What's new
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.

Does backup RB quality matter to the starter? (1 Viewer)

If a team's backup RB is really good or really bad, would it change the amount of touches for the st

  • YES

    Votes: 45 81.8%

  • NO

    Votes: 10 18.2%
  • Total voters
    55
TheWinz

TheWinz

Footballguy
Had a disagreement with another poster, and thought it would make a good poll.  One side claims it doesn't matter how good a backup is when it comes to the amount of starter's touches.  The other side claims a great backup would eat into a starter's touches more than a bad backup.

 
Think about timeshares in which the #2 back gets hurt and is replaced by the #3.

While you’d think most teams would lean more on the #1, my impression is that for the past decade most teams have substitution plans for their backs and they keep those the same even when quality drops in one part of the tandem.

If the old guy was getting every third series or half the goalline work, the new guy will too even if demonstratably worse.

 
I dont think there is a clear yes or no answer to this question. Like most things, it depends on other factors.

If the coach is using a form of RBBC or uses specialists in receiving roles or short yardage roles then there is actually more than one "starter" for those roles. The team has back ups and contingency plans for if the starter goes down that doesn't change the plan much. How many touches the RB gets depends somewhat on game script. If the team is winning then "the starter" gets the majority of the opportunity with perhaps that players back up coming in later in the game to mop up. If the team is losing then the receiving RB may end up playing more snaps than the starter does and thus more opportunity for the "back up" than the starter in such situations.

To give an example the Washington Redsnkins have Adrian Peterson, Derrius Guice in what I would call the starter roles. They also have Chris Thompson and Bryce Love for the receiving RB role. If Peterson gets injured I don't think that would have any effect on Thompsons opportunity but it would have a huge impact on Guice. Conversely if Thompson was injured I don't think it would mean more passing targets for Peterson, but it could mean more for Guice who might slip into that role then. If not then it would be Love as the direct back up to the COP role that Thompson has.

Why?

Mostly because Peterson is not a very good receiver. Guice might not be either. We don't know that yet. I think he could be better as a receiver than Peterson is though. I could see him taking over that role in the offense in such a scenario where Thompson and Love are unavailable (I don't think Love will be active this year??) which is only a Thompson injury away from happening. Perine is in the mix for the "starter" role and may be the odd man out as no room for him. If he does make the team and Peterson/Guice are out then it wouldn't be Thompson stepping up for a bigger role but Perine coming in.

Every team is different. The coaching philosophy and their personnel. Scenarios like this exist for every single team though. Most are a bit muddier than the Redskins situation I think, that is why I used them as an example.

If the back ups are really bad then teams will use more desperate measures such as moving one of their WR to RB like the Packers did with Montgomery awhile back. Some teams do have players bad enough that they never want them to see the field but there is always a free agent out there who could come in and contribute instead. See CJ Anderson last year. So I think it is a pretty extreme case for the back up to be so bad the team just decides to give their starter all the carries. That is poor risk management and planning. They should always have back up plans.

When the starter is very good its just hard to take that player off the field. Especially if they are versatile and not game script dependent. I don't think they are playing more just because the back ups are bad. Maybe in some exteme short term situations that might happen, but I don't think that is ever part of the coaching staffs plan.

 
Biabreakable said:
I dont think there is a clear yes or no answer to this question. Like most things, it depends on other factors.

If the coach is using a form of RBBC or uses specialists in receiving roles or short yardage roles then there is actually more than one "starter" for those roles. The team has back ups and contingency plans for if the starter goes down that doesn't change the plan much. How many touches the RB gets depends somewhat on game script. If the team is winning then "the starter" gets the majority of the opportunity with perhaps that players back up coming in later in the game to mop up. If the team is losing then the receiving RB may end up playing more snaps than the starter does and thus more opportunity for the "back up" than the starter in such situations.

To give an example the Washington Redsnkins have Adrian Peterson, Derrius Guice in what I would call the starter roles. They also have Chris Thompson and Bryce Love for the receiving RB role. If Peterson gets injured I don't think that would have any effect on Thompsons opportunity but it would have a huge impact on Guice. Conversely if Thompson was injured I don't think it would mean more passing targets for Peterson, but it could mean more for Guice who might slip into that role then. If not then it would be Love as the direct back up to the COP role that Thompson has.

Why?

Mostly because Peterson is not a very good receiver. Guice might not be either. We don't know that yet. I think he could be better as a receiver than Peterson is though. I could see him taking over that role in the offense in such a scenario where Thompson and Love are unavailable (I don't think Love will be active this year??) which is only a Thompson injury away from happening. Perine is in the mix for the "starter" role and may be the odd man out as no room for him. If he does make the team and Peterson/Guice are out then it wouldn't be Thompson stepping up for a bigger role but Perine coming in.

Every team is different. The coaching philosophy and their personnel. Scenarios like this exist for every single team though. Most are a bit muddier than the Redskins situation I think, that is why I used them as an example.

If the back ups are really bad then teams will use more desperate measures such as moving one of their WR to RB like the Packers did with Montgomery awhile back. Some teams do have players bad enough that they never want them to see the field but there is always a free agent out there who could come in and contribute instead. See CJ Anderson last year. So I think it is a pretty extreme case for the back up to be so bad the team just decides to give their starter all the carries. That is poor risk management and planning. They should always have back up plans.

When the starter is very good its just hard to take that player off the field. Especially if they are versatile and not game script dependent. I don't think they are playing more just because the back ups are bad. Maybe in some exteme short term situations that might happen, but I don't think that is ever part of the coaching staffs plan.
Click to expand...
I remember that situation in Denver a few years back where the "starter" went down and there was much speculation on how the work would be redistributed among the remaining backs. Instead they activated someone else entirely (Anderson?) and they walked in and took over.

 
I think the answer is an obvious yes.  If the backup is better than the starter in some particular circumstance (blocking, receiving, short yardage) then they will be the one in on that type of play, not the starter.  We see this all the time. 

 
matttyl said:
I think the answer is an obvious yes.  If the backup is better than the starter in some particular circumstance (blocking, receiving, short yardage) then they will be the one in on that type of play, not the starter.  We see this all the time. 
Click to expand...
But that isn't really what the question is.  The question is comparing backup running backs......not comparing a backup to a starter.   If you have a backup RB that ranks as a 80 out of 100 quality points and compare that to a backup RB that ranks as a 60 will that affect the touches of the starter? 

Obviously if you have a specialist (as biabreakable  outlined above) their roles remain stable and touches are relatively constant based on game script.  This question isn't really addressing specific game day roles. 

 
I will make this poll very simple - Nick Chubb's first 9 weeks in 2019, his backup RB will be Duke Johnson, and Nick will have X touches per game.  Nick Chubb's last 7 weeks in 2019, his backup RB will be Kareem Hunt, and Nick will have X touches per game.

Is X the same for both?

 
I voted "YES"...... I look at it as a simple equation... the more talented the Backup RB is, the more likely RBBC or time share is likely to devalue the primary RB. 

Coaches are more interested in "what can you do for me now!"....  not what will your value be next year. 

This is not just a Clev issue, but SF, KC & Philly will have decisions to make on who is primary RB.

For example, NOS had AK & Ingram.  Both clear talent and they limited / restricted AK's touches to protect him and to maintain Ingram as part of the Offense. 

Does L Murray offer the same value as Ingram?  Not quite, but he will still see touches (maybe 9-12/gm) while AK might see more this season.  

 
There has been extensive discussion of this in the Nick Chubb thread. IMO there is a fairly clear answer: as the talent of your fantasy player’s back up increases, so does the threat to his future volume. If you feel that backup talent doesn't matter, consider an extreme case. Saquon Barkley’s current back up is Paul Perkins. If his backup somehow became Ezekiel Elliot do you really think Saquon’s volume projection is unchanged? I sure don’t.

I think where people get tripped up is that “backup threat” doesn’t work in a linear way, there are inflection points. Let’s say you have Saquon and his backup upgrades from Paul Perkins to only TJ Yeldon. There’s a good chance this change isn’t even noticeable and has no observable effect on Barkley’s volume. But it’s still a negative force that, under some rare scenarios, can impact Barkley’s value. For example, as others have stated, Yeldon may steal a tiny bit of volume in some specialized areas or there may be scenarios where a very banged up Barkley would still see heavy volume over Perkins but the slight upgrade to Yeldon changes the coaches thinking and player deployment. It’s likely that it would require a much larger backup RB talent upgrade, across an inflection point, to cause an observable effect on Barkley but that doesn’t negate the fact that better backups are a bigger threat. 

I used Saquon for my example who's talent is bulletproof. Once you downgrade the example player from generational talent, smaller backup upgrades raise the threat level quite a bit faster. If the starter you own is Peyton Barber, for example, any upgrade at all in the backup RB should raise the threat level to DEFCON 1.

 
TheWinz said:
I will make this poll very simple - Nick Chubb's first 9 weeks in 2019, his backup RB will be Duke Johnson, and Nick will have X touches per game.  Nick Chubb's last 7 weeks in 2019, his backup RB will be Kareem Hunt, and Nick will have X touches per game.

Is X the same for both?
Click to expand...
Chubb isnt known to be a good receiver so I think they will use Duke in the receiving role (hampered by Jarvis Landry) while Hunt is suspended. 

When Hunt is available perhaps he takes over Dukes role and the playing time and touches are about the same.

That is assuming Duke does not get traded as he has asked to be.

If Chubb is hurt or not playing well after Hunt is available then perhaps Hunt could take Chubbs role as the starter and they still use Duke in the receiving role in that situation.

Hunt is more proven as a receiver than Chubb, so the touches for the starting role might change a bit if it were Hunt instead of Chubb.

So the touches for the 2nd RB might be fewer in the instance where Hunt were the starter than it will be when Chubb is the start.

I have heard Chubb say he is working on his skills as a receiver but even he said he has a way to go before being as good at that as his team mates are in that area.

 
not voting here. It would depend heavily on coaching philosophy. There is no clear answer for all situations.

 
TheWinz said:
I will make this poll very simple - Nick Chubb's first 9 weeks in 2019, his backup RB will be Duke Johnson, and Nick will have X touches per game.  Nick Chubb's last 7 weeks in 2019, his backup RB will be Kareem Hunt, and Nick will have X touches per game.

Is X the same for both?
Click to expand...
When I initially read the question, and before reading any responses, my answer was: it depends on the disparity between the starter and the backup.  And this post is a good illustration of my thoughts.  My guess is Chubb will get a larger share of the workload in the beginning of the season because he is clearly the best RB available.  When Hunt comes back from suspension and is available he is way closer in talent to Chubb that the other guys so it would make sense for the Browns to use him more even if it cuts into Chubb's touches.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
renesauz said:
not voting here. It would depend heavily on coaching philosophy. There is no clear answer for all situations.
Click to expand...
There is no clear answer for all situations, but I think the answer is an obvious 'yes', in general. Sure some scenarios it may not be the case, but in general the better the backup (at any position, in nearly any sport) the more likely the coaches are to give the starter rest.

The only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head in any major sport are QB, K, P in football.

 
If your starting RB is a punishing pounder that weakens a defense through the game, making hay when they are finally worn down, You might keep him in on all first and second downs to have that effect (which could be lost if a lighter, quicker RB came in to take lots of carries). It could, of course, be the opposite breakdown and the good backup might tend to beat down D's better than the starter - so they might use the backup more than if he relied primarily on finesse. One or the other running style might be better suited against a particular defense, so you would likely use more of the player whose style you found more effective in that game. Lots of variables. 

One approach doesn't fit all. But not considering anything else, I think a coach would probably be more likely to use a backup more if he is better and less if he is worse. :shrug:

 
The title of the thread and the poll are really asking two different questions.  If you think the better backup would add a single additional rush over a worse backup , you’d answer ‘yes’ to the poll.  But, does it matter that the backup got the 1 additional carry?  I think most agree it wouldn’t.  If the addition yielded 100 additional carries over what a worse backup would get, then the answer is probably ‘yes’ it would matter.

At this stage, as another poster above commented, what we know now is both Hunt and Chubb are capable RBs.  We also can expect Duke to get a fair share of carries.  We know about injury risk for RBs, which applies to Hunt and Duke, as well.  We know Hunt is out a long time.  What is role will be when he returns is pure conjecture at this point.  Will Hunt’s presence yield a meaningful difference in Chubb’s production?  I suppose it could, but of all the factors to consider, I don’t think Chubb’s ADP is strongly tied to Hunt.   

 
It seems that you're asking if a workhorse back is likely to get more touches by himself or in RBBC.  The answer to that should be obvious to all.  On the other hand, if the committee already existed, adding a quality RB may or may not affect his touches.  In fact, his touches might increase due to a more prolific offense. 

 
daveR said:
It seems that you're asking if a workhorse back is likely to get more touches by himself or in RBBC.  The answer to that should be obvious to all.  On the other hand, if the committee already existed, adding a quality RB may or may not affect his touches.  In fact, his touches might increase due to a more prolific offense. 
Click to expand...
This is a really good point, one I hadn’t thought of before.  Extending off that point, let’s stipulate that a team replaces their bad backup with a better backup and that results in more carries for the better backup.  In the Chubb/Hunt scenario, it’s totally plausible that Hunt’s competence result in more TD opportunities for Chubb by virtue of sustaining more drives while Chubb gets a breather and then, down at the 5, he comes back in and slam dunks another TD.  Multiply that by a few games/opportunities.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Limiting a starters touches is a good thing in terms of wear and tear.

You don't want to drop your starters carries from say 30 to 20 if you have an awful backup.  That hurts your offense. 

If you have a great backup, that drop off in talent isn't as bad and the pro's of reducing your starters touches can outweigh the cons.

So Yes, a Stud backup should take away more carries than a bad backup should.

 
Every situation is unique and I also think the number of games for the change in backup quality also matters. But in general, I do think a better backup will siphon off a few touches from the starter compared to a weak backup. 

In Cincinnati, we could see something like 20 touches per game for Mixon and 10 for Bernard. 

If Bernard had a minor injury and was going to miss a few games, I could see Mixon bumping up to 25 touches and only 5 touches per game for Trayveon Williams in place of Bernard. 

If Bernard was out for the season, then I don't think they would bump MIxon up to 25 long-term. Maybe 22-23 and they'd have to live with what Williams gives them on 7-8 touches per game. 

 
The obvious data to check are cases where a team had clear #1 and #2 RBs, and the #2 RB missed some games. Looking at last year, the 3 examples that seem closest:

Kamara averaged 22.8 touches per game weeks 1-4 while Ingram was out and 16.7 touches per game weeks 5-16 after Ingram came back. So, a drop of 6 touches per game.

Mixon averaged 20 touches per game weeks 5-8 while Gio was out and 20 touches per game the other 10 games he played with Gio. So, no change.

Kenyan Drake averaged 13 touches per game weeks 16-17 while Gore was out and 10.5 touches per game over the first 14 games which he played with Gore. So, a drop of 2.5 touches per game.

So on average that's a drop of 2.8 touches per game (a 15% drop in touches) when upgrading to an Ingram/Gio/Gore caliber backup instead of a Gillislee/Walton/Ballage caliber backup, with a small sample size and a lot of variation between the different cases.

 
Didn't read all the posts but I think this is pretty simple. 

Nobody is taking more touches away from Barkley, Zeke, McCaffrey. I don't know if I put Kamara at that level. 

CJ Anderson is almost guaranteed to take more touches from K Johnson and was actually brought in for that purpose. 

I do think gio takes more from mixon than others would, and Chubb is almost a lock to have a better first half than second (assuming full health for everyone)

Hyde is going to take touches from DW. 

 
Good players tend to get more touches than a crappy player.  Answer seems pretty obvious, though with many variations depending on that backups strengths and weaknesses compared to the starter.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
RB/WR to Exploit/Avoid Week 1
2
Replies
65
Views
4K
3nOut
3nOut
BobbyLayne
Running Backs Don't Matter 101
4 5 6
Replies
284
Views
10K
humpback
H
EBF
2023 Rookie Thoughts
2 3
Replies
102
Views
6K
Da Franchise
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top