Jump to content
Matts4313

The Run Game doesnt matter

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, plan9misfit said:

wcny2f.jpg

The running game has no correlation to wins, huh? These stats certainly tell a different story.

Win Rate with Zeke: 70%

Win Rate without: 50%

Completion percentage is 5.7% higher with Zeke.

TD:INT with Zeke is 3:1

TD:INT without Zeke is 2:1

Quincy’s passer rating is 11.1 points HIGHER with Zeke. 

That literally tells you that a RB has a DIRECT influence on the outcome of games and how well a QB performs.

But, yeah...no correlation.

We'll just see how much the run game matters if this Zeke hold out is real. Jerry won't be able to open his check book fast enough. Zeke will get whatever he wants. Dak obviously isn't getting what he wants in negotiations. At least not yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dak’s QBR (ESPN’s metric, not passer rating) is also ~30 points higher with Zeke on the field than without. That’s out of 100.0, so that’s kind of a lot. This encapsulates all offensive snaps since they were drafted, not just the games he was suspended for or the Week 17s he sat out.

I still think that’s more a reflection of this franchise’s tunnel vision and overall lack of ingenuity than it is Zeke’s abilities, but the guy really might be the exception to the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I look at this question I still feel nothing is so simple in the NFL that they can be explained away by stats.    But to this question I have a few thoughts

First.  It is not so easy to say with Zeke and with out Zeke when looking at Dak or our teams success 

What I would say is Dak  with a starting level RB or  a Zeke/Barkley/Gurley level Rb.    Is there really any difference there with teams success

To me also these is a difference when you now say No Zeke who is now being replaced by a RB who would hardly see the field for any other roster in the NFL.  

Those to me are important parts to the question and there is no way they can be answered.   because it’s not like say Zeke holds out that suddenly we’ve replaced him with a top level RB.  Or even a starting level quality RB.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Northland said:

The run game won't matter if Zeke gets in trouble again.

Because the run game will suck without Zeke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this was interesting:

2 hours ago, Teen Girl Squad said:

I think some people really struggle with RBs because there is no position in football (maybe not even QB) where their direct contribution is so visually evident and because their contributions to the game are most directly reflected in individual statistics. There value jumps off the screen in a way that only maybe QBs do as consistently (and then its often scheme related). Its so obvious that its hard to reconcile with the more intangible play of other positions in terms of valuation. This is a primary reason the dogma of rushing the ball was so prevalent for so long in football. And because people believe in fairness, we want to compensate RBs for playing one of the most physically punishing positions in sports. This is why people don't equally lament kickers/punters for not making big money. I'm all for players maximizing their value but lets not forget that these guys are still making multiple millions of dollars per year. It may feel bad relative to their peers at other positions but its not like they are only making the veteran minimum.

 

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

This is a very solid point. People love RBs. The become emotionally attached to them. There is a positive experience most times they touch the ball, which creates an emotional bond to them. 

 

But there is 25 years worth of data to prove their impact on wins is negligible and easily replaceable. If people used the logical side of their brain, they would understand why NFL teams dont want to pay these guys.... They arent worth it long term. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you zeke apologist are paplov's dog.

Get on my level. 

:D (im kidding)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

All you zeke apologist are paplov's dog.

Get on my level. 

:D (im kidding)

My biggest confusion with the Running game doesn't matter is that the Pats,  best team, best coach,  possibly best FO,   have taken a rb in the 3rd round this year, and 1st round last year,  and it wasn't James White type backs.   For a team that uses the short passing game like a run game,  wouldn't you think they'd only draft rb's in the 4th round or later? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SweetFancyMoses said:

My biggest confusion with the Running game doesn't matter is that the Pats,  best team, best coach,  possibly best FO,   have taken a rb in the 3rd round this year, and 1st round last year,  and it wasn't James White type backs.   For a team that uses the short passing game like a run game,  wouldn't you think they'd only draft rb's in the 4th round or later? 

Why does Billy do anything he does? He has already said he doesnt draft for need, he drafts who he thinks are good football players. The pats have a 20 history of largely using inexpensive options at RB. Perhaps they just really liked those prospects compared to what was available? 

 

Its not like those were big investments. The 1st used was a late one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woof... Another article posted today talking about how replaceable RBs are. 

Quote

But despite the exploits of the most prolific receiving backs last year, running back targets as a share of all passes are not significantly increasing. Teams are just throwing to everyone more often. Last year, 20.2 percent of passes were targeted at running backs, which is in line with the 2001-to-2017 average of 19.5 percent. The same is true if we look at the market share of passing yards: 18 percent last year compared with 17.5 from 2001 to 2017.

Quote

Last year, NFL backs registered successful plays on 1,663 of 3,572 receiving targets, a rate of 46.6 percent, according to ESPN Stats & Information Group. Elliott and Barkley were the top two rushers in the league last season, but they were below-average receivers for their position by this metric, posting respective success rates of 36.1 and 40.3 percent on passes thrown to them. The Cowboys and Giants ranked 31st and 26th, respectively, in overall success rates on those plays. When their quarterbacks threw to Elliott and Barkley, they typically weren’t increasing their probability of scoring points — they were worsening it.

Quote

Standing out as receivers may be the best chance for running backs trying to get around the depressed salaries at their position. But even with their contributions to the passing game, it still might be a challenge for these RBs to prove that their receiving value also isn’t easily replaced.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sorry-running-backs-even-your-receiving-value-can-be-easily-replaced/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And once again this means nothing.

Most of the time when the QB checks down to the RB, it isn't by design. Not every RB catch is a screen play. Most of the time he is a last resort. 

So yes, when the designed pass play doesn't work out, and your options are dump it to the RB or get sacked, then it's what we, in the football world, call a busted play. That's not the RBs fault. Everyone knows passing to the RB isn't the big key to winning, strawman. 

 

Imagine the mental gymnastics you have to perform to let a cherry picked stat convince you that Saquan Barkley was a below average receiver last year. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is like any stat you have to look closer to see what it actually means.    

To continue the busted play comment which is a very good point there are a lot of teams in the NFL that use passion g to the RB as a critical part of their offense like NO KC NE to name a few ...    Dallas and the Giants are not two of those teams so yes we like the Gaints will not have impressive RB receiving stats 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, SweetFancyMoses said:

My biggest confusion with the Running game doesn't matter is that the Pats,  best team, best coach,  possibly best FO,   have taken a rb in the 3rd round this year, and 1st round last year,  and it wasn't James White type backs.   For a team that uses the short passing game like a run game,  wouldn't you think they'd only draft rb's in the 4th round or later? 

And the Patriots aren't the only team investing in RBs.

 

It shouldn't be a conundrum. You have a bunch of nerdy dudes that have never played the sport sitting around a spreadsheet telling us that running backs don't matter at all. Meanwhile there isn't a current or former player/coach or GM that will tell you a running back is worthless, and there isn't a team on the planet at any level that plays without a RB on the roster/ or runs 100% empty back sets.

It doesn't exist because RBs are valuable to an offense. 

 

Edited by DaBoys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×