finknottle Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 In the context of the TH "two time 1,300 yard rusher" in another thread, I was going to question the worth to a team of a great rusher. I spent so much time crunching the numbers that I thought I should start a new thread. I looked at the past three years and calculated the average regular season record of teams with a 1500+ rusher, a 1200-1499 rusher, and a 1000-1200 rusher. The years averaged 5, 7 and 6 such rushers respectively, so you're basically looking at over half the league. What I found was 5 1500+ ------> 8.7 - 7.3 7 1200-1499 ------> 8.4 - 7.6 6 1000-1199 ------> 7.9 - 8.1 14 <1000 So basically it looks like the W-L difference between having a top 5 back and a dime-a-dozen back is less then one game. I'm guessing the impact of a top 5 QB or WR is bigger. Comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Interesting post, curious to see how many teams missed the playoffs by one game. I can think of one already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Very interesting analysis, although it is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy in the sense that better teams (with better records) tend to have stronger surrounding personnel, which usually lends itself to better RB performance. For instance, during New England's Super Bowl run, Antowain Smith looked like a stud and a large portion of his performance can be attributed to his surrounding talent. Still, I see the correlation. Interesting. Thanks In the context of the TH "two time 1,300 yard rusher" in another thread, I was going to question the worth to a team of a great rusher. I spent so much time crunching the numbers that I thought I should start a new thread. I looked at the past three years and calculated the average regular season record of teams with a 1500+ rusher, a 1200-1499 rusher, and a 1000-1200 rusher. The years averaged 5, 7 and 6 such rushers respectively, so you're basically looking at over half the league. What I found was 5 1500+ ------> 8.7 - 7.3 7 1200-1499 ------> 8.4 - 7.6 6 1000-1199 ------> 7.9 - 8.1 14 <1000 So basically it looks like the W-L difference between having a top 5 back and a dime-a-dozen back is less then one game. I'm guessing the impact of a top 5 QB or WR is bigger. Comments? 389915[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Very interesting analysis, although it is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy in the sense that better teams (with better records) tend to have stronger surrounding personnel, which usually lends itself to better RB performance. For instance, during New England's Super Bowl run, Antowain Smith looked like a stud and a large portion of his performance can be attributed to his surrounding talent. Still, I see the correlation. Interesting. Thanks 389929[/snapback] I'm not sure I'd toss the word stud around concerning Antowain Smith's performance in NE. Serviceable is more suitable. Look at his 100 yard rushing game against us. 19 carries for 58 yards until breaking a 42 yarder late against a pathetic defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 I'm not sure I'd toss the word stud around concerning Antowain Smith's performance in NE. Serviceable is more suitable. Look at his 100 yard rushing game against us. 19 carries for 58 yards until breaking a 42 yarder late against a pathetic defense. 389946[/snapback] Eddie George is on no one's lips as a great rb, but he was pretty much money in the bank converting 3rd downs and keeping the offense on the field. Folks like Larry Centers and Keith Byers also moved the sticks with regularity. There is IMO a bunch of backs through the years that didn't shine in the marquee but kept the thing going. Nice (and rare) if you have one on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Eddie George is on no one's lips as a great rb, but he was pretty much money in the bank converting 3rd downs and keeping the offense on the field. Folks like Larry Centers and Keith Byers also moved the sticks with regularity. There is IMO a bunch of backs through the years that didn't shine in the marquee but kept the thing going. Nice (and rare) if you have one on the team. 389977[/snapback] There was a time I thought Rob Riddick to be the best 1 yd. man in the league. I mean that in a good way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Good analysis, but I think the question is wrong (or at least framed incorrectly). What your analysis really may show is that you don't need to pay one *stud* back, because a single great running back doesn't get you all that much closer to the playoffs. BUT, I wonder whether a team's season-total rushing yards is a better indicator of success - I'm guessing it would be, and it'll also show that running back by committee is an effective, cheap way to be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 26, 2005 Author Share Posted July 26, 2005 Good analysis, but I think the question is wrong (or at least framed incorrectly). What your analysis really may show is that you don't need to pay one *stud* back, because a single great running back doesn't get you all that much closer to the playoffs. BUT, I wonder whether a team's season-total rushing yards is a better indicator of success - I'm guessing it would be, and it'll also show that running back by committee is an effective, cheap way to be successful. 389986[/snapback] I am inclined to agree re committee. The conclusion I wanted to draw from this - having seen recent discussions here about paying WM whatever he wants after his deal is up - is that you don't break the salary cap bank for a top 5 RB. You don't even want to dent it. That's why I looked at having a leading rushing rather than team totals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 26, 2005 Author Share Posted July 26, 2005 Eddie George is on no one's lips as a great rb, but he was pretty much money in the bank converting 3rd downs and keeping the offense on the field. Folks like Larry Centers and Keith Byers also moved the sticks with regularity. There is IMO a bunch of backs through the years that didn't shine in the marquee but kept the thing going. Nice (and rare) if you have one on the team. 389977[/snapback] For what its worth, the numbers agree. Eddie George was only in that third tier of gainers (the two sample years he was with the Titans), but his team was dominant: 2003 12-4 1031 yrds 2002 11-5 1165 yrds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Good analysis, but I think the question is wrong (or at least framed incorrectly). What your analysis really may show is that you don't need to pay one *stud* back, because a single great running back doesn't get you all that much closer to the playoffs. BUT, I wonder whether a team's season-total rushing yards is a better indicator of success - I'm guessing it would be, and it'll also show that running back by committee is an effective, cheap way to be successful. 389986[/snapback] The arguments either way have merit. Given the evolvement of NFL rules, a dead-nuts pass to a rb or fb has seemed to become a frequent option replacing the big line push with the fullback plunge. Dunno - I don't study anyone's games. But from an enjoyment, a gut level, I like the mano-a-mano plunge up the middle to get those key yards instead of the flip sideline pass to accomplish the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 To me, it's always been about turnover differential in the highly competive games such as playoffs and division rivalries over the years moreso than any one position on the field including RB. I think the Patriots would agree as one of the more recent examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 To me, it's always been about turnover differential in the highly competive games such as playoffs and division rivalries over the years moreso than any one position on the field including RB. I think the Patriots would agree as one of the more recent examples. 390010[/snapback] Or perhaps time of possession, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Time of possession in most cases yes, but ultimately it's about turnover diff in the ultimate team game of american football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 I think the data shows a strong correlation with winning games. Considering how many other factors are involved in winning this shows that a single dominant RB will get you an increased likelihood of coming out on top. Rushing yards are created by elite backs and average ones, it doesn't matter who got those yards it just matters that they got them. This data indicates that when those yards are created by elite backs it could lead to nearly a 1 game advantage over the course of the year. Follow that data down the list to the worst starting backs and you would likely get a 2 game advantage when compared to the elite backs. Think 1 or 2 games matter over the course of the season? I'm sure the Bills would be a good team to ask that question to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts