AP Article featuring Thurman Thomas talking about devalued RB position - interesting tidbit on Cook

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

35 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

This should be studied!! Workhorse backs used to average 25-30, 35 carries per game and play till they were old. Emmitt, Jamal Lewis, Eddie george etc etc

 

They were seeing double the carries and double the effective years in the nfl. WTF happened to them? I don't buy any 'kids are getting softer' bs. Its strange!!!

 

They changed the rules to make passing over the middle easier and FAR safer for one. They call more defensive holding penalties, spread offense concepts have been mixed in considerably more to create easier reads, offensive lines are more athletic to contribute in screen games, QBs are protected WAY more than in the past as well. 

 

A lot changed to make the net gain greater and net risk of a pass play far less than it was.  

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

37 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Good stuff.

 

I made this argument repeatedly during the Cook saga threads.

 

Cook had 207 carries and 32 receptions. He had the ball 239 times. He accounted for 1267 yards and 18 TDs.

Shakir, who just got $15M/yr, and just had his best year yet, had 78 total touches, 825 yds, and 4 TDs.

 

 

 

Cook's 24 career touches on 3rd down (9 last season), is important to note.  

[US Egg]

The RB position isn’t being devalued, it has become more diversified.

[MJS]

12 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

Says who on it being the nature of the position? 

How is it not? You are running the ball through a gauntlet of large men trying to tackle you. It is a high contact, high volume position.

[ganesh]

2 hours ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

For running backs - they difference between good-great-HOF is.. usually less than a yard per carry.  It's very much also tied to the offensive line (So is the QB but it seems less important for their paycheck).  

 

I always look at it with running backs at a smaller level.  In a single game will his impact be greater than a replacement? Does this guy play his best in the big games, the playoffs, etc?  If the answer is yes, pay him market value.  If you don't think so, the investment (financial or draft) needs to match what you want in contributions.  

I think we win the AFCC if Brady gave the ball more often to Cook.   The same mistake made in XXV when Thurman did not touch the ball enough.  Go Bills !!!

[DrDawkinstein]

40 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

Cook's 24 career touches on 3rd down (9 last season), is important to note.  

 

Some of that has to do with his 4.9ypc and the fact that if you feed him on f 1st and 2nd down, you often dont even get to 3rd down. 

 

The stats and production stand on their own. I dont care what down they came on.

[HardyBoy]

40 minutes ago, MJS said:

How is it not? You are running the ball through a gauntlet of large men trying to tackle you. It is a high contact, high volume position.

 

Oh I get that it's a physical position... I'm talking about who says they need to get 350 carries a season?

 

Look at what the conversation around Cook was during the contract negotiations...he doesn't play enough % of plays

[FireChans]

2 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

I don't know why RBs get paid less per yard than receivers...

 

 

 

The top five backs last season got paid $7,949 per yard contributed to the offense.  The top five receivers got paid $24,276 per yard.  I think the RBs have a point.

If you do it over the last 3 years, I think you'd find it much more interesting. 

[MJS]

5 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

Oh I get that it's a physical position... I'm talking about who says they need to get 350 carries a season?

 

Look at what the conversation around Cook was during the contract negotiations...he doesn't play enough % of plays

Because the more you can do, the more valuable and harder to replace you become to your team. If they don't need to pay money and roster high quality 2nd and 3rd backs, or scheme around your inabilities, those resources can go elsewhere.

 

And like I said, if you aren't able to handle the rigors of the position, there is a long line of talent willing to step in and take your job and prove that they can do it.

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Good stuff.

 

I made this argument repeatedly during the Cook saga threads.

 

Cook had 207 carries and 32 receptions. He had the ball 239 times. He accounted for 1267 yards and 18 TDs.

Shakir, who just got $15M/yr, and just had his best year yet, had 78 total touches, 825 yds, and 4 TDs.

 

 

Shakir averaged 10.6 yards per touch.

 

Cook averaged 5.3 yards per touch.

 

Basically, a Shakir touch is twice as efficient as a Cook touch.

 

It's a simple math equation. You are better off giving Jamar Chase 100 touches than Saquon Barkley 200 touches.

 

So Jamar makes twice as much as Saquon. 

[MJS]

2 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

I don't know why RBs get paid less per yard than receivers...

 

 

 

The top five backs last season got paid $7,949 per yard contributed to the offense.  The top five receivers got paid $24,276 per yard.  I think the RBs have a point.

It takes more talent to get open, create enough separation, and catch a pass than it does to grab a handoff and run for a few yards while having literally the rest of the offense besides the QB blocking to create space for you. Two way different skill sets. One of them is more rare. A lot of running backs can step in and get the production that is created for them from the oline and scheme. No matter what, a receiver is always going to have to create their own separation by running good routes, and they always have to be sure handed enough to make the catch. Scheme can help receivers, but they are mostly alone in what they have to do to get production.

[HardyBoy]

1 minute ago, MJS said:

Because the more you can do, the more valuable and harder to replace you become to your team. If they don't need to pay money and roster high quality 2nd and 3rd backs, or scheme around your inabilities, those resources can go elsewhere.

 

And like I said, if you aren't able to handle the rigors of the position, there is a long line of talent willing to step in and take your job and prove that they can do it.

 

Virtually nobody can handle the rigors of the position. Yes there are a lot of people who can do 70% of what an elite running back becomes because you play them 70% of the snaps...what if you played them 50% of the snaps and got 100% of their ability for a much longer time?

 

Why do they need that many carries? I think the bills have shown with Cook that it doesn't need to be that way...and they aren't spending a lot on Davis or Johnson at all.

 

But yeah, the long line of talent is not better than or as good as the best running backs, unless you grind the best running backs into the ground with too many carries.

[dave mcbride]

4 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Shakir averaged 10.6 yards per touch.

 

Cook averaged 5.3 yards per touch.

 

Basically, a Shakir touch is twice as efficient as a Cook touch.

 

It's a simple math equation. You are better off giving Jamar Chase 100 touches than Saquon Barkley 200 touches.

 

So Jamar makes twice as much as Saquon. 

Yards per target is a better gage because incompleted passes are effectively the same as run stuffs. Shakir averaged 8.2 yards per target: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/ShakKh00.htm. Cook averaged 6.8 yards per target on 38 targets. 

 

Anyway, it's not as simple as that. There are more turnovers in the passing game (INTs plus strip sacks) than in the running game, so the latter is safer, and if you can't run the ball effectively (4.4 ypc or so) the passing game will absolutely suffer. 

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Yards per target is a better gage because incompleted passes are effectively the same as run stuffs. Shakir averaged 8.2 yards per target: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/ShakKh00.htm. Cook averaged 6.8 yards per target on 38 targets. 

 

Anyway, it's not as simple as that. There are more turnovers in the passing game (INTs plus strip sacks) than in the running game, so the latter is safer, and if you can't run the ball effectively (4.4 ypc or so) the passing game will absolutely suffer. 

If you want a better comparison, it would be James Cook YPC averaged with his yards per target vs a receivers' yards per target.

 

The point still stands that the 30th-40th best WR is more efficient on a touch/target basis than a top 6ish RB. 

 

Which is why Shakir makes more than Cook.

[dave mcbride]

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

If you want a better comparison, it would be James Cook YPC averaged with his yards per target vs a receivers' yards per target.

 

The point still stands that the 30th-40th best WR is more efficient on a touch/target basis than a top 6ish RB. 

 

Which is why Shakir makes more than Cook.

You'll get no argument from me that an elite receiver is less valuable than an elite RB! Just adding a little nuance.

Edited September 2 by dave mcbride

[BigAl2526]

2 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

I don't know why RBs get paid less per yard than receivers...

 

 

 

The top five backs last season got paid $7,949 per yard contributed to the offense.  The top five receivers got paid $24,276 per yard.  I think the RBs have a point.

I think the bias toward WRs in the league is due to the perception that elite WRs tend to give their teams more chunk plays.  RBs get more at least twice as many touches but yards per touch is much lower.  Fans are entertained more when their team has an explosive offense than they are by a relentless ground game.  There may be a perception that apart from a few "freaks" at the RB position, top WRs might be more athletic.

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

You'll get no argument from me that an elite receiver is less valuable than an elite RB! Just adding a little nuance.

I think you mean more valuable?

 

I find the whole topic interesting because I think there's a moneyball market efficiency there somewhere.

 

Saquon who for sake of example is clear cut RB1 in the NFL.

 

He had a ridiculous 5.8 YPC on 345 carries and 6.5 YPT on 43 targets. That puts his usage rate at 388 balls given Saquon's way, at a 5.9 yards per. 

 

Chase, let's call him WR1, had 9.8 yards per target. 1.6x more efficient than Saquon. 

 

Chase is making $40M AAV. Saquon is making $20M AAV.

 

So despite Chase not quite being twice as efficient as Saquon, he makes twice as much. Now, factored into that price point is youth, upside, and longevity. 

 

I think there's some way to manipulate the numbers so that paying a player like Cook is a better value than signing a mid-tier FA WR. 

 

 

[MJS]

24 minutes ago, HardyBoy said:

 

Virtually nobody can handle the rigors of the position. Yes there are a lot of people who can do 70% of what an elite running back becomes because you play them 70% of the snaps...what if you played them 50% of the snaps and got 100% of their ability for a much longer time?

 

Why do they need that many carries? I think the bills have shown with Cook that it doesn't need to be that way...and they aren't spending a lot on Davis or Johnson at all.

 

But yeah, the long line of talent is not better than or as good as the best running backs, unless you grind the best running backs into the ground with too many carries.

Sure, which is why so many teams have gone to a committee approach. It takes less off of your starting back, but that also makes you less valuable to your team because you are doing less. It isn't complicated. The more you do, the more valuable you are to the team.

 

Meanwhile, the rest of the offense is able to play close to 100% of snaps and only come off the field for different formations and personnel packages. Pretty much only running backs need breaks. Sometimes receivers if they run a bunch of long routes in a row.

[MJS]

5 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I think you mean more valuable?

 

I find the whole topic interesting because I think there's a moneyball market efficiency there somewhere.

 

Saquon who for sake of example is clear cut RB1 in the NFL.

 

He had a ridiculous 5.8 YPC on 345 carries and 6.5 YPT on 43 targets. That puts his usage rate at 388 balls given Saquon's way, at a 5.9 yards per. 

 

Chase, let's call him WR1, had 9.8 yards per target. 1.6x more efficient than Saquon. 

 

Chase is making $40M AAV. Saquon is making $20M AAV.

 

So despite Chase not quite being twice as efficient as Saquon, he makes twice as much. Now, factored into that price point is youth, upside, and longevity. 

 

I think there's some way to manipulate the numbers so that paying a player like Cook is a better value than signing a mid-tier FA WR. 

This is all spot on. And it is why the NFL moved from a run heavy league to a pass heavy league. It is just way more efficient. The more plays you have to run in order to score, the more likely you are going to get stopped. Passing the ball is almost twice as efficient as running it. Yes, it is also more risky, but teams are willing to take those risks because it has shown time and time again that it is worth it.

 

We moved back toward running the ball, but it is never going to return to what it was. Passing is always going to be more important and more efficient. Hence, receivers get paid a lot more money. But let's not pretend like it is all receivers. You can get bargain receivers who can produce for you, but the bargain receivers still get paid a lot more than the bargain running backs. And they should. Passing is better than running.

[dave mcbride]

14 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I think you mean more valuable?

 

I find the whole topic interesting because I think there's a moneyball market efficiency there somewhere.

 

Saquon who for sake of example is clear cut RB1 in the NFL.

 

He had a ridiculous 5.8 YPC on 345 carries and 6.5 YPT on 43 targets. That puts his usage rate at 388 balls given Saquon's way, at a 5.9 yards per. 

 

Chase, let's call him WR1, had 9.8 yards per target. 1.6x more efficient than Saquon. 

 

Chase is making $40M AAV. Saquon is making $20M AAV.

 

So despite Chase not quite being twice as efficient as Saquon, he makes twice as much. Now, factored into that price point is youth, upside, and longevity. 

 

I think there's some way to manipulate the numbers so that paying a player like Cook is a better value than signing a mid-tier FA WR. 

 

 

Apologies for the overly complicated sentence - I meant to imply that I'm not going to argue that an elite receiver is less valuable than an elite RB.