Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Death of Workhorse Running Backs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Biabreakable
- Start date
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Short career and underpaid at rb, nfl prospects are possibly looking at other positions where they can make more money for longer. Emphasis on spread offenses in college has probably hurt the position as well. The elite athletes are trying to be cbs and wrs now, that's where the money is. It's still a high profile position and there could be a lot of endorsement dollars to be had, but I don't see any Jamal Charles commercials. Couple all that with the shortened earning window and fickleness of the rb position and the change in pass coverage rules and it makes sense.
It depends on scoring system. In ppr they are being tied/out scored by 10th round picks such as Dion Lewis and Danny Woodhead
It definitely changes year to year, but with the high rate of injury at the position, I would rather not tie up a large investment at RB. The lack of the workhorse back has balanced out the position in fantasy and opened the door for a lot more options. so much that the difference between RB5 and RB20 is pretty minimal.
WheelsUp
Footballguy
This is a post to go with your theory and doesnt present anything but that it is the exact reason that makes the workhorse RB like Bell and Gurley so valuable. Please do not compare values like Woodhead in drafts because there are some steals every year. Doesnt make the value of RB you know will tote the ball 300 times in a year and less and it even makes them more valuable. WRs get hurt too. Dez, Calvin, Nelson, Brown, Cobb, Watkins, Hopkins, Edelman, Jeffery all WRs who get/got hurt just as easily. RBs get hurt more than WRs storyline, it isnt really true. Its football, everyone gets hurt, even QBs.
They're essentially the same player for FF. A Bill Parcells and now Bill Belichick 3rd down back. Kevin Faulk, David Meggett, Leon Johnson- we've been here before. All five players got more work when the starter was ineffective and less work when he was. That should be predictable enough to utilize in FF.
I think the NFL has seen a massive influx of good talent but not great talent. ADP, even Elliot about now- the second they're drafted people are penciling them in for super high carry #s. It's like a given-this guy rocks so he'll get X amount.
In previous years, Shanny and other coaches would try to scheme to make a RB better than he was and we watched Terrell Davis' replacements also do well. I don't think they do anymore and I think it's since Coughlin in NYG had so much success.
Many years ago, (**** Lebeau IIRC) The Bengals coach actually sat star Corey Dillion for a series each game and if he could pull it off, then each half. Brandon Bennett was a fine runningback for a series. He did so well in this role, there was little reason to not rest Corey. When Dillon was injured, Bennett wasn't that good in a full time role and Rudi came to the rescue.
A million years ago Al Davis made a mean quote that RBs take the worst hits inside the 20, so his super RB would only play then. Marcus Allen went on to be one of the best RBs inside the 20 but... Years later Jon Gruden had an electric runner in Napoleon Kaufman and referenced that study of RBs getting hurt inside the 20. He would pull Kaufman as they got near the goalline. Fantasy people hated him for that. Guess what? Kaufman got hurt on the rest of the field-injuries do occur there too.
These were two of my favorite tries and some of the most written about. IIRC Shanahan tried to use both Anderson and Gary and neither could 'get going' so he went back to utilizing one(plus injuries pushed his hand there too).
Kevin Gilbride(not Coughlin but everyone claims it is because they dislike Gilbride) employed a two back system in Jax pretty well but fragile freddy did wear down. James Stewart was occasionally a nice bye week filler with a TD and enough yards to cover. Later with the New York Giants, after Tiki retired, Gilbride hit gold. Brandon Jacobs would rush the first quarter. Derrick Ward would rush the second. The two would share the third. In the fourth, a young speedy Ahmad Bradshaw would run against a very worn down defense. The Giants led the NFL in rushing that year and I believe were also top 10 another year. None of those RBs proved to be ADP sweetness Brown type special but collectively they rocked.
In my opinion, this was when teams stopped trying to "make a RB" and simply plugged so many in til one succeeded.
Thomas Jones (oddly a common reference on this board as if he's famous) was one of those backs that needed 18 carries to get going. It was statistically evident before his success and when he got 18+ he did well. When he didn't, he didn't do well. He was very predictable. He's one of the last I can think of where a team made a big effort to try and make an average RB better. Elite ones, sure they do that still.
Most teams use five or six RBs now by week 17.
The Pats did little to supplant Lewis so I'd feel comfy there. I would not with Woodhead. That franchise has to get Gordon rolling. Whisenhunt flopped with Sankey- he has to get Gordon rolling. Whisenhunt used his 3rd down back as a WR in TEN and McCluster did not have good fantasy stats until he left. Arizona had one of the best receiving backs ever when he showed up there in Edgerring James. James had 25 and 12 catches under Whis. They had a third down back (which people argued here was a real good back and were wrong but..) in JJ Arrington. He didn't fare much better under Whis.
2013 is commonly the year people suggest (as if Whis hasn't been around the NFL for a long time) and even if you roll with that, Woodhead's stats when Matthews did do well are pretty suspect. Matthews struggled so Woodhead did well-that seems a pattern that could continue BUT again, if Gordon stinks Whisenhunt will not be coaching in 2017 and neither will McCoy. You don't draft a top level RB, have him fail, and keep your job. I wouldn't touch Woodhead for FF in 2016. Maybe they keep their jobs if somehow they make the playoffs but the Chargers are not a good team and probably want Rivers upright and Gordon to show his talent. 2017 can bring hope.
Chargers aren't winning the Supe this year.
Maybe the Cowboys are an odd case due to injury but it takes some time to go from the bottom 5 teams to an elite level
Inspiration
Footballguy
spider321
Footballguy
This is part of the reason ppr is outdated, The current NFL rules already favor the passing game too much. Fantasy leagues should not allow "scrub" receivers and "check down" RB's score more fantasy points than stud RB's.
In today's game, ppr is as asinine as "ppcarry" or "pppassattempt" would be.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
This doesn't make sense. Whisenhunt was OC in San Diego in one previous season, 2013. In that season, Woodhead was RB12 and Mathews was RB17 in PPR. Even though Mathews had 311 touches and 7 TDs, Woodhead still had 182 touches, which included 76 receptions, and 8 TDs.
Now Whisenhunt is back, and the key players (Rivers, Allen, Gates, Woodhead) are mostly the same. Gordon is there instead of Mathews... and, yes, the team will try very hard to get him established this season... but is there any reason to believe he will reach 300 touches? No.
Meanwhile, Woodhead was RB3 last season in PPR (RB10 in ppg).
Now, if you mean that you wouldn't touch him at his ADP, that might make sense. Except that Woodhead is being drafted as RB25, #68 overall, in PPR leagues. Not only is that not too high, he actually presents value there.
For the record I completely agree with you and was only using ppr to make a point.
I can't stand playing in a league where the woodheads and edelmans get positive points for a reception that goes for a loss. It makes no sense. Shouldn't get positive points for a play that actually hurt that players NFL team.
just a barometer
From 2000-2003
23 for 70 yards
24 for 173
22 for 68
20 for 89
34 for 134
You can see 2004 on here http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JoneTh00/gamelog//
BoltBacker
Footballguy
Somebody should tell the author of that article to look into 2007 housing prices. There may have been a dip.
And start monitoring rainfall in southern California, I am seeing more than a few yellow lawns out there fellas.
And start monitoring rainfall in southern California, I am seeing more than a few yellow lawns out there fellas.
spider321
Footballguy
Hopefully, as the modern pass friendly rules keep pushing LB's and DL's to get faster(therefore smaller, in many cases) some GM's/coaches will start to go back to the power run game.
Sadly, those same rules may have already handcuffed the DB's so much that this will never happen.
Sadly, those same rules may have already handcuffed the DB's so much that this will never happen.
Last edited by a moderator:
KellysHeroes
Footballguy
Mr. Irrelevant
IBL Representative
Never say never.
Among the NFL's current top 12 active QBs in ANY/A, 9 are over the age of 30 ... RW3, Cam, and Dalton are the only three exceptions. And at least five of those 9 - Rogers, Brees, Brady, Rivers, Big Ben - are almost-certain HOF'ers.
It's certainly possible that the explosion in passing numbers over the past decade was a "perfect storm" of offense-friendly rules and several all-timers playing the QB position at once, and will mean-revert when the otherworldly talent putting up one 5,000-yard season after another leaves the scene. It sounds crazy, but if you'd said at the tail end of the MLB steroid era that a dozen years later run-scoring would be at generational lows, people would have laughed at you for that, too.
MattFancy
Footballguy
Are Fantasy RBs in Decay?
Interesting info on the state of RBs. May not be as bad as everyone thinks.
Interesting info on the state of RBs. May not be as bad as everyone thinks.
cstu
Footballguy
RB's are still going to score points, but who are they going to be with all of the injuries? A record low 2 RB's scored over 250 FP's last year and only 1 over 280.
MattFancy
Footballguy
Good point. The injuries may be a fluky thing though. I still value WRs more in the first couple of rounds, but if an elite RB slides, it will be hard to pass them up.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
There certainly were a lot of injuries to RB last season that are affecting the 2015 stats.
The trend goes back a decade or more however. So it isn't just the injuries causing this to happen.
The trend goes back a decade or more however. So it isn't just the injuries causing this to happen.
massraider
Footballguy
BoltBacker said:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I agree it is a bit like saying water is wet.BoltBacker said:
We are in a dead new cycle right now which I think is an appropriate time to talk about things like this. I liked how the author quantified the data to illustrate what hopefully most of us already know, but many of us seem to forget in August.
steelers1080
Footballguy
Just FYI, in 2014 Le'veon Bell got more receptions than Danny Woodhead has ever had in a single season. So I'm not sure that is a valid comparison. But I get your overall point.
Shutout
Footballguy
I recall about 3-4 years ago Pat Kirwin and T-Roc having that discussion and Kirwin said "one of these smart coaches is going to look up one day and say I need a big bowling ball on my team so that when everyone is flying side to side around on the field, I can send in my steamroller and these small Lbers won't be able to stop it". He went on to explain that it would force teams to slow pass rushes as they must put the slower, beefier guys in and he said he thought it would extend QB careers as they would take less hits (of course, this was on the edge of all the crazy protection rules we now hoave so can't really monitor that).spider321 said:
So they were saying these things get cyclical and think whether it was by design or not, you saw a couple of smart coaches employ some bigger backs over the last few years. A guy like Lagarette Blount was up and down and wasn't even effective in Pitt. But then Hoodie brings him in and uses him optimally and the prophecy is fulfilled. In fantasy we get frustrated because we can't rely on New England RBs all the time but they (NE) sure know those games that matchup well with the bowling ball and they have those games where it is embarrassingly obvious what they are doing...and the defense can't stop it. Same way when they play Baltimore, Jets, Pitt over the years how they go crazy uptempo and pass a million 4 yard passes to neutralize the rush.
Maybe it will come around again but I doubt any team would truly just "John Riggins" it anymore. Would love to see it but it's not smart. The RB WILL break down at some point.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
There just happens to be some very talented big backs coming into the league to test these theories.
Fournette: 6-1 230
Henry 6-3 247
Perrine: 5-10 234
Connor (hopefully): 6-2 240
Tau837
Footballguy
Seattle would. From 2011-2014, they gave Lynch 21 touches per game over a total of 71 games, including postseason. He only missed 1 game during that period. Sure, he broke down last year, but look at the production they got over that 4 year period.
Pittsburgh has and will treat Bell that way if he can stay healthy. Sure, he tore his ACL last year, but is there any factual evidence that suggests that was due to workload? I don't think so.
Gurley was coming off a major knee injury, yet the Rams gave him more than 20 touches per game starting with his second game. IMO that number is likely to go up this season.
Look how Dallas used Murray -- 21 touches per game over his entire career there. How do you think they will use Elliott?
I guess it depends on what you mean by "John Riggins it," but I think there are plenty of teams who would give their primary RBs 20+ touches per game if they are talented enough to warrant it. The RB position just happens to be a bit thin on talent right now, in comparison to 5 or 10 years ago. Next year is supposed to be a very good RB draft, so that combined with Gurley, Elliott, Bell, et al. could turn this around within a couple years.
mr roboto
Footballguy
Shutout
Footballguy
You are correct and a valid point. And I know you get my point, but I should have elaborated a bit in my original post. I do believe that the workhorse backs are more valuable and will score higher and more consistently. I just think the way NFL teams use RBs now, it bridges the gap between tiers and also adds a larger quantity of "start worthy" RBs. Especially in a format like ppr.
Bell and Gurley are definitely most valuable RBs. I merely question how much more valuable it is to draft one of them instead of taking a stud WR then grabbing lower tier RBs later.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I hear this said a lot. That PPR somehow makes more players startable, and that simply is not true. The same number of players are startable regardless of the scoring format. There are no additional starters made viable by the scoring format, just different players become viable not more.
I disagree, but that's fine. Maybe it's all relative, but I find it hard to believe that you can't effectively utilize more RBs in ppr than in non ppr. Jeremy Hill and Eddie Lacy put up less points per game than Bilal Powell, Dion Lewis and Lance Dunbar in my league last year. In fact, they were 36th and 41st in ppg respectively in a league where 28 RBs start each week. But I still consider them startable because the gap from 28 to 41 is so small. Maybe the gaps are similar in non ppr, but my guess is they widen quicker.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
3 year average 2010-2013
Standard scoring total points and points per game:
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 12[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 183.27 11.5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 24 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]137.7 8.6 (132.25 last 2 seasons 8.27 )[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 36[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 98.2 6.1[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 48[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 74.8 4.7[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 60[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 53.6 3.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 72[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 37.7 2.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 84[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 28 1.75[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 12[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 167.67 10.5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 24[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 130.03 8.1[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 36[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 110.36 6.9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 48[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 95.63 6[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 60[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 77.46 4.8[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 72[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 61.82 3.9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 84[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 51.9 3.2[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 96[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 44 2.75[/SIZE]
As far as the relative distribution of points, this makes players to RB 48 viable in terms of total points. The RB scores slightly more than WR at the 12 and 24 baseline but this is pretty close. The WR scores more than the RB after 24 and the difference becomes more pronounced at RB/WR 48 (21 points in favor of the WR) RB after 48 is still worth less in total points than WR 60.
PPR scoring total points and points per game:
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 12 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 223.7 14.6[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 24[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 166.7 10.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 36 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]124.93 7.8[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 48 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]94.4 5.9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 60[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 67.2 4.2[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 72[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 51.2 3.2[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 84[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 38.2 2.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 12[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 253.9 15.9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 24[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 197.93 12.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 36[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 164.66 10.3[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 48[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 145.1 3 9.0[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 60[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 119.2 7.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 72[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 98.3 6.1[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 84[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 79.9 5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 96[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 65.9 4.1[/SIZE]
In PPR the WR outscores the RB at every level of the distribution. A 30 point difference at the RB/WR 12 and 24 baseline (in favor of WR).. RB 36 scores similar to WR 60. The viability of RB after 36 is more questionable because RB 48 scores similar to WR 72.
In a standard league you might actually consider a RB for your flex spot, while in PPR leagues you will almost always be better off with a WR playing your flex.
There have been a couple seasons since I calculated these averages, but the trend hasn't changed. Last season was a new record for passing attempts.
There seems to be a perception that because the players are scoring more total points in PPR compared to standard, that this makes more players valuable. I suppose this is true in the sense of the total points being more. The relative value of players is still based on your starting requirements however and more total points is just an illusion of more players being viable, when actually the same number of players are start worthy. Those players just may be different based on the scoring system.
Standard scoring total points and points per game:
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 12[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 183.27 11.5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 24 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]137.7 8.6 (132.25 last 2 seasons 8.27 )[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 36[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 98.2 6.1[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 48[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 74.8 4.7[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 60[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 53.6 3.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 72[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 37.7 2.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] Running back 84[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 28 1.75[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 12[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 167.67 10.5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 24[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 130.03 8.1[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 36[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 110.36 6.9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 48[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 95.63 6[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 60[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 77.46 4.8[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 72[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 61.82 3.9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 84[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 51.9 3.2[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 96[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 44 2.75[/SIZE]
As far as the relative distribution of points, this makes players to RB 48 viable in terms of total points. The RB scores slightly more than WR at the 12 and 24 baseline but this is pretty close. The WR scores more than the RB after 24 and the difference becomes more pronounced at RB/WR 48 (21 points in favor of the WR) RB after 48 is still worth less in total points than WR 60.
PPR scoring total points and points per game:
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 12 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 223.7 14.6[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 24[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 166.7 10.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 36 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]124.93 7.8[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 48 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]94.4 5.9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 60[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 67.2 4.2[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 72[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 51.2 3.2[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Running back 84[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 38.2 2.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 12[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 253.9 15.9[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 24[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 197.93 12.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 36[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 164.66 10.3[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 48[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 145.1 3 9.0[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 60[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 119.2 7.4[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 72[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 98.3 6.1[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 84[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 79.9 5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Wide receiver 96[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] 65.9 4.1[/SIZE]
In PPR the WR outscores the RB at every level of the distribution. A 30 point difference at the RB/WR 12 and 24 baseline (in favor of WR).. RB 36 scores similar to WR 60. The viability of RB after 36 is more questionable because RB 48 scores similar to WR 72.
In a standard league you might actually consider a RB for your flex spot, while in PPR leagues you will almost always be better off with a WR playing your flex.
There have been a couple seasons since I calculated these averages, but the trend hasn't changed. Last season was a new record for passing attempts.
There seems to be a perception that because the players are scoring more total points in PPR compared to standard, that this makes more players valuable. I suppose this is true in the sense of the total points being more. The relative value of players is still based on your starting requirements however and more total points is just an illusion of more players being viable, when actually the same number of players are start worthy. Those players just may be different based on the scoring system.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are spot on with the bolded statement. It is hard to quantify it, as things get flattened out over 16 games, but for people who play in both 0ppr and 1ppr the difference in weekly WW depth is easily observable. One of the things I've noticed is that in PPR, people can at least grab a lottery ticket. If they can find a 3rd down/2-minute drill RB, he's not going to score a lot for a 16 game average, but if they happen to catch him the week his team gets blown out, he can put up 15 points pretty easily, outscoring someone like Jeremy Hill who will average more over a full season.
It basically glorifies garbage time. If a team is winning, the bell cow back on a winning team is putting up 0.3 pts per rush against a stacked box to close out the game while the garbage time 3rd down back on the losing team is putting up 1.7 points per dump off.
WheelsUp
Footballguy
People are confusing the workhorse RB for the average RB, for the sake of this thread that should not be the case. This is not the death of the average RB thread, but workhorse RB thread. The stats above talking about standard scoring and ppr scoring over 3 years goes to the overall point that the workhorse RBs because they are so rare and do score points so consistently they are more valuable than any piece in the game. Not the most valuable position, but the valuable pieces. It is not a dispute solid WRs are valuable, but a RB who get the ball 25 times a game with about 5 of them catches? That is a value so far ahead of everyone else.
While I agree with a lot of what you're saying in this thread, I'm not seeing how grabbing a COP back and hoping you hit his odd week of high reception totals is any different than grabbing a random team's WR3 and hoping this is the week he scores his 40-yard TD.
Part-time players are sometimes going to pay off in any format...the only difference between ppr and standard may be whether that lottery ticket you're fishing out of the waiver pool is a Vereen/Ridley type back, or a C. Brown/DHarris type receiver.
A fluky TD is going to be huge in either format. I think what it boils down to is that if you're scrapping for a starter in 0ppr, you are going to be pretty hard up, which IMO is a good thing. I know everybody catches a rash of injuries every once in a while, but most of the time it was poor drafting or poor planning that led to a team scouring the FA pool for a starter. I think the chances of them finding a guy who contributes a lot of yards is less than them finding a 3rd down back who gets a lot of garbage time receptions. But that's just the way it feels from playing both formats. Not concrete evidence by any stretch of the imagination.
