dsciambi Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I wasn't quite sure what to do with this information, but I feel like it's something that ES members should read. The following link examines the relationship between running backs and how much money they cost for their production. It's very ASF like (as far as number crunching), but it's something I've been saying for a long time: Running backs are NOT worth big contracts. Running backs are NOT worth picking in the first day of the draft (or now, the first half of the second day). http://www.nyjetscap.com/2012_Articles/valuepriceRB.php The author basically crunches the numbers of how running backs in the current era perform while taking into consideration their contracts. He used the following data: For each category I used the stats for the 2011, 2010, and 2009 NFL seasons and assigned a weighted score of 50%, 35%, and 15% respectively for each year. For YFS (Yards From Scrimmage; he used receptions since they're a large portion of a modern offense), every year counted in the calculation unless the player was a rookie in 2010 in which case the points assigned were 58.8% for 2011 and 41.2% for 2010, essentially just keeping the ratio the same between the years. The number weighed the rushing number to count for 75.2% of the score while receiving counted for 24.8%. The numbers were based on the average yardage split between run and receiving from scrimmage the prior three seasons. If a player did not have enough carries in a season to qualify for a ranking I did not include it in the weighted average calculation. No one cares too much about that. The results are what matters! With the exception of MJD, almost all of the big name players are producing at a level no better than players on low cost rookie contracts, RFA tenders, and mid-tier free agent contracts. A team like the Panthers investing so much money in DeAngelo Williams could get similar production from Cedric Benson or Marshawn Lynch at a fraction of the cost.... So what exactly is the NFL team paying for? At the top end it's nearly 5 times the salary for about 4% of benefits. For the top 10 it's double the cost for 7.2% more production. At the low end its actually better production for lower costs. ... If you just think you have a good player that is not top tier, but you believe you are getting a bargain on him at $4.5 million, such as a Joseph Addai, you can't do it. There is almost no chance of getting a good return on that investment. The cost of a rookie is so much less and the production more or less equivalent that it does not make financial sense. It goes back to your own internal evaluation. If you are going to spend over $3.5 million you better be 100% certain the guy can be a borderline top 5 player. If not it is throwing money away. There's tons more there, but I found this incredibly interesting especially when I heard we were planning on bringing back Hightower. He's on the list at the bottom, and he made about $1.8 million last year. He cost $66,675 per point (points explained in the analysis) which is higher than top 10 production. Additionally, when rookies are included in those numbers, he's making better than top 5 production. I'd like to hear what people here think about this, and whether it has any flaws. Additionally, does anyone believe it makes any sense to do something besides just draft say, a rookie RB every year, and hope that one or two works out? You could keep them for the remainder of their rookie contract and cut all ties after. Also, for those who don't feel like reading it, but want Redskins numbers (Helu and Royster aren't available with only one season played), Torain cost us about $480,000 a year and cost $27,513 a point (once again, points explained in article). Despite his lower cost per point, his production was also significantly lower than Hightower's, so in reality he was a worse running back (for the money/production). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MumboSauce Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I agree with that line of thinking concerning rb's and their value, not paying a lot, not using high draft picks...with the exception of Adrian Peterson. Valuable to have talent and an asset at the position, yet fairly dime a dozen. You can get away with good and serviceable if you have other talent on the offense ie Oline, QB, receivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsciambi Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 But according to that, Peterson's production doesn't warrant that kind of contract. You could grab two mid-tier free agent or rookie running backs and not lose much production, as well as save the team like $10 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkekoa Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I agree to an extent. I think the second round is the perfect place to find your running back. You find him, exploit him, and then trade him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epochalypse Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Seems like Shanahan has had this philosophy almost his whole career. And I agree wholeheartedly with it. Except fantasy football, then I love me those franchise backs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Seems like Shanahan has had this philosophy almost his whole career.And I agree wholeheartedly with it. Except fantasy football, then I love me those franchise backs! I do too, but they are getting harder to find. Seems like the way our league scoring system is set up (we try to emulate the pro scores), getting A+ WRs and a complimentary TE is the best route along with a bonafide QB that can sling the ball around (Brees, Rodgers) is our best way to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.