Running Backs Don't Matter 101 (1 Viewer)

[BobbyLayne]

@JoeyIckes


In honor of my friends who work in higher ed. I feel its time for a full refresher on the "Running backs Don't Matter 101" course as teams ready for their next big exam next week.

The data is overwhelming.

The studies on the running game go back to as early as 2011 when Brian Burke clarified just how inefficient running the ball was compared to passing.

NFL offense: Running for three yards is like going backwards.​

Then in 2014 Dr. Ed Feng looked at 10 years of data that showed that rushing efficiency contributed to only ~4.4% of the variance in wins, vs the passing game contributing ~62%

How passing and rushing affect winning in the NFL​

Around 2017-2018 the data really cranked up on RBs themselves.

Josh Hermsmeyer looked at 10 years of rushing data, and found that two factors accounted for 96%(!) of rushing gains...

Those two factors? Field position, and # of defenders in the box...

FiveThirtyEight: The Secret To The Rams’ Blocking Success Isn’t The Linemen.​

Then Eric and George from PFF added to that study, finding that in addition to Josh's two factors, the actual run concept on a play moves the needle in rushing EPA more than the quality (determined by PFF grade) of the actual ball carrier.

Are NFL running backs easily replaceable: the story of the 2018 NFL season​

Add that to the study by Ben Baldwin showing that RBs drafted in the top-20 are no better than the league average on a yards per carry basis.

There's also a nugget in here about RBs having the highest 1st round bust rate of all offensive positions

Spending a top-20 pick on a RB is one of the worst decisions a team can make​

Since we know with these studies (and others) that running backs have very little influence on the success of a running game, and that running game success has little impact on winning games, the argument moves to the passing game.

Does a RB matter if he can be a pass catcher?

Well, in this study, Eric Eager (again) shows that passes thrown to RBs are the less efficient, less valuable, and less stable year over year, than targets to any other position.

Examining the value of receiver and coverage positions in today's NFL​

Ben Baldwin confirmed that study in this one, where his data showed that targets to RBs have about 1/4 of the EPA per play of targets to TE, and even less vs targets to WR, and a lower success rate (positive EPA) than targets to TE or WRs.

Throwing to running backs: The latest NFL craze that doesn’t make any sense​

The next question would be, what if a RB can line up as a wide receiver or in the slot on some plays.

Does that change the equation? Back to Eric and George at PFF... RBs lined up in the slot were far less efficient than WRs and TEs lined up in the slot.

What's the true value of a slot weapon in today's NFL market​

So if the running game itself doesn't help you win, the RB doesn't impact the running game, and regularly throwing to a RB is a losing proposition, maybe there are secondary benefits?

Maybe having a good RB & a good running game helps the play action game? Well our friend Ben found that

"teams don't need to run often -- or run well -- to set up play-action. Play-action works for teams that run frequently, infrequently, well, or poorly"

Further Research on Play-Action Passing​

Ok so then maybe a good running back and a good running game keeps the defense rested?

Well FBO did the work & found that "the main - and perhaps only - channel through which an offense can help a defense on a per-drive basis is through field position."

Defense and Rest Time​

So in review of our review...

• Running backs don't help the running game
• they're inherently inefficient in the passing game compared to WR's and TEs
• They don't improve play action effectiveness
• they don't help your defense
• drafting RBs high is not "safer" than other positions
• high draft position RBs does not correlate to better production from the RB position

You just can't legitimately justify the idea of spending premium (picks or $$) on the running back position, with any quantifiable measures.

 

[Birdie048]

GOOD INFO. Strong evidence to support the theories.

While I believe I read most of this years ago, I often wonder if "Controlling the LOS" and Controlling the Clock are not part of these equations for flow of the game. Wearing down the Defense with a running game and methodical run/pass plays (not RPO of today), keeps the defense on the field and causes reduction in performance from wearing them down.
For example, JAX/LAC Playoff game last year, if LAC could control the clock with a Run game, they win and advance. LAC is a Pass heave offense without a beefy RB to get that "3 yards and a cloud of dust".
There are always Offensive Schemes that will rely on a good RB to get that short yardage or control the flow of things.

 

[Jedi Knight]

This is why our league went to Team RB last year versus Individual RB's. It made the year sooo much less stressful, and to be honest...more fun.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Typical QB putting down RBs.

 

[SoBeDad]

Barry would like to have a word with you. OTOH, his only playoff win occurred when Erik Kramer threw for over 300 yards.

 

[zamboni]

I agree in principle that RBs probably aren't worth the investment, but there have been plenty of early drafted non-RBs that flopped as well. I guess the answer is, as always: it depends.

 

[Grahamburn]

Barry would like to have a word with you. OTOH, his only playoff win occurred when Erik Kramer threw for over 300 yards.

I think you’re looking for names like Edgerrin James, Marshall Faulk, Emmitt Smith… Great backs on already great teams with great QBs.

That’s when I’d be justifying a RB early in the first round.

And it took Faulk going to a different team.

It’s been a while since any team built a consistent winner around a 1st round RB.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This is why our league went to Team RB last year versus Individual RB's. It made the year sooo much less stressful, and to be honest...more fun.

I would absolutely hate this format. No offense intended.

 

[zamboni]

This is why our league went to Team RB last year versus Individual RB's. It made the year sooo much less stressful, and to be honest...more fun.

I would absolutely hate this format. No offense intended.

Agreed - kind of a mini-best ball format. I like the ups and downs in sweating over specific players.

 

[SoBeDad]

Barry would like to have a word with you. OTOH, his only playoff win occurred when Erik Kramer threw for over 300 yards.

I think you’re looking for names like Edgerrin James, Marshall Faulk, Emmitt Smith… Great backs on already great teams with great QBs.

That’s when I’d be justifying a RB early in the first round.

And it took Faulk going to a different team.

It’s been a while since any team built a consistent winner around a 1st round RB.

Bijan to the Eagles would be a great RB going to a team with a very good QB.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It’s been a while since any team built a consistent winner around a 1st round RB.

NYG this year - arguably the reason Danny Dimes had so much success on the ground & in the air was due to the threat of Saquan. Not like the Giants receivers put fear into any DC.

But it wasn’t the year Saquan was drafted, so I’m cheating a little.

Maybe we have to go back to LT2? Drafted 1.05, came into the league like he was shot out of a cannon. Chargers went from 1 win to 5 on the back of LT’s 10 TD season. 8-8 in 2002 (LT2 had 1683/14 on the ground & 79/489/1 in the air.

2005 they went 9-7, but 2006 they went 14-2 while LT2 was the best player on the planet.

It’s difficult to think of a player who had a greater impact on a team than LT2, who the Chargers built their offense around.

I’m not saying he did it alone, but if LT2 were in this draft, he should be the 1.01 ahead of the 2’3” 67 lb QB.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This is why our league went to Team RB last year versus Individual RB's. It made the year sooo much less stressful, and to be honest...more fun.

I would absolutely hate this format. No offense intended.

Agreed - kind of a mini-best ball format. I like the ups and downs in sweating over specific players.

It would also destroy any speculative value of buy low RBs.

a good friend of mine calls TQB & TRB “training wheels” formats.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

Team RB sounds horrendous!

 

[brewer]

I agree with much of this, but I think the NFL has over corrected at this point when Jakobi Meyers (3 year, 33M) can get more money than Saquon Barkley and Austin Ekeler. I'm not saying you should spend a first round pick on a RB or pay them a ton, but the elite backs are grossly underpaid in comparison with the league at this point. Justin Tucker makes more money than most running backs at this point.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Justin Tucker makes more money than most running backs at this point.

Justin Tucker is a golden god.

 

[Ilov80s]

And that doesn't account for resource allocation. Let's say the Eagle do take Bijan at 10. That's a $22 million contract which makes him a top 10 highest paid RB in the league. If they alternatively take an edge rusher, you are paying him like the 30th highest paid DE. Taking a RB is just an inefficient use of cap space.

 

[Chaka]

Yet they continue to be the focus of the majority of magic football leagues.

 

[ghostguy123]

As long as you draft a good player, it's a good pick.
However part of the problem of a RB is that second contract. Extending a 26 year old RB isn't a good idea.
So if you have a really good team that needs a RB, fine, take a RB mid-late 1st if it's a great talent, but do so with the intent of not signing them to a second contract. If you do and it's a decent deal, cool, just saying don't expect to do so.

 

[ghostguy123]

Yet they continue to be the focus of the majority of magic football leagues.

Yeah good point. Superflex pushed up QB value. If RBs really are not valuable in the NFL, what do you do for fantasy to balance that? Go to start 1 RB with more flex options? Make it ALL flex for RB/WR/TE?

 

[Anarchy99]

I researched and posted this in another thread, but it also applies here. Here are the RB production totals for the Patriots running backs since BB got there. Bottom line, no matter who they put on the field, no matter how much or litlle they have been paid, high draft picks, low draft picks, trades, free agents, injured, healthy . . . it hasn't mattered. That's why BB doesn't make much effort to retain or pay big money to RBs.

Year, YFS, Total TD

2022    2231    11
2021    2641    26
2020    2417    14
2019    2694    20
2018    2645    23
2017    2664    25
2016    2330    23
2015    2344    20
2014    2122    16
2013    2704    21
2012    2748    25
2011    1936    14
2010    2437    19
2009    2402    18
2008    2731    22
2007    2278    12
2006    2573    24
2005    2149    16
2004    2669    17
2003    2189    09
2002    2201    13
2001    2338    20
2000    1863    10

The Patriots got 21 years with 2,000+ YFS and 22 seasons of 10+ total TD out of their RBs. Granted, NE has run into issues in telegraphing their play calls based on the RB in the game on a given play, but overall, their overall RB has been very high and very consistent for over 20 years.

 

[zamboni]

As long as you draft a good player, it's a good pick.
However part of the problem of a RB is that second contract. Extending a 26 year old RB isn't a good idea.
So if you have a really good team that needs a RB, fine, take a RB mid-late 1st if it's a great talent, but do so with the intent of not signing them to a second contract. If you do and it's a decent deal, cool, just saying don't expect to do so.

After 5 years (assuming 4 year contract plus maybe a franchise tag), many teams are likely willing to walk away from an RB unless he's top tier. So the question is indeed whether to make an expensive short-to-mid-term investment or try to look longer term with another position. Salary cap dynamics are indeed in place given that the earlier you draft an RB, the more it hits the future cap. That said, teams are more and more adept at managing around the cap regardless of position.

To make a short story long, IMO is speaks to just drafting the BPA.

 

[zamboni]

Yet they continue to be the focus of the majority of magic football leagues.

Would be great if we could shift this dynamic but it's all wrapped together in terms of supply/demand dynamics and propensity for injury at the position.

 

[-OZ-]

Barry would like to have a word with you. OTOH, his only playoff win occurred when Erik Kramer threw for over 300 yards.

Barry is perhaps the strongest example of RBs not mattering. Loved watching him play, arguably the single best player in our lifetime (he’s in the discussion). But No rings, one Playoff win.

 

[Amused to Death]

Barry would like to have a word with you. OTOH, his only playoff win occurred when Erik Kramer threw for over 300 yards.

I think you’re looking for names like Edgerrin James, Marshall Faulk, Emmitt Smith… Great backs on already great teams with great QBs.

That’s when I’d be justifying a RB early in the first round.

And it took Faulk going to a different team.

It’s been a while since any team built a consistent winner around a 1st round RB.

Bijan to the Eagles would be a great RB going to a team with a very good QB.

But RB is not the Eagles' biggest need. They need D-line and D-backs. And some young O-line help would be great too.

 

[ghostguy123]

Barry would like to have a word with you. OTOH, his only playoff win occurred when Erik Kramer threw for over 300 yards.

Barry is perhaps the strongest example of RBs not mattering. Loved watching him play, arguably the single best player in our lifetime (he’s in the discussion). But No rings, one Playoff win.

Joe Thomas.
So left tackle isn't important?

 

[ghostguy123]

Barry would like to have a word with you. OTOH, his only playoff win occurred when Erik Kramer threw for over 300 yards.

I think you’re looking for names like Edgerrin James, Marshall Faulk, Emmitt Smith… Great backs on already great teams with great QBs.

That’s when I’d be justifying a RB early in the first round.

And it took Faulk going to a different team.

It’s been a while since any team built a consistent winner around a 1st round RB.

Bijan to the Eagles would be a great RB going to a team with a very good QB.

But RB is not the Eagles' biggest need. They need D-line and D-backs. And some young O-line help would be great too.

I don't think the Eagles take Bijan.
He'll go to some team that wants to sell jerseys. See Dallas.
Pick 8?? I don't see top 10

 

[Grahamburn]

It’s been a while since any team built a consistent winner around a 1st round RB.

NYG this year - arguably the reason Danny Dimes had so much success on the ground & in the air was due to the threat of Saquan. Not like the Giants receivers put fear into any DC.

But it wasn’t the year Saquan was drafted, so I’m cheating a little.

Maybe we have to go back to LT2? Drafted 1.05, came into the league like he was shot out of a cannon. Chargers went from 1 win to 5 on the back of LT’s 10 TD season. 8-8 in 2002 (LT2 had 1683/14 on the ground & 79/489/1 in the air.

2005 they went 9-7, but 2006 they went 14-2 while LT2 was the best player on the planet.

It’s difficult to think of a player who had a greater impact on a team than LT2, who the Chargers built their offense around.

I’m not saying he did it alone, but if LT2 were in this draft, he should be the 1.01 ahead of the 2’3” 67 lb QB.

Wouldn't LT2 be the perfect example of how RB statistics don't translate to wins and/or especially playoff success though? SD only ever had one deep playoff run with an offense built around LT, and he was a true iron man at the position. A rarity now. LT accumulated stats. His YPC isn't spectacular. I think that's one of the many things these guys are saying. Plug a replacement player into that spot. Say, a 4th-7th round pick. Give that player that many touches. How much production do you truly lose?

 

[Grahamburn]

Richard Seymour went with the next pick and the Patriots won 3 Super Bowls with him.

 

[Ilov80s]

As long as you draft a good player, it's a good pick.
However part of the problem of a RB is that second contract. Extending a 26 year old RB isn't a good idea.
So if you have a really good team that needs a RB, fine, take a RB mid-late 1st if it's a great talent, but do so with the intent of not signing them to a second contract. If you do and it's a decent deal, cool, just saying don't expect to do so.

After 5 years (assuming 4 year contract plus maybe a franchise tag), many teams are likely willing to walk away from an RB unless he's top tier. So the question is indeed whether to make an expensive short-to-mid-term investment or try to look longer term with another position. Salary cap dynamics are indeed in place given that the earlier you draft an RB, the more it hits the future cap. That said, teams are more and more adept at managing around the cap regardless of position.

To make a short story long, IMO is speaks to just drafting the BPA.

But who is the BPA? It’s not like we are any better at predicting RB success. If you have a couple players evaluated similarly, wouldn’t it make sense to go for the positions with the most upside?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Richard Seymour went with the next pick and the Patriots won 3 Super Bowls with him.

Just like I don’t put every chargers win on LT2’s shoulders, I believe the Patriots had a bit more going on than just Richard Seymour.

The chargers built that offense around Tomlinson.

The Patriots defense was littered with talent around Seymour. His rookie season he had 45 TKL & 3 sacks. The next year 55 tkl/5. In 2003 he had 8 sacks.

I’m of the opinion that LT2’s contributions were more directly relevant to the Chargers trend of wins increases than Seymour was to the Pats 3 year run.

Super Bowls seem like a poor metric to determine this.

 

[Buckna]

Richard Seymour went with the next pick and the Patriots won 3 Super Bowls with him.

Arguably one of the greatest defensive players of all time JJ Watt never went to a SB and barely saw the postseason his whole career. Guess DE’s aren’t all that important either

 

[ghostguy123]

Ya know what I hate hearing. I hate when a guy is talked about as "the 2nd best player in the draft" , and that same analyst says the guy should get drafted mid 1st round.
Well then, he isn't the 2nd best player in the draft then is he??

If you rank a guy as the 2nd best player, but also say he should go later because of positional value........then you are just contradicting yourself.

 

[Chaka]

Yet they continue to be the focus of the majority of magic football leagues.

Yeah good point. Superflex pushed up QB value. If RBs really are not valuable in the NFL, what do you do for fantasy to balance that? Go to start 1 RB with more flex options? Make it ALL flex for RB/WR/TE?

Super flex and scaled PPR are good starts.

 

[Buckna]

Seems like a lot of this is the NFL system working as intended. They passed a bunch of rules that favor passing, restrict passing defense, increased yardage, scoring and most importantly ratings & money! It’s made QB’s so vastly important that its entirely a league of QB have’s and have not’s, so much so that teams will throw a ton of picks and $250MM guaranteed at an alleged serial sexual assaulter. All other positions are secondary or complimentary at best to your stud QB…

 

[SoBeDad]

In the Aaron Rodgers draft year, 2001, 3 RBs went top 5! Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, and Cadillac Williams. Only 1 pro-bowl between them, Brown, I think in his wild cat year.

14 of the other 29 players made at least 1 pro-bowl, many made multiple pro-bowls including Demarcus Ware, Shawn Merriman, Rodgers, Rolle, Heath Miller, and Mankins.

 

[Grahamburn]

Richard Seymour went with the next pick and the Patriots won 3 Super Bowls with him.

Arguably one of the greatest defensive players of all time JJ Watt never went to a SB and barely saw the postseason his whole career. Guess DE’s aren’t all that important either

Postseasons are littered with other highly drafted DEs that did though.

 

[zamboni]

As long as you draft a good player, it's a good pick.
However part of the problem of a RB is that second contract. Extending a 26 year old RB isn't a good idea.
So if you have a really good team that needs a RB, fine, take a RB mid-late 1st if it's a great talent, but do so with the intent of not signing them to a second contract. If you do and it's a decent deal, cool, just saying don't expect to do so.

After 5 years (assuming 4 year contract plus maybe a franchise tag), many teams are likely willing to walk away from an RB unless he's top tier. So the question is indeed whether to make an expensive short-to-mid-term investment or try to look longer term with another position. Salary cap dynamics are indeed in place given that the earlier you draft an RB, the more it hits the future cap. That said, teams are more and more adept at managing around the cap regardless of position.

To make a short story long, IMO is speaks to just drafting the BPA.

But who is the BPA? It’s not like we are any better at predicting RB success. If you have a couple players evaluated similarly, wouldn’t it make sense to go for the positions with the most upside?

That's the rub - many seem to think that Bijan is the best player in the draft.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Yet they continue to be the focus of the majority of magic football leagues.

Yeah good point. Superflex pushed up QB value. If RBs really are not valuable in the NFL, what do you do for fantasy to balance that? Go to start 1 RB with more flex options? Make it ALL flex for RB/WR/TE?

My league did this about 20 years ago because everyone was tired of 19 RBs going in the first 24 picks. We also included a super-flex and damped down QB scoring so it didn't become a de facto 2 QB league, plus awarded ppr for WRs & TEs. We probably need to adjust our scoring a little bit because we don't have the same scoring balance across positions that we did the first several years (it's still pretty good, though). There are multiple legitimate ways to build a winning team in that league.

 

[Buckna]

Richard Seymour went with the next pick and the Patriots won 3 Super Bowls with him.

Arguably one of the greatest defensive players of all time JJ Watt never went to a SB and barely saw the postseason his whole career. Guess DE’s aren’t all that important either

Postseasons are littered with other highly drafted DEs that did though.

The best pass rushing team in the league just lost in the SB. Only one DE has ever been voted Super Bowl MVP in history vs 6 RB’s.

Its really a pointless argument either way about a team game.

 

[Ilov80s]

Richard Seymour went with the next pick and the Patriots won 3 Super Bowls with him.

Arguably one of the greatest defensive players of all time JJ Watt never went to a SB and barely saw the postseason his whole career. Guess DE’s aren’t all that important either

Postseasons are littered with other highly drafted DEs that did though.

The best pass rushing team in the league just lost in the SB. Only one DE has ever been voted Super Bowl MVP in history vs 6 RB’s.

Its really a pointless argument either way about a team game.

Stomped? They lost by 3. But I agree that looking at SBs is too narrow of a focus for player value.

 

[zamboni]

Its really a pointless argument either way about a team game.

Bingo. Although QB is likely the one exception.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

damped down QB scoring

Why do you hate fun?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Its really a pointless argument either way about a team game

S’what I was sayin.

I do believe LT2 was a massive game-changing acquisition by the chargers, but coaching, QB play, Gates, defense - so much went into the culture shift for the Chargers.

But that said, LT2 was a huge % of the Chargers offense for such an extended period. Regardless of playoff success or lack thereof, it’s hard to argue that they didn’t get their money’s worth out of that 1.05 selection.

Would Richard Seymour have been as impactful to the 2001-2007 Chargers? I think not.

 

[Anarchy99]

The last RB taken in the first round to play on a SB winning team was CEH . . . and he didn't even play in the SB last year for KC. The last first round RB prior to that to win a SB was Sony Michel . . . who NE traded away for a clipboard and a kicking tee before his rookie contract was up. Leonard Fournette won a SB . . . after being traded from the Jags. Marshawn Lynch won a SB . . . after he was traded to SEA. Antowain Smith was a first-round pick and won 3 SB's . . . after he was traded to NE. Marshall Faulk was a high impact, SB winning RB . . . for the Rams after he was traded from IND. Jerome Betts made the HOF and won a SB . . . after he was traded to the Steelers.

The last first-round RB to make a huge impact and win a SB for his original team was Emmitt Smith, and he was drafted in 1990. Before that, the last first-rounder to win a SB was Marcus Allen (drafted in 1982). Before him, there was Tony Dorsett (drafted in 1977), Walter Payton (drafted in 1975), and Franco Harris (drafted in 1972). Add it all up, and there were 5 guys in 50 years that were impact RB's as first-round picks that won a SB for the team that drafted them. Not sure that proves or disproves anything, but there haven't been many first-round RB that stuck around and won a title on the team that drafted them.

 

[-OZ-]

Barry would like to have a word with you. OTOH, his only playoff win occurred when Erik Kramer threw for over 300 yards.

Barry is perhaps the strongest example of RBs not mattering. Loved watching him play, arguably the single best player in our lifetime (he’s in the discussion). But No rings, one Playoff win.

Joe Thomas.
So left tackle isn't important?

He’s one of the few examples for LT (relative to RB anyway). Although both probably speak more for the value of competent owners than the lack of value for positions.

 

[travdogg]

I almost wonder if people point to RB, because RBs are the only other position to have won MVPs in recent history.

I truly think other than QB no individual player makes that big of a difference in wins/losses. Sure there are games where say, a pass rusher is unstoppable, or a WR gets open at will. But teams can scheme around those things often. Teams can't scheme around a great QB, because it effects everything else.

QB is the only position that moves the needle in my opinion, and that's why the MVP award has rightfully become the best QB award. Every other spot is more about not being a liability than anything else when team building.

 

[bostonfred]

Super Bowls seem like a poor metric to determine this.

"Barry didn't win a superbowl" is not statistically useful evidence

"Teams that win superbowls rarely have great running backs" would be better evidence but it's hard to say how true it is.

We can go back to Terrell Davis, Faulk, Dillon, Bettis and Edgerrin to argue that having a stud rb mattered.

Maybe the rule changes for passing changed things though because since then it's not quite as clear. Or maybe we've just had the good fortune of watching Brady Roethlisberger Manning Manning Mahomes Brees and Rodgers win 17 of the last 22 superbowls (no disrespect to Russ or Stafford and only mild disrespect to Foles, Brad Johnson and Dilfer).

I guess the question is, what do we learn from this? Quarterbacks are important? No ****.

What about receivers? Two receivers have won superbowl mvp. Both were slot receivers. Randy Moss and Terrell Owens both came close. Tyreek won one, but it wasn't because of him. Davante, Andre Johnson, peak Michael Thomas, nothing. Antonio Brown has one but it has nothing to do with him. Do the "top" receivers in the NFL make as much difference as the money they earn? Looking at the top receivers you get Evans/ Godwin, tyreek (OK kelce too), kupp, Harrison/ Wayne, and then it's guys like Edelman, Demaryius, Plaxico. How many hall of fame receivers have superbowl rings to their name? How many have more than one?

It almost feels like football is a team sport.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

damped down QB scoring

Why do you hate fun?

Because I'm an *******. I thought that was well-known around here

In all seriousness, it's made our league more fun.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

damped down QB scoring

Why do you hate fun?

Because I'm an *******. I thought that was well-known around here

In all seriousness, it's made our league more fun.

lol - I was largely joking. Both of my SF leagues have low yardage scoring for QB. 6 pt TD but -3 Ints.

Definitely balanced things out. A fatal flaw is that the rushing QB is now absolutely king of the format. Having at least 1 rushing QB seems to be key to a successful build.

2 is downright deadly.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Super Bowls seem like a poor metric to determine this.

"Barry didn't win a superbowl" is not statistically useful evidence

"Teams that win superbowls rarely have great running backs" would be better evidence but it's hard to say how true it is.

We can go back to Terrell Davis, Faulk, Dillon, Bettis and Edgerrin to argue that having a stud rb mattered.

Maybe the rule changes for passing changed things though because since then it's not quite as clear. Or maybe we've just had the good fortune of watching Brady Roethlisberger Manning Manning Mahomes Brees and Rodgers win 17 of the last 22 superbowls (no disrespect to Russ or Stafford and only mild disrespect to Foles, Brad Johnson and Dilfer).

I guess the question is, what do we learn from this? Quarterbacks are important? No ****.

What about receivers? Two receivers have won superbowl mvp. Both were slot receivers. Randy Moss and Terrell Owens both came close. Tyreek won one, but it wasn't because of him. Davante, Andre Johnson, peak Michael Thomas, nothing. Antonio Brown has one but it has nothing to do with him. Do the "top" receivers in the NFL make as much difference as the money they earn? Looking at the top receivers you get Evans/ Godwin, tyreek (OK kelce too), kupp, Harrison/ Wayne, and then it's guys like Edelman, Demaryius, Plaxico. How many hall of fame receivers have superbowl rings to their name? How many have more than one?

It almost feels like football is a team sport.

Nick Bosa - count the rings, baby!

Oh, wait.