It is currently Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:08 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Cosell Talks: What's a RB Worth?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:09 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25932
Location: North Carolina
http://nflfilms.nfl.com/2012/07/10/cose ... valuation/

Cosell Talks: What’s a Running Back Worth?
by Greg Cosell

Much has been written recently about the decreasing importance and ultimate devaluation of the running back position in the NFL. It was a central theme in March and April leading up to the 2012 NFL Draft, primarily when it came to the evaluation of former Alabama star Trent Richardson. Almost everyone agreed that Richardson was an outstanding prospect; many felt he was a special talent. I know some teams had him rated as the best overall player on the board. Yet, many believed strongly that Richardson should not be drafted in the top 10, despite universally high grades.

This devaluation mindset has continued through the summer with Maurice Jones-Drew, Ray Rice and Matt Forte — all outstanding (and versatile) feature backs feeling underappreciated by their respective teams, despite top-level production over time. The Jaguars, Ravens and Bears don’t seem willing to pay up. It appears they just don’t want to commit their offense to a running back, regardless of performance and — in most cases — durability.

Why would an outstanding back, a true foundation back, not be seen as the building block of an NFL offense, and by extension, an entire team?

The more important question, the one that places the conversation in a larger context, is: Why do teams choose not to structure offense around a great runner, as was the accepted model for so many years? Clearly, organizations and coaches have decided that is not the most effective way to play offense. Money always dictates the reality, and the reality is this: Thirty of 32 teams entering 2012 have quarterbacks either drafted in the first round or playing under a contract worth at least $20 million guaranteed. The only two teams that don’t fall into that category are the Cincinnati Bengals with Andy Dalton (and Dalton certainly looks like he has a chance to be a higher-level quarterback) and the Seattle Seahawks. Although the signing of Matt Flynn signifies a meaningful investment in the position for Seattle (even if it’s only $10 million guaranteed).

Let’s delve into this. If you have a top-level quarterback — let’s say Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Eli Manning or Drew Brees — you have a much larger margin for error throughout the rest of your team. A top-tier signal caller can compensate for both offensive flaws and defensive weaknesses. The Packers, Patriots, Giants and Saints all ranked in the bottom third of NFL defenses in 2011, with Green Bay and New England fielding the two worst defenses in football. We can debate potential explanations (big leads, etc.), but the film clearly showed deficiencies. And those inadequacies would have been further exposed, in fact laid bare in the form of defeats, if the quarterbacks were not capable of both camouflaging and compensating for them, week in and week out.

We know there are always exceptions. Certainly, the San Francisco 49ers come to mind. Alex Smith, once the first overall pick in the draft, threw the least amount of interceptions of any 16-game starter, but the more illuminating metric is that he attempted the fewest passes. The 49ers had a +28 turnover ratio in 2011; that kind of differential is more exception than rule. They had a top-five defense in terms of yards allowed, although I believe, based on film study, it was the best in the league. Only two teams ran the ball more. And lastly, their special teams play was outstanding. Smith was not required to mask and overcome weaknesses in other areas. The opposite was much closer to the truth: The play calling recognized — and minimized — Smith’s limitations, and the overall excellence of the rest of the team propelled the 49ers to their fine season.

This is really a discussion about the evolution of offensive thinking through the years. An NFL once defined by the running game is now undeniably a passing league. The shift took place over time, and the reasons are too many to enumerate here, though I would submit rules changes dating back to 1978 as the catalyst. That was the year in which both pass-coverage and pass-blocking rules were liberalized to benefit and enhance the passing game.

There are other strategic factors, as well. Think of it this way: When you run the ball as your offensive starting point, you shorten the game, since the clock continues to move; when you pass the ball, you lengthen the game, since incompletions stop the clock. Fewer plays when you run, more plays when you pass. In addition, completed passes, based solely on percentages, consistently gain more yards than running plays. The addendum is that you are far more likely to generate explosive plays (20-plus yards) throwing the football than running it. Thus, you give yourself greater opportunity to score touchdowns when you pass.

Teams that feature the run as their foundation generally don’t score as many points. They tend to play closely contested games that are within one score in the fourth quarter. Those kinds of games can be decided by one play. In fact, too often better teams lose to less-talented teams simply because the game is close and that single play becomes magnified. That’s a tough way to play every week. But that’s the profile when you’re a running team built around a great back. Your margin for error as a team is very small, which is exactly why you have to be extremely good in all phases, like the 2011 49ers. That’s very difficult in today’s NFL.

In fact, I strongly believe most organizations recognize that kind of team-building is not truly viable in the salary-cap era. That’s not the best approach to compete for championships. You will not consistently beat the top quarterbacks and the top offenses by playing conservative football, with the emphasis on shortening the game, and as a result, limiting the opposing offense’s snaps. I always debated this with coaches as it pertained to Peyton Manning. For years, the Indianapolis Colts had the fewest overall possessions in the NFL, usually eight or nine per game. That’s great as an abstract number. But they would score touchdowns on three, four or five of them. If your offense controlled the ball, and the clock, but did not score touchdowns, as was often the case, then all you’ve accomplished is shortening the game for yourself. You get fewer opportunities to score and you’re not built to aggressively attack with the passing game. It’s a catch-22 that ultimately fails.


The pass cannot primarily be a reactive tactic, used in long-yardage situations against defenses specifically designed to stop it, both from a pressure and coverage standpoint. It’s too hard to sustain offense that way. You must be proactive throwing the ball, without regard to down and distance. You can do that out of base personnel (1 RB and 2 TE or 2 RB and 1 TE) or you can do it out of multiple-receiver sets and shotgun spread formations. That’s not as important as the simple fact of attacking aggressively with the pass.

Yet, no matter how effectively you throw the ball in normal down-and-distance situations, you will face third-and-long. We all know that third down is the most important down in football for one reason: It’s the possession down. Those plays inherently take on greater significance. Make no mistake, third-and-long is the quarterback’s down. He has to make tough throws, often in tight windows, against the best of what defensive coordinators have to offer. If you do not have a quarterback who can do that, you have no chance to contend for anything meaningful. That may be the single most consequential reason the quarterback must be the centerpiece of both your offense and your entire team. You cannot structure your offense around a running back and a running game … and then expect your quarterback to make difficult reads and throws in the most critical and demanding situations. That’s totally unrealistic.

This is not meant to intimate that a quality running game has no value. Certainly the ability to run the ball well is a necessary part of good offense. This speaks more to the relative importance of the two positions in creating and maintaining winning offense. The quarterback’s efficiency must be the No. 1 priority, not the running back’s — no matter how special the running back may be. Different quarterbacks require different approaches, but it does not alter the essential point. No matter how special your running back is, he does not have the same impact as a quarterback. That’s the ultimate irony for Jones-Drew, Rice and Forte.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cosell Talks: What's a RB Worth?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:15 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:59 pm
Posts: 1152
Location: San Diego, CA
I think every other year there will be a prospect at running back that will warrant a top 10 pick. I believe that if a RB has Adrian Peterson potential you burn that pick and dont think twice about it. I know people always say that you can find RB in the later rounds and sign good ones as UDFA and love to bring up Arian Foster. Foster is an anomaly in the modern era of scouting rarely does a player as good as Foster go undrafted. So to a degree RBs are devauled but it just really depends on how your team is built sure if you have an elite QB you dont need a top 20 RB but if your QB is mediocre or young a top 15 RB talent can cover up a lot of weaknesses.

_________________
The Young Gunner


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cosell Talks: What's a RB Worth?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:29 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25932
Location: North Carolina
It really depends on the team drafting. Cleveland needed a player like Trent Richardson because they had a terrible passing game. A team like Tampa Bay with an a decent to good starter in Blount at RB, a quality QB, and some solid options at WR didn't need a player like Richardson, they could wait until later in the draft and get a player like Doug Martin.

If you're a team that has major question marks at QB and/or lack the options at WR and TE to have a competent passing attack, then it makes more sense to get a strong ground game around a top-notch RB like Richardson.

And because often these types of teams are picking high in the draft, you're right then it will make sense for someone to draft a guy that high.

Your typical upper level NFL RB is going to get 4-5 years of strong production (e.g. 1000-yard seasons), which can be used to bridge the gap between where you are currently (with your bad QB) and where you hopefully will be in the future with a good one that can carry your offense.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cosell Talks: What's a RB Worth?
PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:50 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:41 pm
Posts: 2393
Location: Albany NY
The answer imho is somewhere in the middle. For example I thought Richardson was a reach, but not by much, 8-14 sounds about right to me. The fact is, this is a passing league and RB's have a short shelf life, but they can help you win for a few years. Do I think these teams should resign these top RB's, yes, should they get 10mil plus a year, no. 4 years 32 million is probably the top contract I'd give to any RB, and that's for the elite of the elite. I also think that RB's that can catch the ball and block are clearly the future of the position. The days of the straight ahead grinder running back are dead under the current league rules. Versatility is everything at this position.

_________________
When life gives you lemons, find some salt and tequila then invite me!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cosell Talks: What's a RB Worth?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:47 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25932
Location: North Carolina
I wouldn't say it is over. I think as far as teams winning with the straight ahead grinder RB are over. But they have been for a number of years. There are always going to be mid-level teams like Minnesota, Jacksonville, Tennessee, St. Louis, and every once in a while teams like San Francisco, Baltimore, and Atlanta will rise to the top that rely heavily on a RB as well.

I think the reason why Richardson was graded so high is because of his ability and potential as a receiving back. He has excellent hands, speed, and burst and in a Norv Turner offense, he could easily catch 50, 60, or 70 passes a year.

If Richardson becomes the player that people think (which approaches Peterson), then he'll be worth the pick. If he is only as good as someone like Matt Forte or Ryan Mathews, then it won't be worth it.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cosell Talks: What's a RB Worth?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:05 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:30 pm
Posts: 2347
Its just much easier to draft/pickup two complimentary backs and use their skill sets accordingly. Ie. Patriots

Otherwise, if you've got an epic QB/pass game like a GB, you almost just need a competent back. Ie. Starks/Kuhn

Then look at us, Quiz will never top 20 carries I don't imagine, so thats us heading that direction as well.

_________________
Good is the Worst Enemy of Great


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cosell Talks: What's a RB Worth?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:24 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 25932
Location: North Carolina
It all depends what you're looking for. If you want a back capable of being a 1000-yard rusher, then you should draft one in the 1st or 2nd round. If you're looking for a guy that can just give you 500 or so yards a year, then you can wait until the middle/late rounds.

For example, if this team wants to replace Turner with another guy capable of being a "No. 1" RB (i.e. someone that is capable of rushing the ball 15-20 times a game), then they will likely have to use a #1 or #2 pick next year. But if the Falcons are looking for a committee approach similar to say the Saints, and are looking for a 3rd guy to split reps with Quizz and Snelling as guys that might get 5-8 carries per game, then they can wait until the middle rounds.

That latter approach only really works for a team like the Saints who can basically throw the ball 40 or 50 times a game, and manage to get by. I don't ever see the Falcons being that team under Smith. So I think they are always going to want a workhorse back. And the fact of the matter is that the best workhorse backs are typically drafted in the Top 10-20 picks.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  


cron