running backs on playoff teams

[GunnerBill]

Agreed, well said.

 

So many RB injuries this year. Also to confirm that Fantasy Football was turned upside the most in this Century because RB injuries.

 

Fantasy now is all about picking up those back up running backs before anyone else cottons on. I got Freeman in two leagues as soon as Coleman went down and reaped the benefits. Trade him away at the right time in one of those leagues too.

[3rdand12]

Unfortunately the bills do think its an important position. Rex has always loved being able to run the ball and our offense with Roman focuses on the run. There is a reason we traded for lesean and drafted Karlos.

keep in mind Eagles called Buffalo. There was no prior conversations. ALL reports said it was a spur of the moment decision. And Karlos was drafted when?

 

But would agree the Bills place more value upon the Running game. Its just how ya gotta roll without a proven passing game.

Take advantage where you can. Roman needs his TEs as much as he needs RBs i might suppose.

Karlos and Gillislee successes were more luck and good line execution than anything else.IMO

[ganesh]

 

It appears to be a position that most good teams don't invest much in these days. The Bills feel differently.

 

Dave, You forgot to mention that all these teams also happen to have a super star QB who can mask that deficiency!!

[dave mcbride]

To be fair I don't think Dave was saying that. His point was not that no good teams run but that no good teams invest resources in running backs and I think whilst looking at this year's play-offs in isolation you could reach that conclusion if you look at the last 4 or 5 years it doesn't quite stack up.

 

Yeah, that's what I meant. I do know that other years will show different results, but these are the results for this year. Playoff teams got 700-800 yards from a lot of bargain basement guys - Chris Johnson, Deangelo Williams, Blount, the broncos guys, charkandrick west, the bengals guys, etc. most of those teams will cycle through those guys when they get to their sell-by dates and replace them with other cheap options. They won't reward them with huge contracts (the smart teams, at least).

Dave, You forgot to mention that all these teams also happen to have a super star QB who can mask that deficiency!!

That's kind of my point as well!

[Marty McFly]

RB is the deepest position there is. You can pretty much get a RB off the street and plug him in and win the Super Bowl. Look at the Broncos. A run first team without a good RB. Didn't matter. If I'm building a team I'd spend my money elsewhere

I was watching the Bronco season NFL replays all day. Cj Anderson is pretty good. hes like a much better Cj Spiller. not a HOF RB but not a slouch either. Hes pretty good at finding wholes and is great at the one cut and speed burst.

[GunnerBill]

Playoff teams got 700-800 yards from a lot of bargain basement guys - Chris Johnson, Deangelo Williams, Blount, the broncos guys, charkandrick west, the bengals guys, etc. most of those teams will cycle through those guys when they get to their sell-by dates and replace them with other cheap options. They won't reward them with huge contracts (the smart teams, at least).

 

I'm not sure the Bengals guys fit into that list to be honest. The Bengals spent 2nd round picks in consecutive years to get Bernard and Hill. That is hardly not allocating resource... indeed I can imagine the reaction around here if the Bills did that! I appreciate that draft picks are different to spending cap resource on players.... but it is still a significant investment when you go two 2nd rounders in two years. They will both be coming up for renewal shortly.... what will the Bengals do with them is a good question.

[mannc]

I was watching the Bronco season NFL replays all day. Cj Anderson is pretty good. hes like a much better Cj Spiller. not a HOF RB but not a slouch either. Hes pretty good at finding wholes and is great at the one cut and speed burst.

And as I recall, he was a UDFA, which again bolsters the OP's argument.

[papazoid]

ideally , you use first round picks on QB's and Front 7 players on either side of ball.

 

use second round picks on RB's, WR's & DB's

 

 

of course the bills long history of drafting has that backwards.

Edited February 11, 2016 by papazoid

[dave mcbride]

I'm not sure the Bengals guys fit into that list to be honest. The Bengals spent 2nd round picks in consecutive years to get Bernard and Hill. That is hardly not allocating resource... indeed I can imagine the reaction around here if the Bills did that! I appreciate that draft picks are different to spending cap resource on players.... but it is still a significant investment when you go two 2nd rounders in two years. They will both be coming up for renewal shortly.... what will the Bengals do with them is a good question.

 

2nd round, first-contract players are practically playing for free with regard to the salary cap. The cap is one of the issues here.

[GunnerBill]

2nd round, first-contract players are practically playing for free with regard to the salary cap. The cap is one of the issues here.

 

Yes I accept that isn't a big salary cap commitment but two second round picks in consecutive years is different to a New England position or Denver picking up CJ Anderson and plugging and playing.

 

I just think your position slightly over simplifies it and it is a bit more complicated than you are trying to portray. The team with the second highest salary cap hit the past two years when it comes to running backs have been Seattle who have been in the Superbowl. The general point that running backs both in terms of average salary and draft pick status have become less valued is a good one..... however, it is simply not true that all good teams now have a plug and play UDFA earning peanuts running the ball for them.

[mannc]

 

Yes I accept that isn't a big salary cap commitment but two second round picks in consecutive years is different to a New England position or Denver picking up CJ Anderson and plugging and playing.

 

I just think your position slightly over simplifies it and it is a bit more complicated than you are trying to portray. The team with the second highest salary cap hit the past two years when it comes to running backs have been Seattle who have been in the Superbowl. The general point that running backs both in terms of average salary and draft pick status have become less valued is a good one..... however, it is simply not true that all good teams now have a plug and play UDFA earning peanuts running the ball for them.

Fair enough. Maybe a more important and (for the Bills) relevant point is that teams don't generally win with a "run first" or "ground and pound" philosophy like the one Rex and Roman seem to want to install. For good teams now, the pass sets up the run by spreading the field and forcing the defense to play five defensive backs. As Badol has pointed out, there is an emphasis on big, downhill runners who can take advantage of defenses that sell out to stop the pass, as well as RBs who can catch and pass-block. OBD, as usual, is behind the curve. Edited February 11, 2016 by mannc

[dave mcbride]

 

Yes I accept that isn't a big salary cap commitment but two second round picks in consecutive years is different to a New England position or Denver picking up CJ Anderson and plugging and playing.

 

I just think your position slightly over simplifies it and it is a bit more complicated than you are trying to portray. The team with the second highest salary cap hit the past two years when it comes to running backs have been Seattle who have been in the Superbowl. The general point that running backs both in terms of average salary and draft pick status have become less valued is a good one..... however, it is simply not true that all good teams now have a plug and play UDFA earning peanuts running the ball for them.

I agree that not all good teams operate like this, but I think most franchises who are usually good operate this way.

[QuoteTheRaven83]

Team rushing stats in NFL during reg season.

 

1) Bills
2) Panthers

3) Seahawks

4) Vikings

5) Bucs

6) Chiefs

 

Of the top 6 teams, Bills and Bucs were the only 2 teams not in the postseason, so I don't see the point you're trying to make,

[GunnerBill]

Fair enough. Maybe a more important and (for the Bills) relevant point is that teams don't generally win with a "run first" or "ground and pound" philosophy like the one Rex and Roman seem to want to install. For good teams now, the pass sets up the run by spreading the field and forcing the defense to play five defensive backs. As Badol has pointed out, there is an emphasis on big, downhill runners who can take advantage of defenses that sell out to stop the pass, as well as RBs who can catch and pass-block. OBD, as usual, is behind the curve.

 

Again it isn't that simple. The two years they got to the Superbowl Seattle were first and second in terms of the percentage of snaps on which they ran the football.

 

In 2015 Buffalo ran it on the highest percentage of its offensive snaps. The next three teams in that list? Carolina, Minnesota, Seattle. All play-off teams. Also in the top 10 - Kansas City, Cincinnati and Arizona. All play-off teams. At the opposite end - 30th in run percentage was New England, but after them the next lowest play-off team was Pittsburgh in 20th. People fixate a bit on New England. They are the exception. Most play-off teams run it well and run it often. Has the league changed? Sure. Does the pass set up the run more than it used to? Sure. But can you still win with a run first mentality? Yes... and unless you have a Tom Brady that is sometimes your best bet.

Edited February 11, 2016 by GunnerBill

[Marty McFly]

And as I recall, he was a UDFA, which again bolsters the OP's argument.

yeah, thats my point, i dont think we should spend a draft pick on a RB even if McCoy is cut. Which I doubt considering they dont even know if he will be charged yet.

[dave mcbride]

Team rushing stats in NFL during reg season.

 

1) Bills

2) Panthers

3) Seahawks

4) Vikings

5) Bucs

6) Chiefs

 

Of the top 6 teams, Bills and Bucs were the only 2 teams not in the postseason, so I don't see the point you're trying to make,

who did these teams invest their RB dollars in, and which RBs did the work? Except for the Vikes, who had a bad offense overall (29th), there's not much correlation. I never said that running the ball was a problem.

Edited February 11, 2016 by dave mcbride

[GunnerBill]

who did these teams invest their RB dollars in, and which RBs did the work? Except for the Vikes, who had a bad offense overall (29th), there's not much correlation. I never said that running the ball was a problem.

The thing is the Seahawks and the Chiefs DID invest dollars in running backs. It was just that this year those backs got injured hence the backup had to pick up the work. Neither of those teams fit your description of teams who don't invest in the RB position.

[johnwalter]

not having a guy at RB killed the pats

[ganesh]

Fair enough. Maybe a more important and (for the Bills) relevant point is that teams don't generally win with a "run first" or "ground and pound" philosophy like the one Rex and Roman seem to want to install. For good teams now, the pass sets up the run by spreading the field and forcing the defense to play five defensive backs. As Badol has pointed out, there is an emphasis on big, downhill runners who can take advantage of defenses that sell out to stop the pass, as well as RBs who can catch and pass-block. OBD, as usual, is behind the curve.

Aren't Shady and Karlos that type of runners? OBD has actually understood what it takes to have a running game,

[dave mcbride]

The thing is the Seahawks and the Chiefs DID invest dollars in running backs. It was just that this year those backs got injured hence the backup had to pick up the work. Neither of those teams fit your description of teams who don't invest in the RB position.

That is true (including the ineffective Arian Foster, 4 playoff teams out of 12 invested real dollars in the position), but my question is, do they regret it? Lynch got a nice new contract last offseason and completely crashed. He is now retiring (although I won't be surprised if he comes back after the season begins and plays for another team). Charles got a a 2-year, $18 million deal and went down with his second ACL tear in 5 years. He also quite literally cost the Chiefs a game against the Broncos this season by fumbling near the goal line and again in OT. The Chiefs should definitely have won that game, and if they had, they would have won the division. And it's not as if KC's running game faltered after he went down -- look at the rushing yardage in the games after he went down (game 5):

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/kan/2015.htm .

 

Anyway, my point isn't that good teams never invest in the position; some obviously do. It's that for this season, well-paid bell cow RBs were negligibly important factors for the best teams. And even AP comes with a caveat given the weakness of the Minnesota offense overall.

not having a guy at RB killed the pats

They had two capable ones. Both got injured. Edited February 12, 2016 by dave mcbride