Over 1/3 of NFL teams have not fielded a reliable fantasy starter at R (1 Viewer)

[Clifford]

Saints, Cardinals, Bills, Chargers, Bucs, Dolphins, Lions, Cowboys, Seahawks, Broncos, and Packers have been unable to produce a single, reliable fantasy starter at RB this year (for the majority of the year, not one-week wonders). That's 11 of 32 teams.

Furthermore, teams like the Bears, Bengals, Jaguars, Ravens, and Falcons have been boom/bust for most of the year. Has there ever been a year where almost half (16 of 32 teams, half of the league) can't produce a reliable week-week starter?

I don't remember any year having this much of a dearth of an effective, reliable running game in fantasy terms. Anyone feeling this?

 

[Slevin Kelevra]

Unfortunately this is the "new" NFL

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Has there ever been a year where almost half (16 of 32 teams, half of the league) can't produce a reliable week-week starter?

2009? And, for that matter, every year for the last decade or so?

 

[Jayrod]

What about Carolina? They went from producing 2 to 0.

 

[FavreCo]

Copycat league. Someday it may turn back to primary RB. The problem with the current trend is that, without very similar RBs who are very good, the defense knows what is going to be called based on formation. For instance, Carolina. Goodson is in there, well, they are going to pass the ball.

 

[tangfoot]

Please define "reliable fantasy starter" quantitatively.

 

[Doug B]

Saints, Cardinals, Bills, Chargers, Bucs, Dolphins, Lions, Cowboys, Seahawks, Broncos, and Packers have been unable to produce a single, reliable fantasy starter at RB this year (for the majority of the year, not one-week wonders). That's 11 of 32 teams.

Furthermore, teams like the Bears, Bengals, Jaguars, Ravens, and Falcons have been boom/bust for most of the year. Has there ever been a year where almost half (16 of 32 teams, half of the league) can't produce a reliable week-week starter?

I don't have the stats in front of me to bear this out ... but I think this has been true for a long time. Can't remember many years (going back to the mid-80s) where there were many more than about a dozen great options at FFB RB. I think there were some years that spiked to maybe about 20 usable fantasy RBs based on year-end stats ... but even then there'd be a few guys who got a late start to the seasons and weren't usable in, say, Wks 1-4 ... or good guys who were hurt for 4-wk stretches during the season, but who had good-looking year-end stats.What's different today as compared to the 80s and 90s is the prevalence of the committee, and especially the prevalence of "starting" RBs that can't play on passing downs. I guess there's something different about the post-2000 pro passing game (probably in reaction to zone blitzing) that precludes weak-blocking RBs from regularly playing 3rd downs.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Please define "reliable fantasy starter" quantitatively.

Math is hard!Echo what others have said; the committee is the norm.

 

[tangfoot]

Please define "reliable fantasy starter" quantitatively.

Math is hard!

My bad. I'll leave you all alone.

 

[packersfan]

I thought this was by far the worst year for RBs in a very long time. I thought there were a few quality RB1s (and even some of them haven't lived up to billing) and a large number of RB3s due to all the RBBC but very few reliable RB2 options. That's where the weakness has been this season in my opinion. I think it's become very easy to find a RB3 to plug into the lineup most weeks if you need one but finding a reliable RB2 has been extremely difficult. I think the lack of quality RB2 talent placed an even greater premium on landing two good RBs this season. If you weren't able to do that or you didn't luck into a surprise guy like Hillis or McFadden late it's likely been a struggle to get quality RB production from week to week.

 

[akaoni]

I don't find this unfortunate at all (at least not for fantasy football). It's just another factor to take into account when playing the game. It's only a problem if you fail to take the changes in the league into account.

 

[CalBear]

What's different today as compared to the 80s and 90s is the prevalence of the committee, and especially the prevalence of "starting" RBs that can't play on passing downs. I guess there's something different about the post-2000 pro passing game (probably in reaction to zone blitzing) that precludes weak-blocking RBs from regularly playing 3rd downs.

This is not true; the NFL has been using RBBC for as long as it has existed, and the last 10 years have more feature backs than any period before then. Here is the number of rushing attempts by the #10 RB, from 1980 to today:

1980: 222

1981: 274

1982: (strike)

1983: 279

1984: 275

1985: 282

1986: 216

1987: (strike)

1988: 232

1989: 271

Decade average (excluding strike years): 256

1990: 226

1991: 214

1992: 265

1993: 223

1994: 282

1995: 296

1996: 301

1997: 275

1998: 310

1999: 279

Decade average: 267

2000: 297

2001: 304

2002: 295

2003: 318

2004: 284

2005: 309

2006: 303

2007: 278

2008: 268

2009: 247

Decade average: 290

So, in the past 10 years there have been significantly more RB carries allocated to the top RBs; the total number of RB carries has not risen over the same time frame. Before 1994, the league had never produced 10 RBs with 300 carries; since 2000, that's happened four times.

This year things are on pace to again produce a significant number of 300-carry backs; there are 10 backs whose current carry rates would give them 300 carries, and a number of others who are close.

 

[Area51Inhabitant]

NFL teams are much smarter than they used to be with regard to how they use their backs. RBBC may be a 4 letter word to fantasy owners but for most teams, especially those without a 3 down stud back, this allows them to spread the load better and to allow the better RBBC backs to be healthy at the end of the season and into the playoffs which is when the coaches want them at full strength. Last years example was Shonn Greene and he could very well be this years example as well. Also with the way KC has been using Jamaal Charles, I would once again expect he'll be having another monster second half and will be primed for the playoffs.

 

[Jayrod]

Like the industrial revolution, the NFL is realizing that having a player specialize at something makes them more efficient and effective at it.

Having a full team of specialists makes you very good at a lot of different things. The only 2 positions that have yet to be effected by this are QB & OL. Outside of that, almost every position is exchanged throughout the game regularly with little fanfare.

If a team has an RB that is fast and can run wide and catch screens and then one that is effective at pass blocking and running routes and then one that is a powerful runner between the tackles, they can in 3 players have a super back and spread the risk of injury and refine each of their skills making them better as a group than any single player could ever be. That is the goal and what is happening. Some players just happen to be really good and 2 or 3 of these things and even replacing them with a specialist is a step down, but those guys are rare indeed...but are still easily replacable.

 

[Clifford]

Please define "reliable fantasy starter" quantitatively.

Minimum 80 combined yards each game, and at least 1 TD every three games.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Please define "reliable fantasy starter" quantitatively.

Minimum 80 combined yards each game, and at least 1 TD every three games.

That's 160 fantasy points. Only 18 teams had an RB put up that many fantasy points last year (although Carolina produced two of them).

 

[hines]

Please define "reliable fantasy starter" quantitatively.

Minimum 80 combined yards each game, and at least 1 TD every three games.

That's 160 fantasy points. Only 18 teams had an RB put up that many fantasy points last year (although Carolina produced two of them).

So Jahvid Best does not count as a reliable fantasy starter despite scoring 105 points in our league and being the #12 overall RB?

 

[Sammy Traveller]

Saints, Cardinals, Bills, Chargers, Bucs, Dolphins, Lions, Cowboys, Seahawks, Broncos, and Packers have been unable to produce a single, reliable fantasy starter at RB this year (for the majority of the year, not one-week wonders). That's 11 of 32 teams.

Furthermore, teams like the Bears, Bengals, Jaguars, Ravens, and Falcons have been boom/bust for most of the year. Has there ever been a year where almost half (16 of 32 teams, half of the league) can't produce a reliable week-week starter?

I don't remember any year having this much of a dearth of an effective, reliable running game in fantasy terms. Anyone feeling this?

Detroit? Jahvid Best? I digress.

 

[DoubleG]

Saints, Cardinals, Bills, Chargers, Bucs, Dolphins, Lions, Cowboys, Seahawks, Broncos, and Packers have been unable to produce a single, reliable fantasy starter at RB this year (for the majority of the year, not one-week wonders). That's 11 of 32 teams.

Furthermore, teams like the Bears, Bengals, Jaguars, Ravens, and Falcons have been boom/bust for most of the year. Has there ever been a year where almost half (16 of 32 teams, half of the league) can't produce a reliable week-week starter?

I don't remember any year having this much of a dearth of an effective, reliable running game in fantasy terms. Anyone feeling this?

Detroit? Jahvid Best? I digress.

HTH. Since week 2, Best hasn't had a TD or more than 70 yards rushing. In standard leagues he hasn't scored in double digit points since week 2 either.

 

[bigfische]

What's different today as compared to the 80s and 90s is the prevalence of the committee, and especially the prevalence of "starting" RBs that can't play on passing downs. I guess there's something different about the post-2000 pro passing game (probably in reaction to zone blitzing) that precludes weak-blocking RBs from regularly playing 3rd downs.

This is not true; the NFL has been using RBBC for as long as it has existed, and the last 10 years have more feature backs than any period before then. Here is the number of rushing attempts by the #10 RB, from 1980 to today:

1980: 222

1981: 274

1982: (strike)

1983: 279

1984: 275

1985: 282

1986: 216

1987: (strike)

1988: 232

1989: 271

Decade average (excluding strike years): 256

1990: 226

1991: 214

1992: 265

1993: 223

1994: 282

1995: 296

1996: 301

1997: 275

1998: 310

1999: 279

Decade average: 267

2000: 297

2001: 304

2002: 295

2003: 318

2004: 284

2005: 309

2006: 303

2007: 278

2008: 268

2009: 247

Decade average: 290

So, in the past 10 years there have been significantly more RB carries allocated to the top RBs; the total number of RB carries has not risen over the same time frame. Before 1994, the league had never produced 10 RBs with 300 carries; since 2000, that's happened four times.

This year things are on pace to again produce a significant number of 300-carry backs; there are 10 backs whose current carry rates would give them 300 carries, and a number of others who are close.

Would love to see the total number of offensive plays ran compared to the increase in carries. Wonder if the number od carries for #1 backs actually rose when expressed in a percentage of total plays ran.

 

[CalBear]

Would love to see the total number of offensive plays ran compared to the increase in carries. Wonder if the number od carries for #1 backs actually rose when expressed in a percentage of total plays ran.

As I said, the number of rushes hasn't increased; in fact the opposite is true. Teams averaged 30.9 rushes per game in the 80s, 27.9 per game in the 90s, and 27.8 in the 00s. So teams are rushing less, yet they are producing more backs with 300+ carries.We are living in the era of the feature back; the idea that teams are doing more RBBC now than before is simply false.

 

[cobalt_27]

As I said, the number of rushes hasn't increased; in fact the opposite is true. Teams averaged 30.9 rushes per game in the 80s, 27.9 per game in the 90s, and 27.8 in the 00s. So teams are rushing less, yet they are producing more backs with 300+ carries.

We are living in the era of the feature back; the idea that teams are doing more RBBC now than before is simply false.

Yeah, I don't think you're capturing the reality of what's happening here. The data are what they are, but the decade-by-decade analyses don't reveal a whole lot.What is absolutely true is that the bellcow RBs have dwindled within the past decade, which is I think more relevant to what folks are interested in.

2007 really reflects the cut point year. Seven teams threw for over 4000 yards, Brady threw for 50 TDs, seven other teams had 30+ TDs. That is the year we made the shift.

EXHIBIT A:

Between 2000-2009, here are the # of 300 attempt RBs:

2000…92001…102002…92003…132004…92005…102006…10***2007…62008…52009…6Average number of RBs with 300+ RUSHATT between 2000-2006 was 10. The average since then has been 5.7.EXHIBIT B

Between 2000-2009, this list reflects the highest number of rushers by a single player in each season:

2000…4032001…3562002…3832003…3922004…3712005…3702006…416***2007…3252008…3762009…358The top workhorse RB averaged 384 attempts between 2000-2006. Since then, that average dropped to 353.



EXHIBIT C

Between 2000-2009, TOTAL rush attempts by HBs have increased (as you said):

2000…116172001…117102002…121012003…127582004…127052005…126752006…12720***2007…124102008…125372009…12273However, the percentage of carries accounted for by the top-10 in RUSHATT in each season has declined:

2000...28.9%2001...27.7%2002...27.1%2003...27.0%2004...24.2%2005...26.8%2006...26.6%***2007...24.6%2008...24.8%2009...24.3%

So, while in absolute terms, the number of rushing attempts has increased, the proportion of those going to the "workhorse" backs has declined, whereas the increase in rush attempts are accounted for by the secondary and tertiary backs.In closing, say what you want about the 80s and 90s. I don't have the time to run similar analyses, but I suspect a similar pattern would emerge. The last decade (and particularly the last 3 years), we have seen a monumental shift across the NFL with respect to how the proportion of carries are distributed to the RBs. We are living in the era of anything but the feature back.

 

[CalBear]

I don't think you can look at 2007-2009 as defining any kind of trend, especially since this year we're again on pace to have at least 10 300-carry backs. The number of 300-carry backs has a lot to do with who stays healthy, so individual seasons don't necessarily indicate any kind of change in offensive philosophy.

In any case, it is clear that there are more feature backs now than in the 80s and 90s, which is what I was responding to.

 

[cobalt_27]

I don't think you can look at 2007-2009 as defining any kind of trend, especially since this year we're again on pace to have at least 10 300-carry backs.

Please show your work. What's the list of those RBs on pace for 300 attempts?

 

[shortbow]

Saints, Cardinals, Bills, Chargers, Bucs, Dolphins, Lions, Cowboys, Seahawks, Broncos, and Packers have been unable to produce a single, reliable fantasy starter at RB this year (for the majority of the year, not one-week wonders). That's 11 of 32 teams.

Furthermore, teams like the Bears, Bengals, Jaguars, Ravens, and Falcons have been boom/bust for most of the year. Has there ever been a year where almost half (16 of 32 teams, half of the league) can't produce a reliable week-week starter?

I don't remember any year having this much of a dearth of an effective, reliable running game in fantasy terms. Anyone feeling this?

Detroit? Jahvid Best? I digress.

HTH. Since week 2, Best hasn't had a TD or more than 70 yards rushing. In standard leagues he hasn't scored in double digit points since week 2 either.

If by standard you mean we only count rushing yards then yes, he hasnt had double digit pts since week 2, but in every other league he has, and in PPR hes a solid RB2

 

[DoubleG]

Saints, Cardinals, Bills, Chargers, Bucs, Dolphins, Lions, Cowboys, Seahawks, Broncos, and Packers have been unable to produce a single, reliable fantasy starter at RB this year (for the majority of the year, not one-week wonders). That's 11 of 32 teams.

Furthermore, teams like the Bears, Bengals, Jaguars, Ravens, and Falcons have been boom/bust for most of the year. Has there ever been a year where almost half (16 of 32 teams, half of the league) can't produce a reliable week-week starter?

I don't remember any year having this much of a dearth of an effective, reliable running game in fantasy terms. Anyone feeling this?

Detroit? Jahvid Best? I digress.

HTH. Since week 2, Best hasn't had a TD or more than 70 yards rushing. In standard leagues he hasn't scored in double digit points since week 2 either.

If by standard you mean we only count rushing yards then yes, he hasnt had double digit pts since week 2, but in every other league he has, and in PPR hes a solid RB2

- I'm not going to sit here and argue systems with you, but in every non-PPR league I'm in he hasn't scratched double Digit points since week 2. And as has been documented by several polls, most leagues that FBG's play in are non-PPR.

 

[CalBear]

I don't think you can look at 2007-2009 as defining any kind of trend, especially since this year we're again on pace to have at least 10 300-carry backs.

Please show your work. What's the list of those RBs on pace for 300 attempts?

C.JohnsonS.JacksonA.PetersonF.GoreMJDR.MendenhallC.BensonA.BradshawR.RiceM.TurnerClose and plausible:A.FosterD.McFadden

 

[cobalt_27]

I don't think you can look at 2007-2009 as defining any kind of trend, especially since this year we're again on pace to have at least 10 300-carry backs.

Please show your work. What's the list of those RBs on pace for 300 attempts?

C.Johnson

S.Jackson

A.Peterson

F.Gore

MJD

R.Mendenhall

C.Benson

A.Bradshaw

R.Rice

M.Turner

Close and plausible:

A.Foster

D.McFadden

PROBABLE

= 7QUESTIONABLE = 4

DOUBTFUL = 1

Accounting for injuries that limit RBs every year, particularly the 2nd half of the year, at best you'll get 7-8 guys that crack the 300 rush mark.