The Myth of the Replaceable Running Back

[YoloinOhio]

Great article on NFL RB value in 2016. Bleacher Report, so need to copy and paste link to browser

 

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2631564-ezekiel-elliott-and-the-myth-of-the-replaceable-running-back

 

Does it really make sense for a team to avoid drafting a player as good as Ezekiel Elliott as a matter of analytic principle?

 

A quick reexamination of the evidence suggests teams were drafting too many running backs in the first round back when football analytics first became a thing. But draft strategies have changed, as have salary structures. And while many running backs are interchangeable, the truly special ones like Elliott often require a first-round investment.

Rare Commodities

First, let's tackle the idea that "a team can get a good running back anywhere." It's bupkis.

Edited April 18, 2016 by YoloinOhio

[zonabb]

Wait, wait, wait. The WGR55 clowns all say that RBs and goalies are like pennies, you can find them everywhere. And if the guy with the microphone says it then it might be true, always. Problem with these absolute arguments that guys like Jeremy White make is they shun superstar goalies and superstar RBs in favor of the mediocrity in the middle of the distribution of players. And they all rely on these analytical measures that DESCRIBE relationships but are not causal. Sick of guys with communications degrees trying to sound smart when their skills in statistical analysis is based on their simplistic understanding that the probability of getting heads on a coin flip is 50%. The arguments this guy makes are non-nonsensical. He ignores reality to prove his arguments that seem logical only because the assumption of the argument is "Let's ignore reality." Case in point, last week he was arguing that taking 5 QBs in a draft is basically as good as taking the top QB since they (all 5) have equal probability of being as good as the top guy. The entire argument seems logical if 1) you know exactly the probability that the top QB will be good and 2) you know the exact probability for each of the other 5. So if the top guy has a 50% probability of being good and each of the other 5 you hypothetically would draft have a 10% chance, then they're equal. But the argument falls apart when the implied assumptions are 1) we ignore reality and 2) each of the 5 QBs will get equal time under center in practice and games, not likely and less likely given the limit practice times that you could make a good judgment on one of them. All these guys who rely on numbers miss the point, there is so much randomness in the NFL when you have 22 moving parts that are supposed to communicate, think, and react that no stat can account for that. And further, that the success of one player is impacted by the play of other, often more than one. A RB with a horrible OL won't be good, no matter where he's draft, or won't meet his full potential. Same with a QB.

 

All this analysis is garbage and you can see why most teams minimize analytics because analytics minimize the game into tiny snippets that ignore the whole.

[YattaOkasan]

Wait, wait, wait. The WGR55 clowns all say that RBs and goalies are like pennies, you can find them everywhere. And if the guy with the microphone says it then it might be true, always. Problem with these absolute arguments that guys like Jeremy White make is they shun superstar goalies and superstar RBs in favor of the mediocrity in the middle of the distribution of players. And they all rely on these analytical measures that DESCRIBE relationships but are not causal. Sick of guys with communications degrees trying to sound smart when their skills in statistical analysis is based on their simplistic understanding that the probability of getting heads on a coin flip is 50%. The arguments this guy makes are non-nonsensical. He ignores reality to prove his arguments that seem logical only because the assumption of the argument is "Let's ignore reality." Case in point, last week he was arguing that taking 5 QBs in a draft is basically as good as taking the top QB since they (all 5) have equal probability of being as good as the top guy. The entire argument seems logical if 1) you know exactly the probability that the top QB will be good and 2) you know the exact probability for each of the other 5. So if the top guy has a 50% probability of being good and each of the other 5 you hypothetically would draft have a 10% chance, then they're equal. But the argument falls apart when the implied assumptions are 1) we ignore reality and 2) each of the 5 QBs will get equal time under center in practice and games, not likely and less likely given the limit practice times that you could make a good judgment on one of them. All these guys who rely on numbers miss the point, there is so much randomness in the NFL when you have 22 moving parts that are supposed to communicate, think, and react that no stat can account for that. And further, that the success of one player is impacted by the play of other, often more than one. A RB with a horrible OL won't be good, no matter where he's draft, or won't meet his full potential. Same with a QB.

 

All this analysis is garbage and you can see why most teams minimize analytics because analytics minimize the game into tiny snippets that ignore the whole.

Just of note. If 5 guys have 10% each then the you only have a ~60% of hitting on your guy (0.9^5). So it basically more supports your point that you should take the 1 guy.

[mannc]

Great article on NFL RB value in 2016. Bleacher Report, so need to copy and paste link to browser

 

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2631564-ezekiel-elliott-and-the-myth-of-the-replaceable-running-back

 

 

Sorry, but this article doesn't dispell anything. Of course RBs drafted in the first round will tend to outperform RBs taken later. That's true of every position. The fact is that the difference between a first round guy and a guy taken in the late round or as UFA is often not very great and furthermore, very few of the recent first rounders are getting second contracts with the teams that drafted them. E Elliott might be the exception that proves the rule. And the article doesn't bother to mention that Elliott is so highly valued largely because he is so effective in the passing game, both as a blocker and as a receiver. Ask the Chargers how smart it is to draft a RB in the first round. Edited April 18, 2016 by mannc

[John from Riverside]

To me it all boils down t

 

- What kind of offense do you run

- Just how involved is your main back in that offense

 

That is why I really scoff at people that downplay McCoy and B word about his contract

 

Your getting

 

- One of the more elusive RBs in the league

- a receiver

- a blitz pickup guy

 

He does all those things pretty darn well

[BillsVet]

The author doesn't mention that positional value being what it is, drafting RB's high is no longer typically the best use of a team's resources. The rules of the game have shaded toward throwing the ball and as a result, running it isn't very important. Teams trying to run their way to success typically don't.

 

There are so many variables conveniently left out of this article. The one constant in the modern NFL is that teams with top RB's aren't making the playoffs. Of the top 16 backs by rushing yards in 2015, only 5 of them played on playoff teams. Only 7 RBs in 2015 ran for more than 1k yards.

 

Only 1 RB who rushed for 1k or more yards played on a playoff team (Adrian Peterson)

 

The other intangible not mentioned is that RB's have a high propensity for being injured. And it makes sense because when they touch the ball they're usually getting hit. It's why teams are limiting carries, with only Peterson getting more than 300 carries (327) last year. That means more platooning (the fantasy owners know this) which therefore reduces the need to have a feature back. Which means you'll look for, as the author says, committee backs.

 

I know there's going to be an effort by some to justify Buffalo's absurd use of draft resources and UFA dollars on RB's the past 10-15 years. Offensively the Bills haven't done much in that time, because their priority on running the ball is not in keeping with NFL trends. And because they've failed to find a QB, which falls on multiple GM's.

 

RB's aren't "easily" replaceable...but it's still the easiest position to replace. And the Bills still use far too many resources on the position, Lesean McCoy being the latest example.

Edited April 18, 2016 by BillsVet

[KDIGGZ]

Zeke Elliott will be in the Pro Bowl if not this year then next. There's no way he gets past the Dolphins at 13 but I would expect him to be top 10. Most RB's are a dime a dozen but elite RB's are rare and he is a game changer

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Zeke Elliott will be in the Pro Bowl if not this year then next. There's no way he gets past the Dolphins at 13 but I would expect him to be top 10. Most RB's are a dime a dozen but elite RB's are rare and he is a game changer

Just like all pendulum effect the RBs went from probably being over valued to under valued.

 

Tell the Rams Gurley isn't an important piece of their success. Minny wouldn't have been a playoff team without a reficukous 4.5 ypc from AP.

 

Elite players at running back still matter. They just aren't the only formula for success, and after the elite tier the separation isn't large from one guy to the next.

[boyst]

I would like him in Buffalo and did until we got McCoy. I'd have Elliot over McCoy if I could change history

[jr1]

CJ Anderson was an UDFA. There is excess supply

[Mark Vader]

To me it all boils down t

 

- What kind of offense do you run

- Just how involved is your main back in that offense

 

That is why I really scoff at people that downplay McCoy and B word about his contract

 

Your getting

 

- One of the more elusive RBs in the league

- a receiver

- a blitz pickup guy

 

He does all those things pretty darn well

Here, Here!

[mannc]

Tell the Rams Gurley isn't an important piece of their success.

.

By all means, tell us more about the Rams' "success". I must have missed it. All I can remember is that they had one of the worst offenses in the league, despite having this wonderous talent at RB. Not exactly poster boys for the "running backs still matter" argument.

Edited April 18, 2016 by mannc

[BaaadThingsMan]

There's always diamonds in the rough and players that slip through the cracks or are late bloomers but if you've done your research and come away believing a guy has talent I say you pick him. I think Elliott will go 4th to Dallas and with that line will go to the pro bowl this year.

[mannc]

Tell the Rams Gurley isn't an important piece of their success. Minny wouldn't have been a playoff team without a reficukous 4.5 ypc from AP.

Oh, and the Vikings had by far the worst offense of any team in the playoffs last year, despite having the best running back in the league (and the best of his generation). And they didn't exactly light up the scoreboard in their lone (home) playoff game.

Edited April 18, 2016 by mannc

[Mr. WEO]

We will never replace Spiller....

[Dorkington]

I think, much like QBs, some systems can make most NFL runners moderately successful... while some systems aren't that great, and rely on having an excellent RB in order to be successful. Our system, for example, seems to be pretty good for anyone not named Boobie. But McCoy is also stellar, so it doubly works.

[Mr. WEO]

Great article on NFL RB value in 2016. Bleacher Report, so need to copy and paste link to browser

 

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2631564-ezekiel-elliott-and-the-myth-of-the-replaceable-running-back

 

 

 

Was the guy who wrote that born after Trent Richardson was drafted?

[Chilly]

Oh, and the Vikings had by far the worst offense of any team in the playoffs last year, despite having the best running back in the league (and the best of his generation). And they didn't exactly light up the scoreboard in their lone (home) playoff game.

Teams that feature great RBs often do so because they are lacking at the most important position in the game, QB. And you can be reasonably successful (playoffs), but that's about your cap. Minnesota this year was a great example of that, Bridgewater was very meh yet they still got to the playoffs.

 

When a team gets half decent QB play with a great runningback, those teams can be successful. Kaepernick and Gore is a good example.

 

When teams get cash strapped for the crazy expensive, star QB that top notch RB becomes expendable because you can win without the RB (even though you're better with him).

 

As a result, the top RBs are going to be biased toward losing teams because those teams don't have great quarterbacks, it's hard to get quarterbacks, and they're trying to find another way to win so they'll pay the top backs.

 

With the biased introduced as a result of the cap I don't think success is a great way to evaluate positional impact. We just don't see a lot of great RBs on teams with a top QB today because they can't keep everyone. When you do have that combo, you can dominate (Seattle with Wilson and Lynch comes to mind).

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

By all means, tell us more about the Rams' "success". I must have missed it. All I can remember is that they had one of the worst offenses in the league, despite having this wonderous talent at RB. Not exactly poster boys for the "running backs still matter" argument.

I sort of meant this in a forward looking way. But yeah you got me...