dave mcbride

Note the shifting goal posts -- from bit player in championship game to bit player overall. That's wrong too, but whatever. I'll stick to your original supposition -- that he was a bit player in the championship game. In that game, said bit player had 36.3 percent of the team's touches, 31.4 percent of the team's total yards, and in OT he handled the ball 5 out of 7 times, including the final three times in which his rushes moved the ball from the 32 to the 12. Finally, you have not addressed Cincinnati's woeful o-line, which is without question one of the least talented units in the league (they allowed a whopping 55 sacks). It has an impact on RB play. You also haven't touched on the issue of the importance of catch percentage for RBs (vs WRs) -- Mixon caught 87.5 percent of the balls thrown his way, which ranked 5th in the entire league. Teams need safe plays, especially with that kind of line, and if he can catch it at the rate, he's obviously pretty valuable. And again, you admit nothing about TDs runs driving down ypc (kind of an obvious deduction--the field ends but the player is still moving forward, and if you have 13 rushing TDs, that's thirteen plays that just end with you winning but with no more yardage to gain). Bear in mind that Mixon's longest run all season was 32 yards. It's not because he can't break away; at 4.43, he obviously can and has in the past. It's just that these plays are basically pretty random, and not having that 70 yarder (instead of a 32 yarder) meant his ypc was 4.1 instead of 4.3. He was sixth in the league in broken tackles (20) and 4th in the league in yards after broken tackles. He also had more yards from scrimmage than Chase and again had 16 TDs. He finished 4th in the league in TDs and 8th in the league in yards from scrimmage. How is that in any way, shape, or form "bit player"?? Lemme guess your answer: "4.1 ypc."

At least you're not arguing that Mixon was a "bit player" in the AFC championship game anymore! I'll take that as a W.

Passing plays produce way more turnovers and zero-yardage plays. There is a flow-of-game/ball control component to running games that is very important. See my post above about RB value. I think I’m probably right about this because every coach and GM in the league values good running back play. Where you can find that guy in the draft is a very different issue, as I mention above.

Ypc for RBs can be HIGHLY misleading, especially when they are supreme touchdown makers. If you ain’t watching Mixon play in the actual games and you’re judging him on ypc, you’re missing something important. Teams key on him, and their o-line is not just bad, it’s terrible. Yet he remains a true difference maker. He is three times the player Singletary is regardless of ypc. And I don’t dislike Singletary at all.

A healthy Barkley would be FAR more valuable to the Bills than Toney. But I don't know how healthy he is or will be going forward. No one here does. When healthy, he's a generational talent who can do it all from the RB position; Toney is merely a talent.

Here's my take on RB value, such as it is. Good RBs do three things: 1) They run the rock enough and effectively enough to get d-lines prone to moving sideways to stop running plays rather than pinning their ears back and getting after the QB. Doing this effectively does three things: sets up play action, regularly gets you 2-3 yards when you really need it, and opens up the passing game by taking some pressure off of your o-line in pass blocking. 2) They turn the ball over at a very low rate. Pass plays are far less safe than running plays, or at least they should be. INTs and QB fumbles make up the vast bulk of turnovers for just about every team, so if you want safe plays where the possibility of turning it over is very small, you run the ball. Good backs behind effective lines then do two things for you -- get you somewhere between 4 and 4.7 ypc on average and *hang onto the ball*. Running plays are your safe plays, and you need them. That's why RBs who fumble at a higher-than-average rate are kicked to the curb. When you wonder why TJ Yeldon or Matt Brieda has a sloppy fumble and doesn't see the field again, this is why. It's unacceptable for the running game to become a risky approach to moving the ball. You accept fumbles with WRs and QBs because the risk/reward ratio is very different. (Regarding ypc, bear in mind that scoring a lot of rushing TDs is going to reduce your ypc average a tad. Most rushing TDs come from close in, and if you're a back that has a dozen rushing TDs, it'll bring your average down a peg or two. Also, a couple of breakaway runs can really skew ypc. You want backs with breakaway ability, but that's not what you should be counting on--they're pretty rare events.) 3) Good ones serve as receivers who will catch it close to 80 percent of the time. They ypc will be lower than a WR, obviously, but the catch rate will be a fair bit higher. They are safer options to at least produce something on a play-by-play basis and can keep the chains moving. You need safe plays. Just look at the Pats over the years. When viewed this way, it's pretty easy to see why they're valuable players. I think the reason they're not really worth first round picks isn't so much because of the position, but because two of the traits -- holding onto the ball and getting safe positive yards -- are very hard to predict because of the vast difference between NFL defenses and college defenses as well as college o-lines and pro o-lines. Terrel Davis (injured in college) went in the sixth partly because no one could really project that he'd be the greatest RB ever within one very specific o-line scheme. The other reason to avoid them in the first is because no players get injured more frequently than RBs, or so it seems. Their shelf lives are short, and unlike a DE or LT, the chance of that guy being a cornerstone for 8-10 years is very small. If an elite back like Mixon is there in the second, he's great value because you're not on the hook for a big salary or even the fifth year. With a great player in the second, you're getting 4 or so elite years (Le'Veon Bell is the classic case here). After that, investing in that player is paying good money for past production. Barkley, Gurley, and Etienne tell you all you need to know about drafting one in the first. Gurley was worth it for nearly four years, but the injury that appears to have ended his career set in near the end of his 4th year. Of course, the Rams stupidly gave him a big second contract. Finally Ezekiel Elliot is instructive. He had four very good years, and the Cowboys then decided to pay him a lot of money for past results. He's probably the second best back on the team now. They did get four good years, but if he had been a second rounder, he may well have walked and the Cowboys could look at him as a perfect investment. But they did the opposite: drafted him early in the first and gave him a big second contract. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/ElliEz00.htm . (Bear in mind he was suspended for six games in his second year.)

Barkley was a phenomenal receiver before getting hurt. If he does get back to 100 percent, he's as good as Kamara in that category.

The lead fumbler on pretty much every team every year is the QB. Brady takes very few sacks and has always protected the ball. That's the key thing to know about their consistently low fumble rate. It's also extremely rare for him to take on of those ugly sacks where he gets blindsided and demolished. He's always known when to go down and to start turtling if necessary. He is the unquestioned GOAT, after all.

I remember Jimmy Johnson cutting a RB after a game for fumbling. It was the final game of the 1992 season, a year that they went 13-3.

Yeah, and there was a reason he was a second-round pick ...

Lotta irrational people out there ... It seems obvious to me that Deflategate was a total joke. Bills fans hate the Pats, though, so they're primed to believe ...

Gotta disagree on one thing here: Joe Mixon is a STUD and hands-down one of the best RBs in the league. He had 16 TDs and led the team in yards from scrimmage (1,519). It's impossible to argue that he's a bit player in that offense. Moreover, he's an initimdating, fast, bruising RB with good vision who commands attention. Forget about the ypc -- just look at how he opens thing up for the passing game. KC certainly keyed on him in the AFC championship game, and he handled the ball on 24 out of 66 offensive plays (36.3 percent of the time). I'm not a RB truther either! I mostly agree with you. In fact, I've said before that if the Bills were to be gifted just one RB from another team, he'd be my pick.

?? - Deflategate was in 2014. They had the second fewest fumbles in the league that year. They were 23rd in 2013, 5th in 2012, 4th in 2011, and first in 2010. 2015: second fewest 2016: 27th fewest 2017: 4th fewest 2018: fewest (led the league) 2019: 6th fewest (2019 was Brady's last season in NE) That's four top-ten finishes and 3 top-five finishes in 5 years. The median ranking was 4th fewest. The pattern post-2014 is exactly the same as it was from 2010-2014. The median ranking is even the same: 4th fewest in the 2010-14 window. So no, nothing really changed. I hate the Pats, but this story was always a friggin' joke. Nope, See above. https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/fumbles-per-game?date=2019-02-04 No, they remained at the same excellent rate in all the remaining Brady years save one.

It's less about money - it's the #1 sport in the wealthiest countries of the world (minus the US and Canada) by far -- and more about path dependency in fandom and age-old loyalties to venerable local teams that almost everyone in that locality has an interest in (think the Bills). I couldn't give a flying eff about the World Cup; what interests me is Leicester winning the Premier League after being a doormat for eons. Intense fandom in these places is tied to local teams just like fandom in the US is tied to teams that have been around forever and are basically part of the weather (i.e., the Red Sox, the Packers, etc.).

I totally hear you about Buffalo. Growing up there, I thought the NHL was massively popular. Then you go elsewhere, and you learn that it's not.

Baseball is great. Soccer sucks in the US because the talent and the professional system suck, but it's still a great game. Anyone American who is any good ain't staying to play here. They are moving on to the big leagues. In terms of talent/competitiveness, MLS remains a step below the Turkish league, and that's why the sport has never become popular here. It's not the sport; it's the fact that a US league is simply unable to break out of the ranks of developing world countries. No one here wants to watch that -- Americans like being number one, after all. That's why the Premier League is actually more popular in the US than the crap product fans are offered here. I have been hearing for close to 50 years (Pele!) about how soccer will break out of the cult sport ghetto, but it has never come close to happening. Tons of kids play it here, but once they get to 13-14 years old the talented ones are funneled into the sports that "matter." It's a vicious cycle and I don't see it ending any time soon.

You are wildly wrong about baseball's popularity: https://www.thesportsbank.net/business/nfl-vs-mlb-detailed-look-at-popularity-levels-of-both-sports/. Sure, the NFL is king by a long ways, but baseball is a LOT more popular than basketball and hockey. And as for TV ratings, comparing the two is silly even though the NFL is obviously king. Baseball's bread and butter is 30 local deals, not the national contracts with the networks. If you lived in Boston, NY, LA, or St. Louis, you'd realize how culturally resonant baseball is with the average person. The Yankees, for instance, are the most popular team in NY State, and by a fair amount. The Giants are third. https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2016/04/05/new-york-giants-top-buffalo-bills-new-york-jets-as-most-popular-team-in-the-state/

Probably hanging out on the Sloop John B in the Caribbean somewhere.

He was 81-63 in Chicago with a hodgepodge of mediocre QBs. He took over a bad TB team, went 2-14 in year one, drafted Winston, and then went 6-10, finishing 5th in yards and 10th in yards allowed. Then he gets fired and goes to Illinois, a historically bad program that has always struggled at recruiting. They tend to have one good year out of every five or six years, and the program he took over was in bad shape. It remained in bad shape because of recruiting and recruiting alone. But you don't have to recruit in the NFL.

That can get you to 9-8/10-7. There are far worse jobs in the NFL (Washington, Miami, Houston, Jets, ...). The Saints organization drafts pretty well and the team still has some excellent players. As for Winston, he had a rating of 103 over 7 games. Not too shabby.

For those interested in diving deeper: https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/replacement-level/

Really? Do you think Winston is truly that bad? He played reasonably well this season and should be at full health by September. Their talent is pretty decent, although like every team they have some holes.

Smith was 81-63 in Chicago and had Rex Grossman, Chad Hutchison, Kyle Orton, Brian Griese, and Jay Cutler as his QBs. He was fired after a 10-6 season too. Slightly deceiving. He took over a mess of team and then went 2-14 and then 6-10 the next season with a rookie Jameis Winston. Interestingly, Leslie Frazier was his DC in TB. They finished 5th in yards on offense and 10th in yards allowed on defense.

You never know. Given where the Bills drafted last year, you can bet they did their research on him. His "character" was apparently a polarizing issue regarding his future. No one questioned the talent.

Jeremy Fowler on ESPN+. https://heavy.com/sports/new-york-giants/kadarius-toney-trade-rumors-espn/