RB NFL Fantasy Football

[scooter]

It warms my heart whenever I see someone link to an article from advancednflstats. It pains me to watch a game to see the commentators rip a coach for going for 4th and 2 from the opposing 38 when the statistics demand you to go for it in that spot. Same with 4th and goal - you should be going for it pretty much every single time barring unusual circumstances.

In case anyone's curious - another fantastic football blog is http://www.smartfootball.com. I've been following that blog for a couple of years and it's great stuff. Check out the "Featured Articles" page for a load of reading material - I can recommend a few if there's any interest. The writer (Chris Brown) actually just recently began writing occasionally over at Grantland, and this was a great one:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7064...ace-player

[scooter]

@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.

It's not based on anything concrete, but there seems to be a lot of evidence for it. I should probably clarify "talented" as equal to "better than replacement-value"... Generally speaking, it's pretty rare for teams to have more than 3 CB's who are better than replacement-value. I can't think of any team in the league who could drop their 4th best CB and see him get picked up by anyone the next day. However I'd say if Jordy Nelson or Lance Moore got dropped, there'd be several teams interested. I'd say the comparison also holds at slot/nickelback.

That said though, I get your point, and yeah I'm probably overestimating that effect and not accounting enough for QB influence.

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

Kuro - notice the dates on those teams. They're all pretty recent. Passing totals this year are absolutely off the charts. The best teams are the teams that have:

1) Elite QB
2) Above-average pass rush
3) Good LT

If you have those 3 things, you will be in the playoffs barring horrific luck. This is why I find myself gravitating more towards college football, where there's far more balance and innovation.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

It's not based on anything concrete, but there seems to be a lot of evidence for it. I should probably clarify "talented" as equal to "better than replacement-value"... Generally speaking, it's pretty rare for teams to have more than 3 CB's who are better than replacement-value. I can't think of any team in the league who could drop their 4th best CB and see him get picked up by anyone the next day. However I'd say if Jordy Nelson or Lance Moore got dropped, there'd be several teams interested. I'd say the comparison also holds at slot/nickelback.

That said though, I get your point, and yeah I'm probably overestimating that effect and not accounting enough for QB influence.



Kuro - notice the dates on those teams. They're all pretty recent. Passing totals this year are absolutely off the charts. The best teams are the teams that have:

1) Elite QB
2) Above-average pass rush
3) Good LT

If you have those 3 things, you will be in the playoffs barring horrific luck. This is why I find myself gravitating more towards college football, where there's far more balance and innovation.

In other words... it's Tebow Time.

[scooter]

In other words... it's Tebow Time.

It's about time.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

It's about time.

This whole sequence of the last 12 months or so reminds me of how long we dinked around with Plummer before giving Cutler a chance. Cutler obviously turned out to not be the Second Coming (maybe he was the second coming of Griese?). Even if Tebow is no better in the long run, a losing 2011 season that ends knowing what Tebow brings to the table is better than slogging through another 11 games wondering "what if".

Not to mention how obvious it is that the rest of the team wants to do well around him.

In other words, to discuss elite QB's versus elite RB's:
Exhibit A: 2011 Colts vs. 2010 Colts ... losing Peyton. Any other factors that are big enough to create the destruction we're seeing?
Exhibit B: 2009 Packers vs. 2010 Packers ... losing Grant. Okay, he's not an elite RB, but the 2010 Packers lost a lot of GREAT players, except Rodgers stayed healthy.

I'd rather have an elite QB AND elite RB. But remembering that it's been a long time since my team has been "elite" in any meaning of the word, give me an elite QB first.

[Kuro]

The 2011 Colts are an almost special example. Peyton Manning, even before this year, WAS the team. They made the entire offense around HIM, it has very few talented players aside from HIM, ecetera.

A lot of other teams, I don't think the difference is so drastic: For example, Matt Cassel comes in after Tom Brady goes down? 11-5 season. Only the fact so many wild card teams had such a good record is why they missed the playoffs. To use another example with Matt Cassel, losing Jamaal Charles was a much larger blow to the Chiefs than losing Matt Cassel would be.

I think that saying "X went down" as an example is hard to do. For example, it wouldn't surprise me, given what we've seen, if the Packers still went far with Matt Flynn in over him(And unless their D tightens up, losing). But you can't say the same about another playoff contending team right now, the 49ers, who losing Gore would be extremely detrimental to their hopes...but at the same time, ANOTHER play off team, the Lions would much rather have Best go down than Stafford. It all depends on the team what injury hurts more.

I think WRs are somewhat less important, because of the fact great QBs often make wideouts look better than they are: For example, Tom Brady winnin like 3 Super Bowls with a wideout corps assembled together by a box of scraps in Belichek's back yard. Anyone remember when Anthony Gonzalez was Peyton's starter? Yeah, you see where he is now. Drew Brees routinely just throws to whoever looks like the best target, though this year he has gotten a bit more selective.

So, while an elite WR is awesome when you get one(MEGATRON!), I think it's less important than other positions. Also, Ryan Grant is a bit of a silly example: He had ONE exceptional year, one above average year and one average year and was never a focal point of the offense and was never more than a Top 15 back(If that).

Passing totals this year ARE off the charts...but the Giants are worse with a #4 Eli Manning over a #13 Bradshaw than if they were reversed(Going by yardage). And a lot of those passing teams right now? They have massive defensive issues, which is made worse if the passing game gets TOO fast.

Also, to adress what Sunrise said earlier...the hyper-prolific offenses may have had amazing QBs, but the famous SB winning teams had amazing running games. Terry Bradshaw? Four rings, despite finishing with a sub-60% completion rating and throwing only 2 more TDs than INTs on his career. 1972 undefeated Miami Dolphins? Hell, their starter went down with an injury week 5...but their running game had two RBs who rushed for 1,000 each on the way to win. 2007 Patriots? No rushing game, average defense, got exposed by teams allowed to face them twice(Compare their first games against the Giants, Jets and Dolphins to the second), lost the big game. 2001, 2003, 2004 Pats? Solid running game and defense, even if Tom Brady lead it, was a focal point of every one of those and a key reason for them winning. Peyton Manning didn't win a Super Bowl until he had a running game(And defense) with him. Dan Marino? 0 rings, despite being one of, if not the, best QBs of all time...a large part because his running game was average-to-bad(Super Bowl XIX is a spectacularly damning example, as the Dolphins rushed only eight times that game).

For recent examples...in the last ten years, only five "hyper prolific" offenses have gone to the Super Bowl: New Orleans Saints(Won), St. Louis Rams(Lost), Green Bay Packers(Won), Arizona Cardinals(Lost), 2007 New England Patriots(Lost). It's not even close to hyper prolific offenses being super duper amazing, unless you only count the last two years: Which is far too small of a reference pool to determine. Just extending it to five years instead of two, which is not too large, brings hyper prolific offenses to 2-2. Bringing it to three years makes them 2-1. If you consider multiple years in the past, as I've shown running first teams are not even close to being ">>>" compared to passing. Let's not forget many of the great passing offenses had a great running game: Joe Montana's 49ers, for example(The drive that The Catch was made was around 40% rushing, if not 50% and Joe Montana never made the Super Bowl with a running back who rushed for less than 1,100 yards, or a combination of running backs who rushed for 1,100 or more yards and WAS bounced out of the playoffs a good deal of times due to that).

Also on Sunrse's point:

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

The Patriots won 3 Super Bowls, I'd call that "enduring success". Jamal Lewis(Though not immedietely, as he was already under a multi-year deal), Willie Parker, Kevin Faulk Mike Alstott(Though he did not stay long, mostly because he was ooooold by then), I believe Michael Pittman, but Edgerrin James was NOT, Bradon Jacobs was not but only because he had two years still on his contract(At the end of which, the Giants signed a four year deal with him).

In comparison, Brad Johnson was kept for one year, then demoted and then formally released and became a backup, Trent Difler was released the year after he won(And signed as a backup for that year by the Seahawks), Tom Brady obviously got re-signed, Eli Manning was resigned(Despite being quite average), Peyton Manning obviously stayed.

As for enduring success...the only two to win two or more Super Bowls of that group are the Pariots and the Steelers. Both kept their QB and a key RB(Faulk and Parker, respectively) for all of the Super Bowls they won. Also, I object to the 2008 Steelers being a "pass first" team: Roethlisburger was 17 TDs to 15 INTs and completed 60% of his passes, which is not at all an amazing year, while running backs Willie Parker and Mewelde Moore combined for 1,379 yards running and 10 TDs. They attempted 350 runs(381 if you count Mendenhall's 19 before injury and fullback Corey Davis' 12), compared to 469 pass attempts: A bias towards passing, but not at all a huge one(At 381, I think it'd be something around 55/45, something like 57/43 at 350, both of which are pretty different from pass first). By comparison, "pass first" offenses attempt faaaar more passes: Drew Brees has only attempted under 600 passes once while at the Saints, one of which was 554 attempts and the other 514 attempts(And he missed a game that year!). Peyton Manning has only attempted under 500 passes twice in his career and one time was 497, or only 3 passes under. 2007 Tom Brady attempted 578 passes, 2001/2003/2004 Tom Brady attempted, in each respective year, 413/527/474 passes, or 100+ less each year save 2003. 2002, when Tom Brady attempted 601 passes, the Patriots went 9-7 and missed the playoffs.

So no, the 2008 Steelers were not a "pass first" offense. They were a "balanced" offense.

You may now skip me posting giant walls of text due to trying to get sleepy after falling asleep after the WS.

[Kuro]

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.

Um...no? Peyton Manning has a superb O-Line any year he did anything significant. Jeff Saturday is a great example. Marino did great in Miami behind no O-Line, but that didn't make the team great: If they HAD an O-Line, Marino would probably have a ring right now.

Willie Parker was signed to a 4-year deal. He then gave them 1000 yard seasons and one that was on pace for 1,000 before an injury. He was a fine RB. Brandon Jacobs has also been a fine RB.

Also, Barry Sanders never won anything because HIS ENTIRE TEAM SUCKED. It wasn't just no QB: Watch clips and see their O-Line completely fall apart. Their D, as I recall, was pretty bad too. The team was basically the Detroit Sanders.

As for dominanting in ways that cover their weaknesses...The Patriots, when going to a Brady pass-a-palooza offense, won 18 straight...and then lost the Super Bowl. Manning gets to the Super Bowl with a bad defense/running game and only at that point average to bad O-Line the year against the Saints? They lose.

Patriots get to the Super Bowl with a more balanced attack between passing and rushing? 3 rings. Peyton has a good running game and D? Wins the Super Bowl that year.

[Kuro]

In actual fantasy news though, I offered some trades around.

[scooter]

The Bengals did indeed clean up. I hate sports writers anyways, but I think their owner showed he was crazy like a fox for "refusing the trade" Palmer. The previously offered compensation was a 3rd rounder, and writers were falling over themselves saying "he's a fool to not take what he can get."

http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/broncos/...sight-bias

Good summary on the Palmer/Raiders/Bengals craziness. I don't think Brown really deserves any serious credit for stumbling into a ridiculous trade offer.

[Kuro]

Nobody feels like responding to my trades?

(Yes, most of my posts like this are just to make sure people notice they're there since earlier it was said the E-Mails didn't always work when you offered trades)