Another thing as well. Since the o-line is more responsible for ground gains, it just makes sense to invest more in the o-line because you will also probably have better pass protection as well.
Yeah after a few years then we'll see a team use a running back and then start the trend again just like happened wit passing. It's cyclical when all the teams become homogenous.
For full transparency, I began working on the research for this video on 7/28/2023. On 8/5/2023, the day before I posted this video, Brett Kollman released his RB video offering a solution to the problem. Brett is an awesome creator and is actually the first ever football youtuber I ever watched, increasing my love for the game, so I highly recommend you check out his video as well, which I've linked in the description. I still believe there is value in watching this video because I go a bit more in-depth on the problem itself, whereas Brett offers a real tangible solution. Either way, I just wanted to make sure no one thought I was copying Brett or was trying to capitalize on posting a similar video within a short time frame, it unfortunately just happened like that. Anyways, I hope you enjoy both videos!
@@choosecarefully408 Haha, I am definitely glad you think so, but I'd say its sacrilege! Brett is one of my favorite creators and has an objectively better production value than I do and way more football knowledge. I think our videos on this topic are just different rather than one being better than the other, but It is definitely an extremely high compliment to me that anyone considers one of my videos even close to Brett's!
@@TheJumboPackage He's knowledgeable, but your video is more dressed up than his. Also I make worse jokes than you, so there's that. & *no one is right 100% of the time,* not even me. (Although my rate is extremely high. You have no means by which you can confirm this though, he said shifting his eyes back & forth)...
There's a large amount of risk avoidance involved. RBs have tons of injuries. By having 3 guys on your roster for the price of 1 top guy, you protect yourself better from injuries in the sense that you don't have as much drop-off.
This is an excellent analysis!! I’m a former NFL RB and was both a benefactor and victim of the way RB’s are treated in the league. You covered it all. 👍🏾👊🏾
One thing to consider...all yards are not equal. Instead of yards, I wonder if first downs or even the % of yards gained towards a first down changes the value of the run game. The thought here being one of two ways that offense fails is by not gaining a first down (the other being turnovers).
That's a really interesting thought and I wonder if there is a good advanced metric that would capture that. If I understand you correctly, maybe a lot of metrics are missing the point. They are only focusing on how likely one play is to get you to score, but they should maybe be focusing on how likely that play is to get you a first down. Because obviously, if you just keep getting first downs, you'll likely score. I guess the only pushback I'd have on that point is that it's possible to get 5 or 6 first downs and not score, whereas one play that leads to a score is points on the board and a lead. Let me know if I misunderstood your point!
@@TheJumboPackagethe metric I usually see is EPA/play or expected points added. 1 yard on a 3rd and 1 is more valuable than 10 yards on a 3rd and 19. This actually values the individual plays above or below expectation so even though some receivers may add more yards per play, those yards could be in a lot of situations that aren’t as valuable as a RB punching it in at the goal line or converting a short yardage run
Here's a first down metric to consider that strongly favors the pass. A RB who averages 3.4- 4.9 YPC will need 3 downs on average to get a first down. A QB who averages 10+ YPC only needs to complete 1 of 3 passes on average to avoid 4th down. With that in mind, how much of a difference does it make having a RB average 4.5 YPC instead of 4.0
@@MugendoGames I would say success rate and EPA/EPA per rush would be applicable stats here and they also clarify most of the stats in the video already. Like how an elite passion game >>> rushing game, elite backs don't have as significant of an impact aboce replacement as elite QBs, etc.
Part of the solution is paying rookie RBs more. They are expected to have a short career, so killing yourself for less than a million might not be worth it
The problem here is that change would only happen during the CBA negotiations and that won't come up until 2030. So for the next 7 yrs RBs will need to change what they are doing to provide production to their team (become more CMCs that can run AND be a receiver) and sludge through this until then.
Nah, if these athletes want more money they should pick a different position to play or an entirely different sport. RBs just aren't needed in this new era where the pass game is king
To me, the most important use of an efficient rushing game is to set up an efficient passing game. The stats take these plays and their outcomes in a vacuum, when in reality, they are largely determined by the preceding plays. The job of the offense is to keep the defense guessing. It’s like a feint in boxing. They won’t bite on the feint unless you’ve already landed that blow. You need an effective rushing attack to open up the passing game. It’s why Mahomes is so good. As the play develops he keeps the defense guessing wether he still has an open man or if he’s going to break for a rush. If you have Mahomes, you can get away with not investing too heavily into running backs. The other 31 teams do not have that luxury.
You raise some very good points! I'd love to see advanced metrics get to a point where we can start to account for stuff like that. Not sure if it's possible, but I'd definitely agree they don't take in ALL the context or consider ALL the value a player may provide.
you don't need mahomes or any QB that capable to break for a rush. you just need a great QB to win. manning and brady proving this and vice versa too can be applied. efficient passing game set up an efficient rushing game, and teams realize this the way to go for you to win the game not the vice versa.
@@Darkrezta I’m saying only Mahomes can get away with it. I use his misdirection during a play as an example for misdirection across the sequence of plays, and why it’s necessary for a successful offensive drive. To me, arguing wether passing plays or rushing plays set up one more than the other is like arguing over which came first, the chicken or the egg. My point is that the different kinds of plays set each other up, in all different kinds of ways. I’m definitely being reductive, because there are so many factors that determine why a play is called and why it worked. Ex: A run sets up a screen, which sets up a passing play over the numbers, which opens up a passing play to the hash, which then sets up a run because it’s likely 1st down if half those plays are successful.
@@howdareyouexist you mean the GOAT lmao? How does that invalidate anything I’ve said? Also, old Brady needed Fournette to win that SB in TB, which proves my point. When he was in his prime he didn’t need elite RBs, but as an old man, he greatly benefited from an elite RB. Every team that doesn’t have literally the best QB in the league should invest at RB. Even Josh Allen, probably the second best QB in the league, absolutely needs an elite RB. It’s largely the reason the Bills have struggled to make it to the SB, despite Allen being a consistent top 3 QB year over year. It’s why they drafted James Cook,
This video is fucking amazing. You are the only football commentator I have seen so far use advanced statistical analysis to support his points. The overall community is super behind other sports which have switched to other stats (like FG% to TS%) while we still use the same basic inaccurate stats from decades ago. Thank you for helping get us caught up.
I think every high school RB, parent of RB and coach needs to see this. One way to make the market respect compensation expectations of talent is to cut out supply. Become a TE or defensive player kids. If you insist on being an RB, you can enjoy a lot of adoration from college fans, a sweet NIL deal and a free ride through college, then go do something else or become a college football commentator or a local celebrity. Save yourself from the CTE and being lowballed in a league that will chew you up and spit you out.
Just an idea that might nuance your analysis. Pure yards gained is not always the metric that’s most important to a football team. If it’s third and one, gaining one yard is critically important, in a way that skews the importance of yards so that the first yard is more important than any subsequent yards that the team might pick up on that play. With that being said, it might be interesting look at the pay of an RB vs their ability to consistently convert on 3rd and 4th down plays. I could imagine that the RB of today, rather than being expected to make big yards, might have a different role in keeping drives alive by consistently gaining short yardage. I think your overall argument obviously still stands, and by looking at stats in team success vs rb salary, you’ve kinda already addressed my point; however, some stat on converting downs and keeping drives alive might make an argument value of an RB (and maybe even a highly skilled one vs an average player) in a game that is increasingly dominated by passing which is by nature, more all or nothing (completed pass vs incomplete pass) on individual downs. Just a thought!
What you’re describing is EPA. It gives you an efficiency number based on a play’s outcome in regards to your team’s scoring probability. Therefore, gaining the first down is a big EPA boost because it increased your likelihood of scoring points. That being said, EPA will give you the same story. Running the ball usually sucks (unless it’s short yardage) and passing is king.
I've said it before - I feel so bad for kids growing up as running backs right now. You outlined the issues with paying a running back perfectly. It would be nice to see RB rookie contracts a shorter length or franchise tags abolished for them.
Sounds like RB rookie salary should be a sliding salary based on the full price of the franchise tag for pick 1, and like 20% for mr irrelevant. They should be the second highest paid position on their rookie contract.
Love the video. Gotta respect a guy who uses numbers and facts to look at the NFL for what it is, a ruthless multimillion dollar business but to summarize the video in an easier way is just to say it doesn't sense or cents to pay the running back like other positions.
Thanks so much, it means a lot! Hoping to keep building the community with each new video, but ultimately I’m just enjoying looking into stuff like this and making new content 😁
Franchises undervalue valuable running backs. The running game is still very important in Football, but teams won't act like it. Paying bank for an Elite Running back IS worth it.
I think coaches haven’t realized there’s a difference between replaceable rbs The fact that Aaron Jones is getting signed a deal but Saquon isn’t is completely absurd.
Kinda like how Ben Johnson says he wants to use Jahmyr Gibbs, right? Thats interesting, almost like an H-back or F-TE, that could line up in the backfield, inline alongside the trenches, or out in the open field on scrimmage.
How good was this vid?! Wow. Just subbed from New Zealand. Coverage of the NFL here is limited, so having well-researched and quality videos like this is unbelievably amazing. Love your work mate
Watched the whole vid before you said you only had a little over 100 subscribers. Amazing video. Obvious amounts of effort and time put into it. I would’ve guessed you had well over 75k subs at the least.
Very impressive work. Easy subscribe for the thorough research and great display of it. Can’t wait to watch the page grow and see what content you’ll put out next!
It sure if this was mentioned as I don’t read through comments but, the rushing game’s importance isn’t just in yardage, it is also in time of possession and giving your defense a chance to rest. Your defense on average will play better when a team has a rushing attack that can keep the offense on the field for a longer amount of time. All in all though a fair assessment of the RB position today
That's true, but I think it's overrated by many. Sometimes people equate game clock time with real time. Defenses get more rest than is suggested by possession time.
I’m gonna be doing a study on something similar so this was a good listen and helped me think of more variables to add to my regression. Thank you man!
I'd be really interested to see how that develops. I think that may hurt a RB's draft stock because teams are way less likely to draft a player they only get for one year when they could have four years of control over a different player on a rookie salary. But ultimately, I could be wrong!
@@TheJumboPackagethe issue with any sort of prospect like this is that each owner would have to vote on it, and it would do nothing but lose the money so nothing would pass
I think most of the 32 teams would be drafting a new running back every year lol You also have to think, what if an actually decent running back has a bad year that year or gets hurt? Now he’s not under contract anymore and someone else is supposed to sign him for more money?
@@Zlittlepenguin Hence chubb. Browns have an out at the end of this year and I would be surprised if they didn’t take it. It’s his 2nd full knee rebuild which is very difficult physically to return from. I wouldn’t be surprised if the browns draft a running back next year to be a franchise guy for the foreseeable future
I think another big part is simply that the physical requirements for being a Running Back are not as strict as other positions. The average American male is slightly over 5'9". That is too short to play most nfl positions. You cant be a 5'9 linebacker or offensive tackle, but its a perfect height for a RB who can benefit from the lower center of gravity. Which means there are just a lot more dudes who have the chance to become NFL level running backs meaning the supply gets higher and the pay goes down.
I feel like dudes like Tyreek or Wes Welker or Rondale Moore are exceptions that prove the rule. They stand out as smaller dudes at their position. No one thinks of Barry Sanders as a smaller dude because it's a normal size for a runningback even though he is the same height as Tyreek.
Hey! I just discovered your channel! Keep up the good work. Your heart (and brain) is in a good place,just keep working on improving the video's quality and you'll get there! Best of luck
Great video. I grew up in the era of Marshall Faulk. I was raised on running backs lol. It's weird how the position just doesn't work in the NFL anymore.
I do think that its a cycle. And its all about supply and demand. Running backs are valuable->they get paid a lot of money->a lot of people choose to play running back->the position becomes less valuable because there are so many people playing the position->running backs stop getting paid->less people choose to play that position->then the position becomes valuable again bc of the scarcity of running backs available and so on and so forth
It doesn't really matter. Yes having a good running back is important, but statistically throwing is always going to get you much more yards per play. Not to mention injury risks for RBs. It just doesn't make any sense to pay a RB a lot of money. You much better off with a better Oline men or a better wide receiver then putting alot of money into your RB.
@Tofuey that's the whole argument. Right now it doesn't make sense to pay rbs bc they are so abundant and you can get decent production from a backup or a guy on a rookie contract. My theory is that bc of this, the best players are going to stop playing running back, starting in high school into college and eventually into the nfl. Then when there is not an abundant supply of rbs, the backups and rookie contract guys aren't gonna be good enough to produce what the teams need. This will create a huge demand for talent in the rb position. That along with a low supply of rbs will make the position valuable again.
@@martiansyrup4331 Certain people are going to keep getting shoehorned into rbs into high school and college because those teams need rbs, and certain players body types favor that position. your prediction has never come true despite RB pay having been plummeting for decades, and there's no reason to believe that will change.
@martiansyrup4331 It's not a cycle Pay Attention. RBs are not worth big money. You can literally get a RB from the trash heap so why would anyone pay big money for a RB? It just doesn't make any sense
Great work breaking down the reasoning. I was hoping you would touch on a few things but I didn't really catch it, so maybe we talk here about it. As a mechanic, or artist or anything, there is always that one tool that is way too expensive for how much you use it, but you absolutely can't do without it, and I am pretty sure this is kind of a factor in when they should pay for someone. Without a rungame, teams commit to the pass and I am sure that pulls down averages for that too. One of the things you can tell when a team is without is good pass blocking running backs. You can also tame blitzes with dump offs and screens originated from the back position. Then most importantly ball security. This ties into the other thing, an ability to disguise a play action run and or handle snaps properly, even with intense pressure. It doesn't allow teams to go two high considering 1 or the other will be in run support or opens up getting deep. A lot of your examples were great, but also a lot of them came from San Fran. Even though they have a wealth of backs, like enough to just send them all over the league to starting positions, they still paid very well for McCaffery because of his elite abilities. The colts are absolute garbage and some of these other teams are too, which again is pointing back to the original points, that while it might not translate into overall success, just the presence alone dictates gameplans. This is especially true in the red zone, where little gains mean a whole lot more. Browns are garbo, and the fact they had to let chub do that much is reflecting more on poor team overall ability rather than anything. We are in a ball control era. People don't want huge gain plays. They want to grind away at the clock to win time of possession. They want to have the tools to move the chains in tight situations. I don't know what to call the cowboys, I mean they dominate regular seasons, but it don't add up to much when it really matters which might indicate that pollard isn't as cracked as his numbers show. Bengals weren't as effective without Mixon being effective. Point is I think the better teams right now paid their guys and it will lead to further effectiveness. Chiefs are a great example, like off a super bowl win with Williams, they drafted O'laire and while he hasn't panned out exactly, the committee approach has. They need to pay them just enough, and I think that is probably more of what is going on than seeing them as expendable. Taylor wanted way too much from a really bad team.
this is a good video and lays out the reason why they aren't getting paid. I watch some rich eisen and other casual analysts they dont really understand whats going on so I wish they would watch a video like this.
It's unfortunately a very complex situation, which is why I wanted to make a video like this -- to make the information easily available to others! Hopefully, this video can make its way to the public discourse and the issues can be more thoroughly discussed. I'd love if you can share the video with others you think would be interested to help us get there! Thanks so much for watching 😃
The overall conclusion of this video is valid, but I think there’s a few examples in this video where a conclusion is drawn from the data that the data doesn’t actually support. For example, the whole average points per rush/pass attempt argument. The creator examines this data and comes to the conclusion that when a team runs the ball, they are therefore hurting their chances of scoring. Or stated another way, that any given team would put up more points if they had fewer rushing attempts. And that’s just not what the data is telling us there in my opinion. I think if we dug a little deeper into the data and examined the run/pass ratio of scoring drives, we would find that a large majority of scoring drives contained a balanced pass/rush attack. I also think we would find that drives where a team passed on every play (let’s say minimum 3 plays just to exclude the drives where a single pass play resulted in a TD) were much less likely to score than drives with a balanced rushing attack. And I also think we would find that games where a QB threw for 40-50 attempts were much more likely to result in a loss than games where a QB had under 30 attempts. Pass plays do have greater scoring potential, don’t get me wrong. Like I said from the outset, the overall point this video is making is totally valid. I just think it’s a step too far to then say that rushing attempts actively hurt your chances of winning or scoring points every time you run the ball, because that conclusion ignores the relationship between an effective rushing attack and the scoring potential of your pass plays.
Offensive line is certainly an important factor. The thing that isn't talked about enough is when these teams think they can plug any dude in after letting a RB walk and end up with a 3.6ypc rookie and have an irrelevant running game with a back who can't block or catch
Team learned that a 7th round RB on a rookie contract running behind an elite O-Line is a better use of limited money than a star RB running behind 7th round pick O-Linemen.
Possibly! OLine is definitely one of the more important positions. The argument for the OLine too would be that they provide more to pass game or to the game as a whole because they are playing every offensive snap (if healthy), rather than a RB who is hypothetically only impacting plays where they get the ball. That argument would fail to consider the RB's impact on defensive alignment tho, so anyone can always argue both sides.
As a ravens fan, we found Gus edwards as a undrafted free agent in 2018 and every year he's played for us, he's averaged an insane 5 or more ypc. That's crazy efficiency and it's hard to find that even among high draft pick backs. They can be found high or low and paying one 10+ mil a year seems to have been deemed silly nowadays
i have so much to say on this. the short of it is the back is a necessary part of the team. some do deserve to make money, some don't. some stat cruncher came up with a way to show these guys don't need to be paid well. if the qb passes all the time the game becomes boring. you cant put a stat on the unknown results of what will happen once the ball is hiked. i think eventually the game will become 1 dimensional if these guys aren't fairly compensated. i have so much more i want to say but the wife says its my bed time. and at 60 my fingers get cramped typing a lot....another good video BTW.
Haha thank you, I appreciate it! I definitely agree that the game is significantly more interesting with the running game involved and adds a layer of complexity to the game that would be completely missing if it weren't present. Plus long runs are some of the most exciting to watch as a fan!
@@1heavyelement Absolutely. Dameon Pierce is especially fun for that reason! I also love guys like Dewayne McBride, Deuce Vaughn, and Eric Gray from this draft class in particular and I'd love to see them succeed in the NFL. They were so much fun to watch!
Awesome video! I wonder if we'll ever see another running back with the longevity of Adrian Peterson or Frank Gore. I also wonder if any current running backs will end up being given Hall of Fame consideration (McCaffrey, Chubb, and Henry would be on a short list in my estimation). Another thing that I think decreases running backs' value is the rise of the dual-threat quarterback, guys like Lamar Jackson, Josh Allen, Kyler Murray, or Justin Fields who can easily pick up yards with their legs without handing the ball off.
Thank you! I definitely think it'd be interesting to see. I feel like Henry will be able to get to that point... was hoping Chubb would get there, but his recent injury really hurts that prospect unfortunately :/
That is a point that I just made with someone, the need for a rushing game isn't necessarily the production from it but the threat of it being there to open up passing lanes. Running production can't come close to the production teams get from passing production so running becomes supplementary, however RBs aren't the only ones who can gain the running production necessary to obtain that threat. More often today are we seeing QBs using their skillset to obtain that rushing threat alongside their RBs. The need for a RB in this circumstance only comes in the form of diversifying who obtains the rushing production, raising the value of RBs but further devaluing individual RBs at the same time.
I get why it’s a dying position but it still sucks to see when I’ve always been a runningback/fullback growing up and been a fan of elite running backs😢
That's the discrepancy in lower level football to the top, RBs value is significant the lower you go and greatly diminishes (nearly to nothing) at the NFL level. Many teams as youth, middle schools, high schools, and even some college levels, just put their athletes at RB and they will provide the production necessary to just "out talent" the other team. In the NFL, the talent level of the rest of the players gets so curated that you can't just "out talent" them anymore. Which I think explains why we get so many talented enough RBs at that top level where they aren't nearly as needed or valued.
Your channel has grown. I'm subbing. Hope you get to 1000 soon. As for the video, I have had a philosophy since I started watching football more analytically, offensive line is the most important position in all of football. Both running backs and quarterbacks are heavily, HEAVILY affected by good offensive line play. You can make a bum look like a god behind the Eagles current o-line. I also have a hot take, I believe that a fullback Renaissance is coming. Big brusing backs that can get dirty for a yard or two, and pass protect. Fullbacks being the 3 down back, while having a shifty rb with hands as your 3rd and long guy only makes sense. I'm ready for it to happen.
So Nick Chubb and Jonathan Taylor are the only backs worth their money on rushing stats. McCaffery probably adds enough value in the pass game to compensate
Right- Chubb is a fantastic runner of the football, but doesn’t provide a whole lot in the pass game; CMC is not as talented as a pure runner, but brings a lot of extra value in the pass game!
A shift is happening with how rushing offense is conducted. More NFL teams are favoring the zone run, to the point it's becoming the standard. Zone run requires a different skill set than conventional running schemes. All the jukes, spins, hurdles, and nifty moves are useless. Rather, vision, patience, acceleration, and the ability to maintain momentum while metering speed are the prime skills. Why pay someone like Barkely for his skills when any RB1 from college who is proficient in zone run can out produce him when paired with a good 0-line? Value for RBs will come up as college is going zone run and producing better zone run backs. A high skilled zone runner will demand a high salary in the future as the position becomes better defined.
Yeah I agree. I think the devaluation of running backs is less about the run game not mattering and how about how easily replaceable running backs are. Why pay a guy $12-15 million a year when a guy on a rookie deal can give you basically the same production.
As someone who works in data, this is not how data works. Saying that a running back gains less yards per attempt than another player is too clever by half because if you follow that conclusion and stop running the ball, offenses tend to stall out against decent defenses. I bet if you look at the data, there is a sweet spot(which differs between teams) where you’ll give the ball to the running back n number of times assuming he’s averaging over a certain ypa. Basically, if you have an effective running back and you use him at the right times, the most effective team will use the running back a balanced number of times. This reminds me of the early days of analytics where coaches were going for it on 4th down at ridiculous times
In fact, if you go back and look at the previous 4 super bowls, the only one who didn’t have a balanced run game was the Rams. But they were also against a team who had a similar proportion of receiving to rushing yards. Of those teams, the eagles didn’t have a solid running back. Everyone else had at least an average starter. This devaluing of running backs feels too clever by half when you look at the data, or if you watch a team with a good running back. You can say that mid level guys aren’t worth much, but you can’t say elite guys aren’t worth a lot
If you want to go just off logic and the eye test, one might look to why Kyle Shannahan has been so successful with Deebo, McCaffery, and Kyle Juscheck(?) in the backfield. All elite guys in the backfield who can do great things. If you take those guys out or replace them with lesser players, the niners get worse. You can go deep into the data all you want, but sometimes high level data is all you need to poke holes in your thesis
@@FlyByMike94 perhaps my point didn’t get across as clearly as I intended. The idea in this video is that, if you take a replacement level player to replace any of the elite players, you suffer the least drop off at RB. Let’s take the 49ers for example. The idea is If you take Deebo, Kittle, Trent Williams, or Nick Bosa and replace them with a backup, your team takes a larger negative than if you replaced CMC with a backup. This is not to say you still don’t suffer ANY drop off, it’s saying that, as an NFL franchise you’re attempting to maximize your money, so you’re looking to spend money in the most important places, so if you have to sacrifice it’ll be at the position where you suffer the least. I think this has been borne out when Elijah Mitchell plays, for example vs when any of their backup TEs comes in for Kittle (although this is just one example so it doesn’t prove the point). If you still believe there’s a flaw in my reasoning, feel free to reach out to me on Twitter. I’m obviously interested in analytics and data, so I’d love to learn if you’re willing to teach. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!
Touchdowns are really more opportunity based than anything else. For example, a RB can run 99 yards and then get taken out the next play and replaced by a backup who takes the ball 1 yard in for a TD. Jamaal Williams led the NFL in rushing TDs last season with 17 and he was on backup RB money. He did so with almost 100 carries less than the RB in 2nd place because he was the Lion’s goal line back. This tends to show that TDs themselves aren’t a very reliable method of finding value. Yards are far more reliable because every carry brings the opportunity for yards whereas every opportunity for yards doesn’t give an opportunity for a TD. Any TD analysis would also be baked into other advanced metrics and YAC because it considers how many yards RBs get over what is created, which could potentially get them closer to a TD and deals with their performance on the second level of the field. I think you raise a good point though in that there could be some hidden value in breakaway run % (runs over 20+ yards) or TD conversion % (whether a run is within scoring range and the RB is able to convert), but I also don’t really think these metrics would change the conclusion much if at all because a lot of the RB’s 2nd level performance is considered in the metrics I used in the video. Let me know if you think I overlooked anything on these points!
I wonder if this cycle will continue. For example, let’s say running backs become less and less utilised, therefore the passing game will be a lot more prominent. To combat this, teams will draft players with the skill set to purely combat pure passing situations (like Deion Sanders - amazing in coverage but tackling left room to be desired). Then eventually a player will come around and absolutely dominate because the defenders they are going up against just aren’t built to stop the run. Purely sceptical and most likely won’t happen but just a thought.
My team, the steelers have a top 5-8D for one reason only, teams keep trying to pass on them. Our Pass D isn't even all that great, but they'll sack you/get pressure and force a bad throw and end the drive. Meanwhile over the past few years good-very good RBs (McCaffery, Chubb, Dobbins) have taken their lunch money. Bills fans often say, its OK we don't have a RB, [insert journeyman here] gets 4.2yd/carry. Did you ever watch teams play the Bills, they just ignore the RB and send 5-7 guys straight at Allen. Sure its fine against the Raiders, but its also the reason why Allen often looks like a## against a real D.
Little late and I know it would take weeeeks, maybe offseason or something like that, but finding a way to analyze each player like this and comparing how paying each position correlates to success would be awesome. Anyways, awesome video.
As a casual fan who's about a hundred plays of running backs gaining one or two yards and only a tiny handful where they got more. Im glad you finally came to this conclusion
What makes RBs value is not just their running ability, it is their pass blocking ability and their pass catching ability. This why we see RBs like CMC, Ekeler, Pollard, and more who can catch, have a much larger impact than just normal ball carriers. I fully believe in a 2rb set, 1 hard runner and 1 pass catching, like GB, LAC, DET, NE, and more.
Was looking for a comment like this! As a 9ers fan, CMC is not paid for his running alone! He's paid for his overall impact! He's a YAC monster and a prime example of dual threat!
I was floored when you said you only had 100 followers man…this video is so well thought out and edited. Add me to the sub list because I love content like this!
I’d love to see RBs stats in the passing game. Receiving yards out of the back field, RBs that line up as a receiver and passing plays when RBs block. Also idk how to do stats for it but play action plays maybe resulting in more yards if the defense bites on the run. Great video overall though!
They’ve also determined that play action works very efficiently regardless of the success that your rushing offense has achieved. Receptions by running backs also tend to be some of the least efficient options in the game.
How do you factor in the value of play action passes based on the ground game, seems like that’s almost impossible to factor in without a host of much more complex analysis
Honestly, I agree. Football is one of those games in general where it's so hard to take into account player's presence in general. For example, Tyreek Hill dramatically changes what a defense will scheme up. To your point, the "threat" of the RB running the ball, requiring LBs to respect them in the play action game or requiring teams to stack the box has a large impact that may or may not be captured in these stats. I think the box stacking portion is captured in advanced metrics such as RYOE, but not so much the PA impact as you stated. Good point!
Great video, A thought about some of the RYOE/ATT discussion is usage in the context of the offense, especially for teams without top ~5 qbs I wonder how much elite backs improve overall offensive efficiency through option plays and whatnot if they change up the defensive style. like the raw difference doesn't look very good, and I'm not a huge football stats guy so idk if there's a good statistic to measure this like adjusted bpm in basketball, but a strong back has the potential to improve the offense even when he's not rushing. I think something like this would also shore up another important point about this which is opportunity cost, because assuming teams mostly pay their offense an approximately similar amount if they aren't paying their back they likely have better players in other positions which I think is really the crux of the debate, how valuable is moving the money to someone else (non qb ofc). Really interesting video regardless!
It would be interesting to see a similar breakdown of a time in the NFL when RBs were valued the highest, and an argument for why they were worth the money.
Great video. I think one of the core purposes of running the ball is to setup the passing game which doesn’t seem much evaluated here. It seems it would be equally ineffective if teams came out and never ran the ball. There’s likely some optimal number of runs per pass metric that could be discovered.
More accurate than traditional counting stats, but like anything they won’t be 100% accurate. The idea is, by providing multiple metrics, they’ll hopefully cover all the necessary context, or atleast a large amount of it. Whether this is true or not is debatable, but I’d answer and say they’re reliable, but shouldn’t be relied on to argue with on their own (just like any stat or advanced metric)
You would think that the "running back by committee" approach would get really popular in the next few years. Three (maybe even four) RBs, none of whom get more than say 150 carries per year. Not just one featured back who, like Jumbo mentioned, if he was lost it would derail the whole season. Fewer touches, lowered chance of getting injured, trained to excel at pass blocking, good at being checkdown options. Less chance of getting into the "rhythm" of the game (but that's probably a really tough thing to quantify), but a coach could ride a guy who's gashing the defense until he rotates the next guys in. I think the running game still has value. It's a means of advancing the ball, and totally cutting that out of your game plan makes a team predictable. But it doesn't have as much value as it used to. It's a position that used to generate stars, but is heading toward a position that doesn't gain much respect. Look at the moves to incorporate WRs into the running game (Deebo Samuel and Cordarelle Patterson). How long until we see WRs with upwards of 75 carries in a season?
@@MrGoodeats I think you're more right on the second than the first. For most of these guys, they have to be top dog. They've been alpha all their life, and sharing the spotlight to help a team win is just anathema to them. But if a team could find three guys, maybe draft them all out of Division 2, tell them how many touches to expect and that they'd all see good playing time and that team had a chance, that success would be convincing, no?
@@VinceLyle2161 i think so too. i like the taking the D2 guy. or even take guys who are solid but doesn’t star and we’re team guys on solid teams with good recruiting history so you know they’re talented
still listening. so far my counterpoints (don't necessarily disagree totally) are: 1: football isn't a math game. it's extremely emotional and physical. a great or terrible running game totally changes the tone of the game and has a big impact on the fatigue of the opposing players 2: there are situations where running the ball is objectively better regardless of overall effeciency 3: offenses need balance. we'll see what happens if someone decides to just throw on every play in the nfl 4: a lot of the Super Bowl winning teams had rbs that played well. Pacheco was really good last year and holding the Eagles' RBs down was key for KC. flip that and Philly almost certainly wins Akers' inability to get anything going seriously hampered the Rams' offense Fournette was bruising and efficient Damien Williams dramatically outperformed Mostert. swap that and the Niners win. actually the inability to run was a huge deal in that game since they had a double digit lead in the 4th i think we've come back around to underestimating the impact running backs have on football
finishing the video this isn't necessarily a counterargument but just additional context. i'd agree that paying RBs big $ is generally a bad idea but the position is still important the Niners are a good example this year of a team that would go from contender to not without their superstar RB
This was a very interesting breakdown of why passing is more efficient. I wonder if you could do an analysis to determine the best ratio of run-to-pass? In other words, the data shows that passing is generally more efficient, but the value in running (aside from gaining yards) is that it 1) keeps the clock running, thereby decreasing the opponent's # of offensive plays, 2) it sets up the passing game for success by tempering the defense's expectations, and 3) is *perhaps* more efficient in pivotal situations such as 4th & short or goal line. To that end, what is the ideal % of run/pass plays in any given game plan?
There is one thing that rules football. Points. Put points on the board and keep points off. The fact that an average passing game is more productive than a great running game, it is far easier to move the ball and score throwing than rushing. One thing that pads the rushing stats, teams that are winning, run more to burn clock. Teams that are losing, throw more to try and score quickly and save clock. That is the point where slowing down the game is a winning strategy. So any stat in the 4th quarter will depend more on the score than on what is actually important to get a lead in the first place. Production matters and running helps the offense in being productive. The short yardage first downs and keeping the D off balance. However, if a D focuses on the pass, they will not have great run stopping stats, but they will have the one stat that matters. Points. It isn’t that RBs and the running game aren’t important. It is that passing is so much more important.
Love the analysis. One thing i didnt see you address when comparing the money and stats was the receiving impact some of the RBs have. Derrick Henry would fit this analysis perfectly because he doesn't contribute much in the passing game. However, Jonathan Taylor and Christian McCaffrey are very good receivers as well as RBs. All of Henry's salary is being used for rushing. Only part of Taylor's and McCaffrey's salaries are being used for rushing. You addressed the 4 areas RBs contribute, but allocated all of their salary to 1 area. Probably need to do something like 'Salary*Rushing attemtps/total snaps on field' to figure out what part of the RBs salary is being used for rushing. I dont think this will change your overall conclusion, but i think it will show the top RBs aren't as inefficient money-wise as your analysis shows, with the exception of Henry.
Yo man - fantastic breakdown on the issue! Also congrats on taking the bar exam from a football-loving current law student! I have two main points of clarification: 1. Rather than comparing running backs to quarterbacks, why not make the comparison to wide receivers, a position where there are similar rotations and the pay scales are closer. I think comparing a cheaper, WR2 to an elite running back is more relevant than comparing Dalvin Cook to Patrick Mahomes 2. I love the running analysis, but does the pass-catching analysis have anything to say for the value-proposition of the running back? For example, if the 49ers decide to pay CMC as a running back, what’s stopping him from reclassifying as a wide receiver? Also all of the analysis was focused on RB’s value as runners and not pass catchers
Thanks- I appreciate it! Someone else had actually raised the same point as to point 1 and I completely agree. For the next similar video to this I’ll compare to my comparable positions, because I think the QB to RB comparison was ultimately unfair. As to the second point, the idea is that any WR will be a better receiver than a RB, even out of the backfield so a RB wouldn’t provide more value than a WR in that sense.
You say that teams run more when winning, which is true. However, the ability to successfully run helps put games away and run out the clock. Having a good running game is also what makes play action work.
Great video. I know you touched on the O line a bit but do you think the diminishing value of the position is due to smaller and faster o/d-lines accounting for mobile QBs?
Thank you! To answer you question, I’d say yes. I think, the explosion of the pass game and dynamic QBs have made it such that defenses don’t use true nose tackles anymore and try to use more hybrid inside/outside players which makes it easier to run, thus making it easier to just plug and play RBs
I think two things need to happen in order to revitalize the value of the position: 1: Improve their armor. Players have been using the same kit for decades. Surely there's technology available to reinforce knees and ankles, even if it slows the player down slightly. 2: Embrace two-way play. Edge Rusher is the most sought-after position on the defense. Runningbacks have many of the traits necessary to being a successful DE or OLB. Even if it's just rotational, being able to add to the defense's most difficult position to fill will go a long way.
Great video, very well broken down! I think most of these points can be applied to the draft as well. Why draft an RB early, when you can snag near equal value late for a fraction of the investment/opportunity cost.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
chill out moneyball
Q
😂
thats a compliment if i've ever seen one
You know what happened in Moneyball, right?
Own that fraud
Another thing as well. Since the o-line is more responsible for ground gains, it just makes sense to invest more in the o-line because you will also probably have better pass protection as well.
True!
i think rb are going to die
@@jmgonzales7701they just gone evolve u going to see more rbs that can also line up at wr
Yeah after a few years then we'll see a team use a running back and then start the trend again just like happened wit passing. It's cyclical when all the teams become homogenous.
It doesn't matter how many holes the o-line opens if you don't hae a guy who can run through it.
For full transparency, I began working on the research for this video on 7/28/2023. On 8/5/2023, the day before I posted this video, Brett Kollman released his RB video offering a solution to the problem. Brett is an awesome creator and is actually the first ever football youtuber I ever watched, increasing my love for the game, so I highly recommend you check out his video as well, which I've linked in the description. I still believe there is value in watching this video because I go a bit more in-depth on the problem itself, whereas Brett offers a real tangible solution. Either way, I just wanted to make sure no one thought I was copying Brett or was trying to capitalize on posting a similar video within a short time frame, it unfortunately just happened like that. Anyways, I hope you enjoy both videos!
I saw Brett's video. Yours is better. (SACRILEGE!!?!)?
@@choosecarefully408 Haha, I am definitely glad you think so, but I'd say its sacrilege! Brett is one of my favorite creators and has an objectively better production value than I do and way more football knowledge. I think our videos on this topic are just different rather than one being better than the other, but It is definitely an extremely high compliment to me that anyone considers one of my videos even close to Brett's!
@@TheJumboPackage He's knowledgeable, but your video is more dressed up than his. Also I make worse jokes than you, so there's that. & *no one is right 100% of the time,* not even me. (Although my rate is extremely high.
You have no means by which you can confirm this though, he said shifting his eyes back & forth)...
@@choosecarefully408 haha!
Also Bijan
There's a large amount of risk avoidance involved. RBs have tons of injuries. By having 3 guys on your roster for the price of 1 top guy, you protect yourself better from injuries in the sense that you don't have as much drop-off.
Very true!
This is an excellent analysis!! I’m a former NFL RB and was both a benefactor and victim of the way RB’s are treated in the league. You covered it all. 👍🏾👊🏾
Hey, you made it, at least. How many people can claim that? So good on you.
Thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed!
One thing to consider...all yards are not equal. Instead of yards, I wonder if first downs or even the % of yards gained towards a first down changes the value of the run game. The thought here being one of two ways that offense fails is by not gaining a first down (the other being turnovers).
That's a really interesting thought and I wonder if there is a good advanced metric that would capture that. If I understand you correctly, maybe a lot of metrics are missing the point. They are only focusing on how likely one play is to get you to score, but they should maybe be focusing on how likely that play is to get you a first down. Because obviously, if you just keep getting first downs, you'll likely score. I guess the only pushback I'd have on that point is that it's possible to get 5 or 6 first downs and not score, whereas one play that leads to a score is points on the board and a lead. Let me know if I misunderstood your point!
There is a metric. It’s called success rate and it’s also very harsh on running backs
@@TheJumboPackagethe metric I usually see is EPA/play or expected points added. 1 yard on a 3rd and 1 is more valuable than 10 yards on a 3rd and 19. This actually values the individual plays above or below expectation so even though some receivers may add more yards per play, those yards could be in a lot of situations that aren’t as valuable as a RB punching it in at the goal line or converting a short yardage run
Here's a first down metric to consider that strongly favors the pass. A RB who averages 3.4- 4.9 YPC will need 3 downs on average to get a first down. A QB who averages 10+ YPC only needs to complete 1 of 3 passes on average to avoid 4th down. With that in mind, how much of a difference does it make having a RB average 4.5 YPC instead of 4.0
@@MugendoGames I would say success rate and EPA/EPA per rush would be applicable stats here and they also clarify most of the stats in the video already. Like how an elite passion game >>> rushing game, elite backs don't have as significant of an impact aboce replacement as elite QBs, etc.
Part of the solution is paying rookie RBs more. They are expected to have a short career, so killing yourself for less than a million might not be worth it
I'd love to see that!
Agreed they should have a different rookie scale
The problem here is that change would only happen during the CBA negotiations and that won't come up until 2030. So for the next 7 yrs RBs will need to change what they are doing to provide production to their team (become more CMCs that can run AND be a receiver) and sludge through this until then.
Nah, if these athletes want more money they should pick a different position to play or an entirely different sport.
RBs just aren't needed in this new era where the pass game is king
@@BoleDaPole your defense disagrees
To me, the most important use of an efficient rushing game is to set up an efficient passing game. The stats take these plays and their outcomes in a vacuum, when in reality, they are largely determined by the preceding plays. The job of the offense is to keep the defense guessing. It’s like a feint in boxing. They won’t bite on the feint unless you’ve already landed that blow. You need an effective rushing attack to open up the passing game. It’s why Mahomes is so good. As the play develops he keeps the defense guessing wether he still has an open man or if he’s going to break for a rush. If you have Mahomes, you can get away with not investing too heavily into running backs. The other 31 teams do not have that luxury.
You raise some very good points! I'd love to see advanced metrics get to a point where we can start to account for stuff like that. Not sure if it's possible, but I'd definitely agree they don't take in ALL the context or consider ALL the value a player may provide.
you don't need mahomes or any QB that capable to break for a rush. you just need a great QB to win. manning and brady proving this and vice versa too can be applied. efficient passing game set up an efficient rushing game, and teams realize this the way to go for you to win the game not the vice versa.
@@Darkrezta I’m saying only Mahomes can get away with it. I use his misdirection during a play as an example for misdirection across the sequence of plays, and why it’s necessary for a successful offensive drive. To me, arguing wether passing plays or rushing plays set up one more than the other is like arguing over which came first, the chicken or the egg. My point is that the different kinds of plays set each other up, in all different kinds of ways. I’m definitely being reductive, because there are so many factors that determine why a play is called and why it worked. Ex: A run sets up a screen, which sets up a passing play over the numbers, which opens up a passing play to the hash, which then sets up a run because it’s likely 1st down if half those plays are successful.
so brady a pure pocket passer who won multiple times without an overpaid running back was...
@@howdareyouexist you mean the GOAT lmao? How does that invalidate anything I’ve said? Also, old Brady needed Fournette to win that SB in TB, which proves my point. When he was in his prime he didn’t need elite RBs, but as an old man, he greatly benefited from an elite RB. Every team that doesn’t have literally the best QB in the league should invest at RB. Even Josh Allen, probably the second best QB in the league, absolutely needs an elite RB. It’s largely the reason the Bills have struggled to make it to the SB, despite Allen being a consistent top 3 QB year over year. It’s why they drafted James Cook,
Way too little subs, LOVE THE WORK PUT INTO THIS VID, felt like a class and there was a test at the end
Thanks!
Just subbed, probably the best way anyone has explained whole rb situation. Great video looking forward to watching more
Thank you!
This video is fucking amazing. You are the only football commentator I have seen so far use advanced statistical analysis to support his points. The overall community is super behind other sports which have switched to other stats (like FG% to TS%) while we still use the same basic inaccurate stats from decades ago. Thank you for helping get us caught up.
Thank you!
I just wanna say this is an amazing video. Very impressed with the analysis man. Good work
😊 🏈 ❤
Thank you!
I think every high school RB, parent of RB and coach needs to see this. One way to make the market respect compensation expectations of talent is to cut out supply. Become a TE or defensive player kids. If you insist on being an RB, you can enjoy a lot of adoration from college fans, a sweet NIL deal and a free ride through college, then go do something else or become a college football commentator or a local celebrity. Save yourself from the CTE and being lowballed in a league that will chew you up and spit you out.
Just an idea that might nuance your analysis. Pure yards gained is not always the metric that’s most important to a football team. If it’s third and one, gaining one yard is critically important, in a way that skews the importance of yards so that the first yard is more important than any subsequent yards that the team might pick up on that play. With that being said, it might be interesting look at the pay of an RB vs their ability to consistently convert on 3rd and 4th down plays. I could imagine that the RB of today, rather than being expected to make big yards, might have a different role in keeping drives alive by consistently gaining short yardage.
I think your overall argument obviously still stands, and by looking at stats in team success vs rb salary, you’ve kinda already addressed my point; however, some stat on converting downs and keeping drives alive might make an argument value of an RB (and maybe even a highly skilled one vs an average player) in a game that is increasingly dominated by passing which is by nature, more all or nothing (completed pass vs incomplete pass) on individual downs. Just a thought!
What you’re describing is EPA. It gives you an efficiency number based on a play’s outcome in regards to your team’s scoring probability. Therefore, gaining the first down is a big EPA boost because it increased your likelihood of scoring points. That being said, EPA will give you the same story. Running the ball usually sucks (unless it’s short yardage) and passing is king.
This is the best video on all of UA-cam on the topic. I was expecting you to have half a million subs...top quality work man. Keep it up!
Thank you so much, I really appreciate it!
This channel deserves more subscribers. Insanely thorough data analysis.
Thank you!
Basically the effort paradox in working, the hardest workers don’t always make the most money
I've said it before - I feel so bad for kids growing up as running backs right now. You outlined the issues with paying a running back perfectly. It would be nice to see RB rookie contracts a shorter length or franchise tags abolished for them.
They need to make a runningback exception rule or increase the average price for rookie runningback, just to protect them early.
Sounds like RB rookie salary should be a sliding salary based on the full price of the franchise tag for pick 1, and like 20% for mr irrelevant.
They should be the second highest paid position on their rookie contract.
Love the video. Gotta respect a guy who uses numbers and facts to look at the NFL for what it is, a ruthless multimillion dollar business but to summarize the video in an easier way is just to say it doesn't sense or cents to pay the running back like other positions.
Didn’t realize how small your channel was till you mentioned it. You’re gonna blow up brother this was a crazy good video!
Thank you!
great video. I watched the whole thing and raised my eyebrows in surprise when you said you only had 100 subs at the end.
Thanks so much, it means a lot! Hoping to keep building the community with each new video, but ultimately I’m just enjoying looking into stuff like this and making new content 😁
@@TheJumboPackage There is so much of this kind of content for basketball but not nearly as much for football, so thank YOU! keep it up!
@@dylansorrell23 Thank you, will do!
Franchises undervalue valuable running backs. The running game is still very important in Football, but teams won't act like it. Paying bank for an Elite Running back IS worth it.
Your deep dive analysis was great man. Glad your channel growing
Thank you!
I think coaches haven’t realized there’s a difference between replaceable rbs
The fact that Aaron Jones is getting signed a deal but Saquon isn’t is completely absurd.
Wow amazing analysis
This shit is on par with guys that get paid 100 of thousands to do it .
Completely explains value of rushing
Thank you!
I think the position will evolve between half slot receiver half rb, kind of like how te evolved being hybrid receivers.
Kinda like how Ben Johnson says he wants to use Jahmyr Gibbs, right? Thats interesting, almost like an H-back or F-TE, that could line up in the backfield, inline alongside the trenches, or out in the open field on scrimmage.
How good was this vid?! Wow. Just subbed from New Zealand. Coverage of the NFL here is limited, so having well-researched and quality videos like this is unbelievably amazing. Love your work mate
Thank you so much, I appreciate it!
Watched the whole vid before you said you only had a little over 100 subscribers. Amazing video. Obvious amounts of effort and time put into it. I would’ve guessed you had well over 75k subs at the least.
Thank you!
The video was great this comment is for interaction because you def deserve more subs
Thank you!
Great video man! Keep up the good work, subscribed
Thank you!
Very impressive work. Easy subscribe for the thorough research and great display of it. Can’t wait to watch the page grow and see what content you’ll put out next!
Thank you, much appreciated!
Great video man. You definitely put in a lot of work. Hope your channel grows fast brotha
Thank you, I appreciate it!
It sure if this was mentioned as I don’t read through comments but, the rushing game’s importance isn’t just in yardage, it is also in time of possession and giving your defense a chance to rest. Your defense on average will play better when a team has a rushing attack that can keep the offense on the field for a longer amount of time. All in all though a fair assessment of the RB position today
That's true, but I think it's overrated by many. Sometimes people equate game clock time with real time. Defenses get more rest than is suggested by possession time.
I’m gonna be doing a study on something similar so this was a good listen and helped me think of more variables to add to my regression. Thank you man!
Thanks for watching! I have a bunch of the sources in the description as well if that helps you at all!
I wonder how the league would be impacted if rookie RB contracts were shortened to 1 year, forcing teams to sign new contracts with backs quicker
I'd be really interested to see how that develops. I think that may hurt a RB's draft stock because teams are way less likely to draft a player they only get for one year when they could have four years of control over a different player on a rookie salary. But ultimately, I could be wrong!
@@TheJumboPackagethe issue with any sort of prospect like this is that each owner would have to vote on it, and it would do nothing but lose the money so nothing would pass
I think most of the 32 teams would be drafting a new running back every year lol
You also have to think, what if an actually decent running back has a bad year that year or gets hurt? Now he’s not under contract anymore and someone else is supposed to sign him for more money?
@@Zlittlepenguin Hence chubb. Browns have an out at the end of this year and I would be surprised if they didn’t take it. It’s his 2nd full knee rebuild which is very difficult physically to return from. I wouldn’t be surprised if the browns draft a running back next year to be a franchise guy for the foreseeable future
I think another big part is simply that the physical requirements for being a Running Back are not as strict as other positions. The average American male is slightly over 5'9". That is too short to play most nfl positions. You cant be a 5'9 linebacker or offensive tackle, but its a perfect height for a RB who can benefit from the lower center of gravity. Which means there are just a lot more dudes who have the chance to become NFL level running backs meaning the supply gets higher and the pay goes down.
Very true.
Bro Tyrek Hill is 5’8
I feel like dudes like Tyreek or Wes Welker or Rondale Moore are exceptions that prove the rule. They stand out as smaller dudes at their position. No one thinks of Barry Sanders as a smaller dude because it's a normal size for a runningback even though he is the same height as Tyreek.
bro tyreeek hill is 5 7
Really interesting point! If you’re a great athlete, but under 6’0, you’re likely relegated to being a RB, which creates a large supply
Excellent video... earned my subscription
Thank you!
Great video my man, in line with what I've been seeing for a while now. Elite RBs are going to be a thing of the past in the next decade
Thanks!
Super interesting. Footballinomics great stuff.
Lower impact, lower variation across skill range, lower comp
Thank you, I appreciate it!
Awesome video man, great work
Thank you!
Hey! I just discovered your channel! Keep up the good work. Your heart (and brain) is in a good place,just keep working on improving the video's quality and you'll get there!
Best of luck
Thank you!
Solid video, you obviously put a ton of work into it. Keep it up!
Thank you!
Great video. I grew up in the era of Marshall Faulk. I was raised on running backs lol. It's weird how the position just doesn't work in the NFL anymore.
The modern D Line is so quick and agile that it can stop a RB.
Thank you!
I do think that its a cycle. And its all about supply and demand. Running backs are valuable->they get paid a lot of money->a lot of people choose to play running back->the position becomes less valuable because there are so many people playing the position->running backs stop getting paid->less people choose to play that position->then the position becomes valuable again bc of the scarcity of running backs available and so on and so forth
Very possible; I'm interested to see how it develops!
It doesn't really matter. Yes having a good running back is important, but statistically throwing is always going to get you much more yards per play. Not to mention injury risks for RBs.
It just doesn't make any sense to pay a RB a lot of money. You much better off with a better Oline men or a better wide receiver then putting alot of money into your RB.
@Tofuey that's the whole argument. Right now it doesn't make sense to pay rbs bc they are so abundant and you can get decent production from a backup or a guy on a rookie contract. My theory is that bc of this, the best players are going to stop playing running back, starting in high school into college and eventually into the nfl. Then when there is not an abundant supply of rbs, the backups and rookie contract guys aren't gonna be good enough to produce what the teams need. This will create a huge demand for talent in the rb position. That along with a low supply of rbs will make the position valuable again.
@@martiansyrup4331 Certain people are going to keep getting shoehorned into rbs into high school and college because those teams need rbs, and certain players body types favor that position. your prediction has never come true despite RB pay having been plummeting for decades, and there's no reason to believe that will change.
@martiansyrup4331 It's not a cycle Pay Attention. RBs are not worth big money. You can literally get a RB from the trash heap so why would anyone pay big money for a RB? It just doesn't make any sense
Great work breaking down the reasoning. I was hoping you would touch on a few things but I didn't really catch it, so maybe we talk here about it. As a mechanic, or artist or anything, there is always that one tool that is way too expensive for how much you use it, but you absolutely can't do without it, and I am pretty sure this is kind of a factor in when they should pay for someone. Without a rungame, teams commit to the pass and I am sure that pulls down averages for that too. One of the things you can tell when a team is without is good pass blocking running backs. You can also tame blitzes with dump offs and screens originated from the back position. Then most importantly ball security. This ties into the other thing, an ability to disguise a play action run and or handle snaps properly, even with intense pressure. It doesn't allow teams to go two high considering 1 or the other will be in run support or opens up getting deep.
A lot of your examples were great, but also a lot of them came from San Fran. Even though they have a wealth of backs, like enough to just send them all over the league to starting positions, they still paid very well for McCaffery because of his elite abilities. The colts are absolute garbage and some of these other teams are too, which again is pointing back to the original points, that while it might not translate into overall success, just the presence alone dictates gameplans. This is especially true in the red zone, where little gains mean a whole lot more.
Browns are garbo, and the fact they had to let chub do that much is reflecting more on poor team overall ability rather than anything. We are in a ball control era. People don't want huge gain plays. They want to grind away at the clock to win time of possession. They want to have the tools to move the chains in tight situations. I don't know what to call the cowboys, I mean they dominate regular seasons, but it don't add up to much when it really matters which might indicate that pollard isn't as cracked as his numbers show. Bengals weren't as effective without Mixon being effective.
Point is I think the better teams right now paid their guys and it will lead to further effectiveness. Chiefs are a great example, like off a super bowl win with Williams, they drafted O'laire and while he hasn't panned out exactly, the committee approach has. They need to pay them just enough, and I think that is probably more of what is going on than seeing them as expendable. Taylor wanted way too much from a really bad team.
How are you such a small chanel whaaaat. Subscribed keep it up bro
Thank you, I appreciate it!
Great high quality vid bro
Thank you!
this is a good video and lays out the reason why they aren't getting paid. I watch some rich eisen and other casual analysts they dont really understand whats going on so I wish they would watch a video like this.
It's unfortunately a very complex situation, which is why I wanted to make a video like this -- to make the information easily available to others! Hopefully, this video can make its way to the public discourse and the issues can be more thoroughly discussed. I'd love if you can share the video with others you think would be interested to help us get there! Thanks so much for watching 😃
love this video man keep it up
Thank you!
The overall conclusion of this video is valid, but I think there’s a few examples in this video where a conclusion is drawn from the data that the data doesn’t actually support. For example, the whole average points per rush/pass attempt argument. The creator examines this data and comes to the conclusion that when a team runs the ball, they are therefore hurting their chances of scoring. Or stated another way, that any given team would put up more points if they had fewer rushing attempts. And that’s just not what the data is telling us there in my opinion.
I think if we dug a little deeper into the data and examined the run/pass ratio of scoring drives, we would find that a large majority of scoring drives contained a balanced pass/rush attack. I also think we would find that drives where a team passed on every play (let’s say minimum 3 plays just to exclude the drives where a single pass play resulted in a TD) were much less likely to score than drives with a balanced rushing attack. And I also think we would find that games where a QB threw for 40-50 attempts were much more likely to result in a loss than games where a QB had under 30 attempts.
Pass plays do have greater scoring potential, don’t get me wrong. Like I said from the outset, the overall point this video is making is totally valid. I just think it’s a step too far to then say that rushing attempts actively hurt your chances of winning or scoring points every time you run the ball, because that conclusion ignores the relationship between an effective rushing attack and the scoring potential of your pass plays.
Great vid. Surprised this was a low sub account, better research quality than a lot of bigger ones.
Thank you, that really means a lot! Definitely was a ton of research, but I enjoyed it!
How replaceable are WR? Lots of them not living up to their contacts, which are larger than RB.
Offensive line is certainly an important factor. The thing that isn't talked about enough is when these teams think they can plug any dude in after letting a RB walk and end up with a 3.6ypc rookie and have an irrelevant running game with a back who can't block or catch
Mattison
Team learned that a 7th round RB on a rookie contract running behind an elite O-Line is a better use of limited money than a star RB running behind 7th round pick O-Linemen.
Possibly! OLine is definitely one of the more important positions. The argument for the OLine too would be that they provide more to pass game or to the game as a whole because they are playing every offensive snap (if healthy), rather than a RB who is hypothetically only impacting plays where they get the ball. That argument would fail to consider the RB's impact on defensive alignment tho, so anyone can always argue both sides.
As a ravens fan, we found Gus edwards as a undrafted free agent in 2018 and every year he's played for us, he's averaged an insane 5 or more ypc. That's crazy efficiency and it's hard to find that even among high draft pick backs. They can be found high or low and paying one 10+ mil a year seems to have been deemed silly nowadays
i have so much to say on this. the short of it is the back is a necessary part of the team. some do deserve to make money, some don't. some stat cruncher came up with a way to show these guys don't need to be paid well. if the qb passes all the time the game becomes boring. you cant put a stat on the unknown results of what will happen once the ball is hiked. i think eventually the game will become 1 dimensional if these guys aren't fairly compensated. i have so much more i want to say but the wife says its my bed time. and at 60 my fingers get cramped typing a lot....another good video BTW.
Haha thank you, I appreciate it! I definitely agree that the game is significantly more interesting with the running game involved and adds a layer of complexity to the game that would be completely missing if it weren't present. Plus long runs are some of the most exciting to watch as a fan!
@@TheJumboPackage completely agree. I love it when a back is dragging 3 or 4 guys down field.
@@1heavyelement Absolutely. Dameon Pierce is especially fun for that reason! I also love guys like Dewayne McBride, Deuce Vaughn, and Eric Gray from this draft class in particular and I'd love to see them succeed in the NFL. They were so much fun to watch!
Awesome video! I wonder if we'll ever see another running back with the longevity of Adrian Peterson or Frank Gore. I also wonder if any current running backs will end up being given Hall of Fame consideration (McCaffrey, Chubb, and Henry would be on a short list in my estimation). Another thing that I think decreases running backs' value is the rise of the dual-threat quarterback, guys like Lamar Jackson, Josh Allen, Kyler Murray, or Justin Fields who can easily pick up yards with their legs without handing the ball off.
Thank you! I definitely think it'd be interesting to see. I feel like Henry will be able to get to that point... was hoping Chubb would get there, but his recent injury really hurts that prospect unfortunately :/
That is a point that I just made with someone, the need for a rushing game isn't necessarily the production from it but the threat of it being there to open up passing lanes. Running production can't come close to the production teams get from passing production so running becomes supplementary, however RBs aren't the only ones who can gain the running production necessary to obtain that threat. More often today are we seeing QBs using their skillset to obtain that rushing threat alongside their RBs. The need for a RB in this circumstance only comes in the form of diversifying who obtains the rushing production, raising the value of RBs but further devaluing individual RBs at the same time.
Very methodical, and concise, insightful video , thanks
Thank you!
I get why it’s a dying position but it still sucks to see when I’ve always been a runningback/fullback growing up and been a fan of elite running backs😢
That's the discrepancy in lower level football to the top, RBs value is significant the lower you go and greatly diminishes (nearly to nothing) at the NFL level. Many teams as youth, middle schools, high schools, and even some college levels, just put their athletes at RB and they will provide the production necessary to just "out talent" the other team. In the NFL, the talent level of the rest of the players gets so curated that you can't just "out talent" them anymore. Which I think explains why we get so many talented enough RBs at that top level where they aren't nearly as needed or valued.
The days of the elite RB and FB will return Seth. Have no fear.
It’s only dying because the league wants it too. Its plain as day.
Your channel has grown. I'm subbing. Hope you get to 1000 soon.
As for the video, I have had a philosophy since I started watching football more analytically, offensive line is the most important position in all of football. Both running backs and quarterbacks are heavily, HEAVILY affected by good offensive line play. You can make a bum look like a god behind the Eagles current o-line.
I also have a hot take, I believe that a fullback Renaissance is coming. Big brusing backs that can get dirty for a yard or two, and pass protect. Fullbacks being the 3 down back, while having a shifty rb with hands as your 3rd and long guy only makes sense. I'm ready for it to happen.
Thank you! Offensive line easily is one of the most impactful positions without people realizing it. Also would love to see some more FB play, haha!
So Nick Chubb and Jonathan Taylor are the only backs worth their money on rushing stats. McCaffery probably adds enough value in the pass game to compensate
Right- Chubb is a fantastic runner of the football, but doesn’t provide a whole lot in the pass game; CMC is not as talented as a pure runner, but brings a lot of extra value in the pass game!
Bad timing bro 😭
@@rotoole22 I was honestly just thinking of that last night. Praying for Chubb
A shift is happening with how rushing offense is conducted. More NFL teams are favoring the zone run, to the point it's becoming the standard. Zone run requires a different skill set than conventional running schemes. All the jukes, spins, hurdles, and nifty moves are useless. Rather, vision, patience, acceleration, and the ability to maintain momentum while metering speed are the prime skills. Why pay someone like Barkely for his skills when any RB1 from college who is proficient in zone run can out produce him when paired with a good 0-line? Value for RBs will come up as college is going zone run and producing better zone run backs. A high skilled zone runner will demand a high salary in the future as the position becomes better defined.
Yeah I agree. I think the devaluation of running backs is less about the run game not mattering and how about how easily replaceable running backs are. Why pay a guy $12-15 million a year when a guy on a rookie deal can give you basically the same production.
As someone who works in data, this is not how data works. Saying that a running back gains less yards per attempt than another player is too clever by half because if you follow that conclusion and stop running the ball, offenses tend to stall out against decent defenses. I bet if you look at the data, there is a sweet spot(which differs between teams) where you’ll give the ball to the running back n number of times assuming he’s averaging over a certain ypa. Basically, if you have an effective running back and you use him at the right times, the most effective team will use the running back a balanced number of times. This reminds me of the early days of analytics where coaches were going for it on 4th down at ridiculous times
In fact, if you go back and look at the previous 4 super bowls, the only one who didn’t have a balanced run game was the Rams. But they were also against a team who had a similar proportion of receiving to rushing yards. Of those teams, the eagles didn’t have a solid running back. Everyone else had at least an average starter. This devaluing of running backs feels too clever by half when you look at the data, or if you watch a team with a good running back. You can say that mid level guys aren’t worth much, but you can’t say elite guys aren’t worth a lot
If you want to go just off logic and the eye test, one might look to why Kyle Shannahan has been so successful with Deebo, McCaffery, and Kyle Juscheck(?) in the backfield. All elite guys in the backfield who can do great things. If you take those guys out or replace them with lesser players, the niners get worse. You can go deep into the data all you want, but sometimes high level data is all you need to poke holes in your thesis
@@FlyByMike94 perhaps my point didn’t get across as clearly as I intended. The idea in this video is that, if you take a replacement level player to replace any of the elite players, you suffer the least drop off at RB. Let’s take the 49ers for example. The idea is If you take Deebo, Kittle, Trent Williams, or Nick Bosa and replace them with a backup, your team takes a larger negative than if you replaced CMC with a backup. This is not to say you still don’t suffer ANY drop off, it’s saying that, as an NFL franchise you’re attempting to maximize your money, so you’re looking to spend money in the most important places, so if you have to sacrifice it’ll be at the position where you suffer the least. I think this has been borne out when Elijah Mitchell plays, for example vs when any of their backup TEs comes in for Kittle (although this is just one example so it doesn’t prove the point). If you still believe there’s a flaw in my reasoning, feel free to reach out to me on Twitter. I’m obviously interested in analytics and data, so I’d love to learn if you’re willing to teach. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!
Great video. Would’ve liked to see an analysis on running back touchdown numbers compared to each other. Maybe they provide secret value there?
Touchdowns are really more opportunity based than anything else. For example, a RB can run 99 yards and then get taken out the next play and replaced by a backup who takes the ball 1 yard in for a TD. Jamaal Williams led the NFL in rushing TDs last season with 17 and he was on backup RB money. He did so with almost 100 carries less than the RB in 2nd place because he was the Lion’s goal line back. This tends to show that TDs themselves aren’t a very reliable method of finding value. Yards are far more reliable because every carry brings the opportunity for yards whereas every opportunity for yards doesn’t give an opportunity for a TD. Any TD analysis would also be baked into other advanced metrics and YAC because it considers how many yards RBs get over what is created, which could potentially get them closer to a TD and deals with their performance on the second level of the field. I think you raise a good point though in that there could be some hidden value in breakaway run % (runs over 20+ yards) or TD conversion % (whether a run is within scoring range and the RB is able to convert), but I also don’t really think these metrics would change the conclusion much if at all because a lot of the RB’s 2nd level performance is considered in the metrics I used in the video. Let me know if you think I overlooked anything on these points!
I wonder if this cycle will continue. For example, let’s say running backs become less and less utilised, therefore the passing game will be a lot more prominent. To combat this, teams will draft players with the skill set to purely combat pure passing situations (like Deion Sanders - amazing in coverage but tackling left room to be desired). Then eventually a player will come around and absolutely dominate because the defenders they are going up against just aren’t built to stop the run. Purely sceptical and most likely won’t happen but just a thought.
Definitely a possibility
My team, the steelers have a top 5-8D for one reason only, teams keep trying to pass on them. Our Pass D isn't even all that great, but they'll sack you/get pressure and force a bad throw and end the drive. Meanwhile over the past few years good-very good RBs (McCaffery, Chubb, Dobbins) have taken their lunch money.
Bills fans often say, its OK we don't have a RB, [insert journeyman here] gets 4.2yd/carry. Did you ever watch teams play the Bills, they just ignore the RB and send 5-7 guys straight at Allen. Sure its fine against the Raiders, but its also the reason why Allen often looks like a## against a real D.
This is too good of a video for you to only have 900 subs
Thank you!
Amazing video how do u have < 1k subs? Keep grinding u got a new fan
Thank you!
Little late and I know it would take weeeeks, maybe offseason or something like that, but finding a way to analyze each player like this and comparing how paying each position correlates to success would be awesome. Anyways, awesome video.
It would be- perhaps a long term project for a future video!
As a casual fan who's about a hundred plays of running backs gaining one or two yards and only a tiny handful where they got more. Im glad you finally came to this conclusion
Great video analysis and IMO I believe you explained exactly how the supply and demand works in the nfl this is why rbs are paid so low low demand
Thank you!
What makes RBs value is not just their running ability, it is their pass blocking ability and their pass catching ability.
This why we see RBs like CMC, Ekeler, Pollard, and more who can catch, have a much larger impact than just normal ball carriers.
I fully believe in a 2rb set, 1 hard runner and 1 pass catching, like GB, LAC, DET, NE, and more.
Was looking for a comment like this! As a 9ers fan, CMC is not paid for his running alone! He's paid for his overall impact! He's a YAC monster and a prime example of dual threat!
I was floored when you said you only had 100 followers man…this video is so well thought out and edited. Add me to the sub list because I love content like this!
Thank you, I appreciate it!
Great vid!
Thank you!
I’d love to see RBs stats in the passing game. Receiving yards out of the back field, RBs that line up as a receiver and passing plays when RBs block. Also idk how to do stats for it but play action plays maybe resulting in more yards if the defense bites on the run. Great video overall though!
They’ve also determined that play action works very efficiently regardless of the success that your rushing offense has achieved. Receptions by running backs also tend to be some of the least efficient options in the game.
I thought that would be the case. Would still love to see the numbers to go with it I just like hearing about statistics. @@connorking3523
Who’s “playoff Lenny.” 2:02
Leonard Fournette!
Loved it, you got a new sub
Thank you!
How do you factor in the value of play action passes based on the ground game, seems like that’s almost impossible to factor in without a host of much more complex analysis
Honestly, I agree. Football is one of those games in general where it's so hard to take into account player's presence in general. For example, Tyreek Hill dramatically changes what a defense will scheme up. To your point, the "threat" of the RB running the ball, requiring LBs to respect them in the play action game or requiring teams to stack the box has a large impact that may or may not be captured in these stats. I think the box stacking portion is captured in advanced metrics such as RYOE, but not so much the PA impact as you stated. Good point!
This is so well done props
Thank you!
you did a great job with this
Thank you!
Great video, A thought about some of the RYOE/ATT discussion is usage in the context of the offense, especially for teams without top ~5 qbs I wonder how much elite backs improve overall offensive efficiency through option plays and whatnot if they change up the defensive style. like the raw difference doesn't look very good, and I'm not a huge football stats guy so idk if there's a good statistic to measure this like adjusted bpm in basketball, but a strong back has the potential to improve the offense even when he's not rushing. I think something like this would also shore up another important point about this which is opportunity cost, because assuming teams mostly pay their offense an approximately similar amount if they aren't paying their back they likely have better players in other positions which I think is really the crux of the debate, how valuable is moving the money to someone else (non qb ofc). Really interesting video regardless!
It would be interesting to see a similar breakdown of a time in the NFL when RBs were valued the highest, and an argument for why they were worth the money.
There is no such argument.
Great video. I think one of the core purposes of running the ball is to setup the passing game which doesn’t seem much evaluated here. It seems it would be equally ineffective if teams came out and never ran the ball. There’s likely some optimal number of runs per pass metric that could be discovered.
How accurate is RYOE & DYAR?
More accurate than traditional counting stats, but like anything they won’t be 100% accurate. The idea is, by providing multiple metrics, they’ll hopefully cover all the necessary context, or atleast a large amount of it. Whether this is true or not is debatable, but I’d answer and say they’re reliable, but shouldn’t be relied on to argue with on their own (just like any stat or advanced metric)
when he says slightly over a hunnid subs and I'm like damn this was exactly the thing I like to watch found my niche youtuber
Thank you!
Liked and subscribed for the efforts put forth to create this content.
Thank you!
You would think that the "running back by committee" approach would get really popular in the next few years. Three (maybe even four) RBs, none of whom get more than say 150 carries per year. Not just one featured back who, like Jumbo mentioned, if he was lost it would derail the whole season.
Fewer touches, lowered chance of getting injured, trained to excel at pass blocking, good at being checkdown options. Less chance of getting into the "rhythm" of the game (but that's probably a really tough thing to quantify), but a coach could ride a guy who's gashing the defense until he rotates the next guys in.
I think the running game still has value. It's a means of advancing the ball, and totally cutting that out of your game plan makes a team predictable. But it doesn't have as much value as it used to. It's a position that used to generate stars, but is heading toward a position that doesn't gain much respect. Look at the moves to incorporate WRs into the running game (Deebo Samuel and Cordarelle Patterson). How long until we see WRs with upwards of 75 carries in a season?
On some teams they’d be best friends and some teams they’d resent each other lol it would be wild
@@MrGoodeats I think you're more right on the second than the first. For most of these guys, they have to be top dog. They've been alpha all their life, and sharing the spotlight to help a team win is just anathema to them.
But if a team could find three guys, maybe draft them all out of Division 2, tell them how many touches to expect and that they'd all see good playing time and that team had a chance, that success would be convincing, no?
@@VinceLyle2161 i think so too. i like the taking the D2 guy. or even take guys who are solid but doesn’t star and we’re team guys on solid teams with good recruiting history so you know they’re talented
@@MrGoodeats It only has to happen once, then every coach will copy it like the Tampa 2 defense or the RPO.
still listening. so far my counterpoints (don't necessarily disagree totally) are:
1: football isn't a math game. it's extremely emotional and physical. a great or terrible running game totally changes the tone of the game and has a big impact on the fatigue of the opposing players
2: there are situations where running the ball is objectively better regardless of overall effeciency
3: offenses need balance. we'll see what happens if someone decides to just throw on every play in the nfl
4: a lot of the Super Bowl winning teams had rbs that played well. Pacheco was really good last year and holding the Eagles' RBs down was key for KC. flip that and Philly almost certainly wins
Akers' inability to get anything going seriously hampered the Rams' offense
Fournette was bruising and efficient
Damien Williams dramatically outperformed Mostert. swap that and the Niners win. actually the inability to run was a huge deal in that game since they had a double digit lead in the 4th
i think we've come back around to underestimating the impact running backs have on football
finishing the video this isn't necessarily a counterargument but just additional context. i'd agree that paying RBs big $ is generally a bad idea but the position is still important
the Niners are a good example this year of a team that would go from contender to not without their superstar RB
Didnt realize you were in the legal field! Im in law school now but my background is in stats. Loved this breakdown!
Thank you! Feel free to reach out for any help or advice with law school!
This was a very interesting breakdown of why passing is more efficient. I wonder if you could do an analysis to determine the best ratio of run-to-pass? In other words, the data shows that passing is generally more efficient, but the value in running (aside from gaining yards) is that it 1) keeps the clock running, thereby decreasing the opponent's # of offensive plays, 2) it sets up the passing game for success by tempering the defense's expectations, and 3) is *perhaps* more efficient in pivotal situations such as 4th & short or goal line.
To that end, what is the ideal % of run/pass plays in any given game plan?
Great thoughts - I've added it to my list of things to look into! Thank you for your suggestion, I'll see if I can find anything!
the best part of running is that it distracts from passing
Here when you have 600 subs. Because you’re about to blow up
Thank you!
I guess the value comes with having the defense on their toes always double guessing if it’s a play action or run
Perhaps! Definitely difficult to pick up on stuff like that in these advanced stats, so you could be on to something!
There is one thing that rules football. Points. Put points on the board and keep points off.
The fact that an average passing game is more productive than a great running game, it is far easier to move the ball and score throwing than rushing.
One thing that pads the rushing stats, teams that are winning, run more to burn clock. Teams that are losing, throw more to try and score quickly and save clock. That is the point where slowing down the game is a winning strategy. So any stat in the 4th quarter will depend more on the score than on what is actually important to get a lead in the first place.
Production matters and running helps the offense in being productive. The short yardage first downs and keeping the D off balance. However, if a D focuses on the pass, they will not have great run stopping stats, but they will have the one stat that matters. Points.
It isn’t that RBs and the running game aren’t important. It is that passing is so much more important.
Love the analysis. One thing i didnt see you address when comparing the money and stats was the receiving impact some of the RBs have. Derrick Henry would fit this analysis perfectly because he doesn't contribute much in the passing game. However, Jonathan Taylor and Christian McCaffrey are very good receivers as well as RBs. All of Henry's salary is being used for rushing. Only part of Taylor's and McCaffrey's salaries are being used for rushing. You addressed the 4 areas RBs contribute, but allocated all of their salary to 1 area.
Probably need to do something like 'Salary*Rushing attemtps/total snaps on field' to figure out what part of the RBs salary is being used for rushing. I dont think this will change your overall conclusion, but i think it will show the top RBs aren't as inefficient money-wise as your analysis shows, with the exception of Henry.
Yo man - fantastic breakdown on the issue! Also congrats on taking the bar exam from a football-loving current law student! I have two main points of clarification:
1. Rather than comparing running backs to quarterbacks, why not make the comparison to wide receivers, a position where there are similar rotations and the pay scales are closer. I think comparing a cheaper, WR2 to an elite running back is more relevant than comparing Dalvin Cook to Patrick Mahomes
2. I love the running analysis, but does the pass-catching analysis have anything to say for the value-proposition of the running back? For example, if the 49ers decide to pay CMC as a running back, what’s stopping him from reclassifying as a wide receiver? Also all of the analysis was focused on RB’s value as runners and not pass catchers
Thanks- I appreciate it! Someone else had actually raised the same point as to point 1 and I completely agree. For the next similar video to this I’ll compare to my comparable positions, because I think the QB to RB comparison was ultimately unfair. As to the second point, the idea is that any WR will be a better receiver than a RB, even out of the backfield so a RB wouldn’t provide more value than a WR in that sense.
Also, always feel free to reach out for any help with law school or bar exam review!
@@TheJumboPackage gotcha - that makes a ton of sense, and I look forward to part 2! And i will definitely reach out about law school!
You say that teams run more when winning, which is true. However, the ability to successfully run helps put games away and run out the clock. Having a good running game is also what makes play action work.
Great video jumbo package man
Thank you!
Great video. I know you touched on the O line a bit but do you think the diminishing value of the position is due to smaller and faster o/d-lines accounting for mobile QBs?
Thank you! To answer you question, I’d say yes. I think, the explosion of the pass game and dynamic QBs have made it such that defenses don’t use true nose tackles anymore and try to use more hybrid inside/outside players which makes it easier to run, thus making it easier to just plug and play RBs
I think two things need to happen in order to revitalize the value of the position:
1: Improve their armor. Players have been using the same kit for decades. Surely there's technology available to reinforce knees and ankles, even if it slows the player down slightly.
2: Embrace two-way play. Edge Rusher is the most sought-after position on the defense. Runningbacks have many of the traits necessary to being a successful DE or OLB. Even if it's just rotational, being able to add to the defense's most difficult position to fill will go a long way.
Great video, very well broken down! I think most of these points can be applied to the draft as well. Why draft an RB early, when you can snag near equal value late for a fraction of the investment/opportunity cost.
Thank you- I appreciate it!