JKL
Footballguy
Before I get to some numbers, let me define what I mean by committee. What Oakland did last year was not, in my mind, a running back committee, even though the end of the year numbers show carries split amongst several players. Oakland was more of a cluster-(mess), where Kiffin would give one back almost all of the carries in a game, but the identity of that back changed due to injuries from Jordan to Fargas to Rhodes by season's end.
To me, a committee is one where the RB1 gets 70% or less of the RB1+RB2 rushes, the backs perhaps have different skill sets, and are utilized within the same game in varying roles.
Let me also say that those who insisted that the league was about feature backs were correct as recently as 2004 and 2005, but things began to change in 2006, continued last year, and look to continue this year.
I sorted each team's week 1 rushing performance over the last five seasons and found the total carries given to RB1 (defined as the back with the most carries) and RB2 (the back with the second most carries), and the relative percentages given to each.
Here are the RB1/(RB1+RB2) percentages for week 1 from 2004-2008, for all 32 teams combined:
2004: .817
2005: .795
2006: .777
2007: .734
2008: .702
Here are the number of teams in week 1 each year that had two running backs have 10 or more carries:
2004: 2
2005: 3
2006: 7
2007: 8
2008: 9
The shift in philosophy is even more noticeable when you look at teams that ran the ball an above average amount in week one, likely because they were leading in the game and running to control clock. Here are the RB1/(RB1+RB2) percentages for all teams that had 25 or more carries from RB1+RB2 combined in week 1, sorted by year:
2004: .827
2005: .797
2006: .742
2007: .686
2008: .662
Back in 2004 and 2005, a team getting lots of carries was no more likely to distribute carries to the RB2 than a team that was trailing and not rushing the ball as much. That began to change. The backs on the losing teams or teams that are not rushing the ball as much are not losing carries to the second back; the backs on teams running the ball alot are. The overall rushes in week 1 has stayed fairly constant over this span, as have the number of teams getting 25 or more carries. It's just the relative distribution that has changed.
Now to some philosophy/theory/discussion. I think you are seeing team's go to committees where they have a "get the lead" guy {The Gets}, and a "keep the lead" guy {The Keeps}. In some cases, the RB1 is the best at both, but in order to keep him fresh, the RB2 will get carries in one of those roles. In some cases, the skillsets are just different. What do I mean by this?
Let's use a couple of examples--Adrian Peterson and Taylor in Minnesota, and Chris Johnson and Lendale White in Tennessee. Peterson and Johnson are The Gets, and Taylor and White are the Keeps. The Gets have more big play ability, and the relative value of an explosive run or catch is greater in the first or second quarter of a close game than it is when you are already up by 10 in the fourth quarter. In the latter situation, while you would certainly take a touchdown run to go up 17, the relative value of just gaining three yards and moving toward a first down and keeping the clock running is almost as good as a touchdown run in affecting win expectancy.
Thus, you want to leverage your Gets earlier in a game by giving them a higher percentage of touches at a time when they can swing the score in your favor.
How does this impact fantasy?
I think you want to start your Gets regardless of whether you expect the team to be winning or not, and for the most part, regardless of matchup. (I know, I know, like you were going to bench Peterson). They are going to get their touches early, and then either split them late when leading, or continue to get some even when trailing because they offer the best chance to come from behind on one play. Compare/contrast the relative distribution of carries for those two teams in week 1. Minnesota was trailing the entire game, and Peterson finished with 19 carries to Taylor's 5. In contrast, Tennessee was leading throughout the second half, and thanks in part to a cramp, the carries ended up 15 to 15 between Johnson and White, though Johnson started with the lion's share. I suspect that there will be very few games, barring injury, where Peterson and Johnson have fewer than 15 total touches.
The Keeps are much more reliant on their team to be in the lead, and will have a higher variance in week to week touches. Keeps on teams that have good passing offenses and will be winning a lot of games are still valuable, especially if they are the goal line back. But on middle of the road teams, they are risky starts and you are at the mercy of the scoreboard in the second half to get some value.
Not all teams are so clear cut as the two above. Stewart probably profiles as the Keep, and Williams as the Get for Carolina, but once he gets fully back in the swing, Stewart has enough big play ability to share touches early. Parker profiles as the Get for Pittsburgh, though Mendenhall may not yet have the team's faith to carry the ball late to spell Parker in a closer game.
Anyway, this is where I see the evolution of the game going. Players with more limited skill sets playing a role similar to middle relievers and set up men in baseball, while the explosive players are like the starting pitchers. Use them heavily early, and if you need to, spell them late when the home run is less important. A decade ago, the explosive player would have been expected to fill both roles on virtually every team, and may have worn down before his time.
To me, a committee is one where the RB1 gets 70% or less of the RB1+RB2 rushes, the backs perhaps have different skill sets, and are utilized within the same game in varying roles.
Let me also say that those who insisted that the league was about feature backs were correct as recently as 2004 and 2005, but things began to change in 2006, continued last year, and look to continue this year.
I sorted each team's week 1 rushing performance over the last five seasons and found the total carries given to RB1 (defined as the back with the most carries) and RB2 (the back with the second most carries), and the relative percentages given to each.
Here are the RB1/(RB1+RB2) percentages for week 1 from 2004-2008, for all 32 teams combined:
2004: .817
2005: .795
2006: .777
2007: .734
2008: .702
Here are the number of teams in week 1 each year that had two running backs have 10 or more carries:
2004: 2
2005: 3
2006: 7
2007: 8
2008: 9
The shift in philosophy is even more noticeable when you look at teams that ran the ball an above average amount in week one, likely because they were leading in the game and running to control clock. Here are the RB1/(RB1+RB2) percentages for all teams that had 25 or more carries from RB1+RB2 combined in week 1, sorted by year:
2004: .827
2005: .797
2006: .742
2007: .686
2008: .662
Back in 2004 and 2005, a team getting lots of carries was no more likely to distribute carries to the RB2 than a team that was trailing and not rushing the ball as much. That began to change. The backs on the losing teams or teams that are not rushing the ball as much are not losing carries to the second back; the backs on teams running the ball alot are. The overall rushes in week 1 has stayed fairly constant over this span, as have the number of teams getting 25 or more carries. It's just the relative distribution that has changed.
Now to some philosophy/theory/discussion. I think you are seeing team's go to committees where they have a "get the lead" guy {The Gets}, and a "keep the lead" guy {The Keeps}. In some cases, the RB1 is the best at both, but in order to keep him fresh, the RB2 will get carries in one of those roles. In some cases, the skillsets are just different. What do I mean by this?
Let's use a couple of examples--Adrian Peterson and Taylor in Minnesota, and Chris Johnson and Lendale White in Tennessee. Peterson and Johnson are The Gets, and Taylor and White are the Keeps. The Gets have more big play ability, and the relative value of an explosive run or catch is greater in the first or second quarter of a close game than it is when you are already up by 10 in the fourth quarter. In the latter situation, while you would certainly take a touchdown run to go up 17, the relative value of just gaining three yards and moving toward a first down and keeping the clock running is almost as good as a touchdown run in affecting win expectancy.
Thus, you want to leverage your Gets earlier in a game by giving them a higher percentage of touches at a time when they can swing the score in your favor.
How does this impact fantasy?
I think you want to start your Gets regardless of whether you expect the team to be winning or not, and for the most part, regardless of matchup. (I know, I know, like you were going to bench Peterson). They are going to get their touches early, and then either split them late when leading, or continue to get some even when trailing because they offer the best chance to come from behind on one play. Compare/contrast the relative distribution of carries for those two teams in week 1. Minnesota was trailing the entire game, and Peterson finished with 19 carries to Taylor's 5. In contrast, Tennessee was leading throughout the second half, and thanks in part to a cramp, the carries ended up 15 to 15 between Johnson and White, though Johnson started with the lion's share. I suspect that there will be very few games, barring injury, where Peterson and Johnson have fewer than 15 total touches.
The Keeps are much more reliant on their team to be in the lead, and will have a higher variance in week to week touches. Keeps on teams that have good passing offenses and will be winning a lot of games are still valuable, especially if they are the goal line back. But on middle of the road teams, they are risky starts and you are at the mercy of the scoreboard in the second half to get some value.
Not all teams are so clear cut as the two above. Stewart probably profiles as the Keep, and Williams as the Get for Carolina, but once he gets fully back in the swing, Stewart has enough big play ability to share touches early. Parker profiles as the Get for Pittsburgh, though Mendenhall may not yet have the team's faith to carry the ball late to spell Parker in a closer game.
Anyway, this is where I see the evolution of the game going. Players with more limited skill sets playing a role similar to middle relievers and set up men in baseball, while the explosive players are like the starting pitchers. Use them heavily early, and if you need to, spell them late when the home run is less important. A decade ago, the explosive player would have been expected to fill both roles on virtually every team, and may have worn down before his time.
Last edited by a moderator:
hiladelphia, 79.2% (24)NY Jets, 78.6% (28)Arizona, 76.5% (34)Pittsburgh, 71.4% (35)NY Giants, 70.0% (30)Buffalo, 64.3% (28)Carolina, 64.3% (28)Dallas, 64.0% (25)Chicago, 63.9% (36)Green Bay, 63.2% (19)Atlanta, 61.1% (36)Denver, 58.8% (17)New Orleans, 58.3% (24)Baltimore, 53.7% (41)Tennessee, 50.0% (30)New England, 50.0% (20)Okay, so Philadelphia, the Jets, and Arizona were the only three to give their primary back at least 75% of the carries in a winning effort, and none were over 80%. How would their numbers have ranked back in 2004? Eleven of the sixteen week 1 winners in 2004 gave their RB1 more than 80% of the carries, and five of them gave their back more than 90%.
