The death of the workhorse running back

[1sparkybuc]

You don't take a RB at #5 to take the committee approach.

Haven't you heard? The workhorse RB is dead and our committee can't catch, can't pass protect, and can't hold on to the ball. We need someone that can do all of those things with a reasonable guarantee to still be under contract in two or three years. We need a complete back we can depend on. The committee approach will keep him healthy. Caddy got beat up in his rookie year from overuse. I believe most of the really good teams split the load. The Bucs have had very few top tier RBs in their history, and I doubt they will get an opportunity like this (if they do) in my lifetime. Bo Jackson still pisses me off, even though karma finally caught up with him. Bo knows hips. Richardson would really help Freeman and it's all about #5.

[Boid Fink]

So Bo Jax's karma deemed it necessary to cripple him for life?  Okeedokeeartichokee.

[Boid Fink]

TR will be a Brown, and the Bucs will get the bet defender in the draft. ALL I you should love that. But some of you think Eric Wright has fixed our problems...haha!

[1sparkybuc]

So Bo Jax's karma deemed it necessary to cripple him for life?  Okeedokeeartichokee.

Karma was aiming to bite him in the ass, but missed and got the hip instead. I'm pretty sure karma is a Bucs' fan.

[The Anti-Java]

So Bo Jax's karma deemed it necessary to cripple him for life?  Okeedokeeartichokee.

Karma was aiming to bite him in the ass, but missed and got the hip instead. I'm pretty sure karma is a Bucs' fan.

LOL

[bashear]

Wonder what Dom and Schiano think about this. I still think that if Kalil and Claiborne are gone, and the Bucs can't swing a trade, we take TR. I'm not denying that there are good reasons to not take a RB that high. Just wondering what our board looks like.

[dalbuc]

A few things :

The rule changes that was implemented after our SB. Which favors the passing game tremendously. Therefore, running the ball since the rule change hasn't been as effective as it were in previous years. The rule chang affected the "workhorse back" more than anything. "Illegal Contact"

They ignored Pittsburgh SB wins in 2005 and 2008, when Big Ben was a joke of a passing QB then. Those Pitt teams relied heavily on a rushing attack and suffered from mediocre QB play. A great defense and a strong running attack with solid QB play is enough to win SB these days. Its not like the 49ers or Ravens weren't a game away from playing in the big dance. And its not like 2008 is light years away from the current 2012.

Detrimental...so wrong all the time:

Passing wins was true pre-2002 as well and passing defense was as well was critical. What the rule changes did were make the value of rushing lower not the value of passing higher.

He references PIT. Sad examples for his "cause".
PIT in 2005 was excellent in passing efficiency like most other super bowl teams #7 overall  - it wasn't  a "joke". Toss in an elite defense and those things are what drives a Super Bowl champ.
PIT in 2008 is an even worse example, While their passing was not great (17th) their running was worse, terrible actually 29th in yards and 23rd in efficiency.  Oh and a defense that was excellent as well.

[Detrimental]

A few things :

The rule changes that was implemented after our SB. Which favors the passing game tremendously. Therefore, running the ball since the rule change hasn't been as effective as it were in previous years. The rule chang affected the "workhorse back" more than anything. "Illegal Contact"

They ignored Pittsburgh SB wins in 2005 and 2008, when Big Ben was a joke of a passing QB then. Those Pitt teams relied heavily on a rushing attack and suffered from mediocre QB play. A great defense and a strong running attack with solid QB play is enough to win SB these days. Its not like the 49ers or Ravens weren't a game away from playing in the big dance. And its not like 2008 is light years away from the current 2012.

Detrimental...so wrong all the time:

Passing wins was true pre-2002 as well and passing defense was as well was critical. What the rule changes did were make the value of rushing lower not the value of passing higher.

He references PIT. Sad examples for his "cause".
PIT in 2005 was excellent in passing efficiency like most other super bowl teams #7 overall  - it wasn't  a "joke". Toss in an elite defense and those things are what drives a Super Bowl champ.
PIT in 2008 is an even worse example, While their passing was not great (17th) their running was worse, terrible actually 29th in yards and 23rd in efficiency.  Oh and a defense that was excellent as well.

Again, you have no idea what pass efficiency means. That measures how well a QB takes care of the football, nothing more. Your using efficiency to show how good or bad those PIT teams were in those methods. I'm using ATTEMPTS to show how much the Steelers relied on their QB. And in both years, Ben was an afterthought in that offense. Sorry but efficiency means nothing to what their base philosophy of winning a SB was.

Swing and a miss. For the 4th time this off-season.

[dalbuc]

Good points,  but you could still have RB by commitee, instead of investing a top 5 pick in a RB. That is assuming you have a great O-line.

the problem Detrimental can't get around is that he thinks great running backs are about piling up yards. All backs pile up yards in about the same way - around 4.5 ypc. Peterson is 4.7, MJD same thing, Rice same thing.  Gore and Wells are 4.3 for example. The problem is if you draft a top end back you must be doing so to gain efficiency (ypc) not effectiveness. It is the marginal/non gain in effiiciency that makes the whole idea of an elite back a non-starter. If you give 4.7 ypc back 250 carries he gets 1175 yards while 4.5 ypc back is 50 yards less over the same set of carries. In the end, any decent back will pile yoou up yards IF he can get enough carries.

[Detrimental]

Good points,  but you could still have RB by commitee, instead of investing a top 5 pick in a RB. That is assuming you have a great O-line.

the problem Detrimental can't get around is that he thinks great running backs are about piling up yards. All backs pile up yards in about the same way - around 4.5 ypc. Peterson is 4.7, MJD same thing, Rice same thing.  Gore and Wells are 4.3 for example. The problem is if you draft a top end back you must be doing so to gain efficiency (ypc) not effectiveness. It is the marginal/non gain in effiiciency that makes the whole idea of an elite back a non-starter. If you give 4.7 ypc back 250 carries he gets 1175 yards while 4.5 ypc back is 50 yards less over the same set of carries. In the end, any decent back will pile yoou up yards IF he can get enough carries.

Wrong. I already stated before great running backs are all about TD's, 3rd down success, YARDS, and receptions. Its not just about rushing yards. How times, did I say this to you?

[dalbuc]

Again, you have no idea what pass efficiency means. That measures how well a QB takes care of the football, nothing more. Your using efficiency to show how good or bad those PIT teams were in those methods. I'm using ATTEMPTS to show how much the Steelers relied on their QB. And in both years, Ben was an afterthought in that offense. Sorry but efficiency means nothing to what their base philosophy of winning a SB was.

Swing and a miss. For the 4th time this off-season.

No, I know exactly what efficiency is. You do not understand and have not understood my argument. You think I'm arguing that you should sling it all over the place. You'll note that I don't care about passing yards per se. I do care about how well you throw the ball when you decide to throw it. That matters. What doesn't matter, on the flip side is how well you run the ball. How much you run does matter (slightly) but running it better or worse is basically immaterial. I want a high QB because he gains me efficiency in the passing game but a high end running back's efficiency in the ground game adds nothing to my success or failure over another back.

You misunderstand a basic principle of looking at these stats. If you see half the teams have great running and half have awful running it doesn't mean that having one or the other is helpful or not. It means it doesn't matter.  Running well doesn't <> winning anymore than running well = winning. When you see non-correlation it doesn't mean anything works it means what you are looking at has no effect. By contrast passing effectiveness and pass defense effectiveness  show massive levels of relationship to success and failure.

[Feel Real Good]

Good points,  but you could still have RB by commitee, instead of investing a top 5 pick in a RB. That is assuming you have a great O-line.

the problem Detrimental can't get around is that he thinks great running backs are about piling up yards. All backs pile up yards in about the same way - around 4.5 ypc. Peterson is 4.7, MJD same thing, Rice same thing.  Gore and Wells are 4.3 for example. The problem is if you draft a top end back you must be doing so to gain efficiency (ypc) not effectiveness. It is the marginal/non gain in effiiciency that makes the whole idea of an elite back a non-starter. If you give 4.7 ypc back 250 carries he gets 1175 yards while 4.5 ypc back is 50 yards less over the same set of carries. In the end, any decent back will pile yoou up yards IF he can get enough carries.

Wrong. I already stated before great running backs are all about TD's, 3rd down success, YARDS, and receptions. Its not just about rushing yards. How times, did I say this to you?

But why do you have to get that all from the same player? Why don't you have a big back for the goal line and a smaller, quicker back to catch passes? And what happens in the playoffs when your start back gets shut down, as star backs almost always do in the playoffs?

[dalbuc]

Wrong. I already stated before great running backs are all about TD's, 3rd down success, YARDS, and receptions. Its not just about rushing yards. How times, did I say this to you?

You've reached a laughable level in this at this stage. TD's are immaterial and are about playcalling, personnel groupings and offensive effectiveness not a RB's effectiveness - see Benjarvus Green Ellis. 3rd down success is also not all that relevant for the same reason. Yards are worthless because yards are a function of carries not of skills - see the tiny yardage differences between elite and non-elite backs with the same carries. Receptions is basically silly. Passes to RB's are less valuable than other passes and even good backs generally average < 50 catches per year unlss you get the WR in a RB body like Sproles or Bush so they are about as "value add" as a 3rd WR.

[Detrimental]

Good points,  but you could still have RB by commitee, instead of investing a top 5 pick in a RB. That is assuming you have a great O-line.

the problem Detrimental can't get around is that he thinks great running backs are about piling up yards. All backs pile up yards in about the same way - around 4.5 ypc. Peterson is 4.7, MJD same thing, Rice same thing.  Gore and Wells are 4.3 for example. The problem is if you draft a top end back you must be doing so to gain efficiency (ypc) not effectiveness. It is the marginal/non gain in effiiciency that makes the whole idea of an elite back a non-starter. If you give 4.7 ypc back 250 carries he gets 1175 yards while 4.5 ypc back is 50 yards less over the same set of carries. In the end, any decent back will pile yoou up yards IF he can get enough carries.

Wrong. I already stated before great running backs are all about TD's, 3rd down success, YARDS, and receptions. Its not just about rushing yards. How times, did I say this to you?

But why do you have to get that all from the same player? Why don't you have a big back for the goal line and a smaller, quicker back to catch passes? And what happens in the playoffs when your start back gets shut down, as star backs almost always do in the playoffs?

You don't have to get it from the same player. This is referring to in terms of measuring how good a RB is, you have to account for what they did in total with those categories. Also, that's when the QB has to win the team the game.

[Detrimental]

Wrong. I already stated before great running backs are all about TD's, 3rd down success, YARDS, and receptions. Its not just about rushing yards. How times, did I say this to you?

You've reached a laughable level in this at this stage. TD's are immaterial and are about playcalling, personnel groupings and offensive effectiveness not a RB's effectiveness - see Benjarvus Green Ellis. 3rd down success is also not all that relevant for the same reason. Yards are worthless because yards are a function of carries not of skills - see the tiny yardage differences between elite and non-elite backs with the same carries. Receptions is basically silly. Passes to RB's are less valuable than other passes and even good backs generally average < 50 catches per year unlss you get the WR in a RB body like Sproles or Bush so they are about as "value add" as a 3rd WR.

In other words, every single statistic measurement for RB's in the NFL is worthless. I wonder in that small brain of yours how the likes of AP, Foster, Rice, MJD get measured as a top 4 RB's in the NFL. I guess their TD's, receptions, etc....didn't matter regards to how good they were.

Your theory is fail. EVERY statistic is about play-calling even with QB's. That's where your losing credibility. So in your small world, how are those 4 backs listed above make them good.

Ignoring the following: yards, td's, 3rd down success, and receptions.

I'll wait.