008 Stealers, 2006 Colts (come on, the Colts' system pretty clearly doesn't depend on top tier RBs!).

@Scooter - You're right, but I disagree with "it's much easier to get 4 talented WR's than it is 4 talented CB's on an NFL roster." There's no real reason that's true. IMHO the truth is that WR success is WR+QB. Having a top QB plus lots of WRs lets you leverage that QB 4x times on the field. No single defender has that impact.

@Kuro - Where there are large sample sizes (read: seasons as a whole, not playoff games, even if the most recent Super Bowls do support the pass-first theory) the statistics show passing >>> running. It isn't close. It's laughably not close. And, it isn't "run to set up the pass." The recent hyper-prolific offenses have had jokes for RBs.