Why do we have the shift to RBBC ? (1 Viewer)

[Black]

RBBC seems 'fairly' new. Maybe I am wrong, but I can only think of a few cagey vets who fit the true 3rd-down RB profile...guys who are purely role players. Kevin Faulk comes to mind. But, teams are loading up with role players in the draft.

As recently as 6-8 years ago, I am not sure that we had the RBBC that we are seeing today. The last couple of years, all the teams in the Conference Championships have had clear RBBC.

As suddenly as we had teams shift towards 2-back RBBC, it seems we now have teams going to 3-back RBBC. Does anyone have an idea what is driving the shift? Some questions:

1. Is the game more violent, so you need to spread the workload?

2. Are there just more passing/ spread offenses involving the 3rd down type RB?

3. Are there more passing schemes that include the RB/FB to counter speed rushers?

I have been thinking maybe the offenses are reacting to the shift towards 3-4 Defenses, with the rushing outside LBs?

I am not a football tactician, so maybe some experts can help in understanding.

I read a couple of books (The Blind Side , Bill Walsh's biography 'Genius' ) that had some really nice explanations of the West Coast Offense, how it developed and was a reaction to rushers like Lawrence Taylor.

I wonder if the RBBC is a similar reaction?

Here are some of the below responses:

1. Glut of RB talent available in the NFL

2. Size and speed of defenders has increased, making it impossible for one guy to shoulder 25+ hits/game

3. More complex/diverse offenses require multiple skill sets/role players.

4. Emergence of PPR in Fantasy Football draws more attention to role playing backs like 3rd Down pass catchers.

 

[TLEF316]

too many talented RB's available to rely on one guy. Plus, defenders are just so big and so fast, that it seeems silly to expect one guy to take 25-35 hits per game.

Add in the fact that NFL offenses are becoming more complex and diverse every year, and the evolution of the position into multiple diferent skill sets seems like a natural progression.

 

[jwb]

The game evolves as it ages. People try new things, etc, and they work. Then other people copy them, and all of a sudden, it becomes the norm. Think of pitching in baseball and how that's changed. There are more specialists, which affects everyone, from starters to closers. Plus, sharing the load makes too much sense.

Someone will likely come on and throw out some stats that show there is no "new trend" to RBBC, that timeshares have always been around, etc. Which could be true (I'm certainly not looking up the #'s )

But I think in terms of FF scoring (especially in PPR leagues), we're starting to see a trend - that "specialist" player is very useful now, as they are a much bigger part of the gameplan. Having a starting RB tandem of CJ3 and Leon Washington is actually somewhat viable, despite that they may only get 25 carries between them. Of course, you need good WR's to do that, but the point is, you don't necessarily need two bellcows anymore.

 

[Black]

But I think in terms of FF scoring (especially in PPR leagues), we're starting to see a trend - that "specialist" player is very useful now, as they are a much bigger part of the gameplan. Having a starting RB tandem of CJ3 and Leon Washington is actually somewhat viable, despite that they may only get 25 carries between them. Of course, you need good WR's to do that, but the point is, you don't necessarily need two bellcows anymore.

Two excellent points. I have been doing well with good WRs and then 3rd down backs like Leon Washington in my PPR leagues. Maybe THAT's another contributer as obvious as it seems...PPR leagues have emerged, so people are paying more attention to the 3rd down backs. Does anyone have any good reading on the evolution of the tactics in the game of football (besides the cursory mentions of the history of the West Coast offenses in the books above?)

 

[CalBear]

We don't have RBBC now; we have more feature backs than ever in the history of the league. Look it up.

 

[Black]

We don't have RBBC now; we have more feature backs than ever in the history of the league. Look it up.

MIN ADP, Chester Taylor CHI Forte , Kevin Jones

GB R. Grant

DET Ke. Smith, Mau. Morris

CAR DeAngelo, Stewart

ATL M. Turner, J. Norwood

TB D. Ward, E. Grahem

NO P. Thomas, Re Bush

DAL M. Barber, F. Jones, T. Choice

PHI Westbrook, Le. McCoy

NYG Jacobs, A. Bradshaw, Danny Ware

WAS C. Portis, L. Betts

ARI C. Wells, Hightower

STL S. Jax

SEA J. Jones ??

SF F. Gore

PIT W. Parker, Mendenhall, M. Moore

BAL R. Rice, McClain, McGahee

CLE J. Lewis, Je. Harrison

CIN Ce. Benson, Ke Watson

IND Addai D. Brown (last year Dom Rhodes)

HOU S. Slaton

JAX MJD (last year Fred Taylor)

TEN Ch Johnson, Le White

NE Fre Taylor, Ke Faulk, Sa Morris, Maroney

NYJ Th Jones, Le Washington, Sh Greene

BUF Lynch Fr Jackson, Dom Rhodes

MIA Ro Brown Ri Williams

SD LT Sproles

KC LJ J. Charles K. Smith

OAK McFadden Fargas Mi Bush

DEN Kn. Moreno C. Buckhalter

There's the list I have currently...clear #1 RBs in BOLD...do you have any historical data?

 

[CalBear]

There's the list I have currently...clear #1 RBs in BOLD...do you have any historical data?

Yes, lots of it. http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...586&hl=RBBC

 

[DawnBTVS]

I think part of it is two fold...

1: "3rd down" RBs are often pass catchers and are notoriously relied on to be blockers. As a result, a guy like Leon Washington/Kevin Faulk represent great receivers but are also quite underrated at picking up blitzes. It also serves as a breather for the main RB should the team be on a long drive. Blocking is just further additional punishment and why subject your main RB to 5-10 additional hits if you don't have to?

2: The focal point on PPR has been a huge reflection. For a 3rd down back who catches 40 passes, that'd be 40 less points in a non-PPR format and they rarely get many yards or TDs so they are essentially worthless in a non-PPR format (unless you have a guy who gets 60-70 yards a game through 10-15 touches total).

Here's Player X in PPR and Non-PPR scoring last year. Numbers: 95-489-4, 38-338-2 in 16 games

PPR (Catch = 1, TD = 6, Yards/10): 156.70 (Average of 9.79)

Non-PPR (TD = 6, Yards/10): 118.70 (Average of 7.42)

That's a somewhat small difference of only 2.37 FP but it suddenly boosts him from a 3rd (or 4th) RB option to a serviceable spot starting 2nd or flex start 3rd RB option in PPR leagues. Also the guy was Jerious Norwood, playing behind Michael Turner.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

We don't have RBBC now; we have more feature backs than ever in the history of the league. Look it up.

MIN ADP, Chester Taylor CHI Forte , Kevin Jones

GB R. Grant

DET Ke. Smith, Mau. Morris

CAR DeAngelo, Stewart

ATL M. Turner, J. Norwood

TB D. Ward, E. Grahem

NO P. Thomas, Re Bush

DAL M. Barber, F. Jones, T. Choice

PHI Westbrook, Le. McCoy

NYG Jacobs, A. Bradshaw, Danny Ware

WAS C. Portis, L. Betts

ARI C. Wells, Hightower

STL S. Jax

SEA J. Jones ??

SF F. Gore

PIT W. Parker, Mendenhall, M. Moore

BAL R. Rice, McClain, McGahee

CLE J. Lewis, Je. Harrison

CIN Ce. Benson, Ke Watson

IND Addai D. Brown (last year Dom Rhodes)

HOU S. Slaton

JAX MJD (last year Fred Taylor)

TEN Ch Johnson, Le White

NE Fre Taylor, Ke Faulk, Sa Morris, Maroney

NYJ Th Jones, Le Washington, Sh Greene

BUF Lynch Fr Jackson, Dom Rhodes

MIA Ro Brown Ri Williams

SD LT Sproles

KC LJ J. Charles K. Smith

OAK McFadden Fargas Mi Bush

DEN Kn. Moreno C. Buckhalter

There's the list I have currently...clear #1 RBs in BOLD...do you have any historical data?

So ADP doesnt get bolded?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

RBBC seems 'fairly' new. Maybe I am wrong, but I can only think of a few cagey vets who fit the true 3rd-down RB profile...guys who are purely role players. Kevin Faulk comes to mind. But, teams are loading up with role players in the draft.

As recently as 6-8 years ago, I am not sure that we had the RBBC that we are seeing today. The last couple of years, all the teams in the Conference Championships have had clear RBBC.

I think you're talking more about just the term 'RBBC' than the actual existence of them.What do you feel defines a RBBC?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Part of it has to do with the evolution from the running game to the passing game. Passing is exponentially more effective than it used to be. The old saying that rushing wins championships was true, but now, the great teams are the great passing teams. It used to be that the best offenses were rushing offenses; now the best offenses are passing offenses.

With that, the two and three tight end sets are gone. The fullback is gone. That leaves extra roster spots for specialty players, like third down backs. A third down back who can block and catch the ball is really valuable; Earl Campbell wouldn't be as valuable in today's game as he was in the late '70s and early '80s, IMO.

That said, RBBC is less common now than it was in the '70s, but more common that it was at the start of this decade. Part of that, IMO, is because of the lag in time for GMs and coaches to realize changes in the game.

 

[coolnerd]

Part of it has to do with the evolution from the running game to the passing game. Passing is exponentially more effective than it used to be. The old saying that rushing wins championships was true, but now, the great teams are the great passing teams. It used to be that the best offenses were rushing offenses; now the best offenses are passing offenses.With that, the two and three tight end sets are gone. The fullback is gone. That leaves extra roster spots for specialty players, like third down backs. A third down back who can block and catch the ball is really valuable; Earl Campbell wouldn't be as valuable in today's game as he was in the late '70s and early '80s, IMO.That said, RBBC is less common now than it was in the '70s, but more common that it was at the start of this decade. Part of that, IMO, is because of the lag in time for GMs and coaches to realize changes in the game.

Just further elaboration on this point...In the 70s teams ran 2 back (often split back) offenses where the FB was expected to be more of ball carrier. The running game was divided into inside/outside responsibilities between these guys. We look back on this now and the numbers look like todays RRBC, but until the late 70s/ early 80s football was played with two RBs on the field at the same time versus using multiple single backs with unique skills we see today.Earl Campbell as a pro ran mostly of the classic "I" formation as the TB, which is the forerunner to the pure single back or off-set formations of today. He was the leading edge of the new age runner who was expected to carry 25 times a game becasue of his combination power, vision and speed. His body style and speed (relative to the 1970s) would give him a role very similiar to Michael Turner today.

 

[Black]

What do you feel defines a RBBC?

I am looking at the link CalBear provided, and it seems that's a fair metric...RBs with 350+ carries in a season. That's pretty high, I would even drop that to 275 or 300, but would have to look historically to see (say, in the last 10 years) how many total attempts a team has and say anything over about 75-80% would constitute a 'feature' back.I have to say, when you are getting 1-2 RBs that are bellcows a season, that's not really what I am looking for (I don't think). I am trying to figure out if a team has a primary RB who gets 75% or more of the team's carries. Actually, I just hope to get more insight into what is perceived as more RBBC.I'll have to dig a little bit, but some folks are playing along with me here and providing some nice insight.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Part of it has to do with the evolution from the running game to the passing game. Passing is exponentially more effective than it used to be. The old saying that rushing wins championships was true, but now, the great teams are the great passing teams. It used to be that the best offenses were rushing offenses; now the best offenses are passing offenses.

With that, the two and three tight end sets are gone. The fullback is gone. That leaves extra roster spots for specialty players, like third down backs. A third down back who can block and catch the ball is really valuable; Earl Campbell wouldn't be as valuable in today's game as he was in the late '70s and early '80s, IMO.

That said, RBBC is less common now than it was in the '70s, but more common that it was at the start of this decade. Part of that, IMO, is because of the lag in time for GMs and coaches to realize changes in the game.

Just further elaboration on this point...In the 70s teams ran 2 back (often split back) offenses where the FB was expected to be more of ball carrier. The running game was divided into inside/outside responsibilities between these guys. We look back on this now and the numbers look like todays RRBC, but until the late 70s/ early 80s football was played with two RBs on the field at the same time versus using multiple single backs with unique skills we see today.

Earl Campbell as a pro ran mostly of the classic "I" formation as the TB, which is the forerunner to the pure single back or off-set formations of today. He was the leading edge of the new age runner who was expected to carry 25 times a game becasue of his combination power, vision and speed. His body style and speed (relative to the 1970s) would give him a role very similiar to Michael Turner today.

Agreed.One other thought -- James Wilder really ushered in the era of the workhorse back.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1886

 

[coolnerd]

Part of it has to do with the evolution from the running game to the passing game. Passing is exponentially more effective than it used to be. The old saying that rushing wins championships was true, but now, the great teams are the great passing teams. It used to be that the best offenses were rushing offenses; now the best offenses are passing offenses.

With that, the two and three tight end sets are gone. The fullback is gone. That leaves extra roster spots for specialty players, like third down backs. A third down back who can block and catch the ball is really valuable; Earl Campbell wouldn't be as valuable in today's game as he was in the late '70s and early '80s, IMO.

That said, RBBC is less common now than it was in the '70s, but more common that it was at the start of this decade. Part of that, IMO, is because of the lag in time for GMs and coaches to realize changes in the game.

Just further elaboration on this point...In the 70s teams ran 2 back (often split back) offenses where the FB was expected to be more of ball carrier. The running game was divided into inside/outside responsibilities between these guys. We look back on this now and the numbers look like todays RRBC, but until the late 70s/ early 80s football was played with two RBs on the field at the same time versus using multiple single backs with unique skills we see today.

Earl Campbell as a pro ran mostly of the classic "I" formation as the TB, which is the forerunner to the pure single back or off-set formations of today. He was the leading edge of the new age runner who was expected to carry 25 times a game becasue of his combination power, vision and speed. His body style and speed (relative to the 1970s) would give him a role very similiar to Michael Turner today.

Agreed.One other thought -- James Wilder really ushered in the era of the workhorse back.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1886

I think Wilder had the ultimate "you have to kidding" work load in a single year, but Campbell had 3 straight years (79-81) of at least 380 total touches (rushes and catches) prior to the silliness that Wilder was asked to do. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CampEa00.htm

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

One other thought -- James Wilder really ushered in the era of the workhorse back.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1886

If you notice, his # of touches declined substantially from '84 to '85 --- I think I may research the curse of the 490.

 

[Chase Stuart]

One other thought -- James Wilder really ushered in the era of the workhorse back.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1886

If you notice, his # of touches declined substantially from '84 to '85 --- I think I may research the curse of the 490.

Not exactly.1984: 407 carries out of 449 team RB carries (90.6%)

1985: 365 carries out of 384 team RB carries (95.1%)

Tampa's reliance on him in the ground game actually *increased* after his historic 1984 season. With Campbell, other RBs were at least getting some carries; e.g., in '81 he had 361 of his team RB 444 carries (81.3%). And in his high carry season of 1980 (with one missed game), other Oilers' RBs had over 175 carries. So Wilder and Tampa Bay really took things to another level in terms of that type of philosophy.

 

[Black]

In the 70s teams ran 2 back (often split back) offenses where the FB was expected to be more of ball carrier. The running game was divided into inside/outside responsibilities between these guys. We look back on this now and the numbers look like todays RRBC, but until the late 70s/ early 80s football was played with two RBs on the field at the same time versus using multiple single backs with unique skills we see today.

Very interesting. So, you had no single ball-carrier (I started watching in the late 70s), but they were more of the traditional Fullback and Halfback mode. This is by definition RBBC, but I think that is fairly different than what we have today, with a 1st/2nd down back, then a 3rd down pass-catching specialist (and pass-blocker as was noted above).Maybe what we are noting, really, are more passing offenses with a different kind of 'specialized' RBBC.For Fantasy, esp in PPR, probably what we care about most is that guys are going off the field on 3rd down.

 

[Chase Stuart]

To further expand on the above post, here's a list of the single season NFL leader in terms of percentage of team RB carries. Note: For the few teams who had players switch teams in mid-season and record substantial carries, that may have mucked up this list. I think that's highly unlikely to affect any leaders, though:

year#   tm	 rbrsh  tmrsh   %	   player2008	gnb	312	374	83.4%	Ryan Grant2007	ari	324	366	88.5%	Edgerrin James2006	ari	337	377	89.4%	Edgerrin James2005	buf	325	371	87.6%	Willis McGahee2004	cin	361	392	92.1%	Rudi Johnson2003	sdg	313	343	91.3%	LaDainian Tomlinson2002	sdg	372	406	91.6%	LaDainian Tomlinson2001	nor	313	335	93.4%	Ricky Williams2000	ind	387	393	98.5%	Edgerrin James1999	ind	369	382	96.6%	Edgerrin James1998	ten	348	378	92.1%	Eddie George1997	ten	357	424	84.2%	Eddie George1996	det	307	328	93.6%	Barry Sanders1995	det	314	333	94.3%	Barry Sanders1994	det	331	359	92.2%	Barry Sanders1993	atl	292	357	81.8%	Erric Pegram1992	det	312	316	98.7%	Barry Sanders1991	dal	365	408	89.5%	Emmitt Smith1990	det	255	266	95.9%	Barry Sanders1989	det	280	328	85.4%	Barry Sanders1988	dal	361	404	89.4%	Herschel Walker1987	ram	324	412	78.6%	Charles White1986	ram	404	540	74.8%	Eric Dickerson1985	tam	365	383	95.3%	James Wilder1984	tam	407	449	90.6%	James Wilder1983	ram	390	479	81.4%	Eric Dickerson1982	hou	157	200	78.5%	Earl Campbell1981	hou	361	426	84.7%	Earl Campbell1980	hou	373	551	67.7%	Earl Campbell1979	phi	338	516	65.5%	Wilbert Montgomery1978	chi	333	578	57.6%	Walter Payton1977	chi	339	558	60.8%	Walter Payton1976	buf	290	373	77.7%	O.J. Simpson1975	buf	329	534	61.6%	O.J. Simpson1974	phi	244	386	63.2%	Tom Sullivan1973	was	273	445	61.3%	Larry Brown1972	buf	292	460	63.5%	O.J. Simpson1971	buf	183	299	61.2%	O.J. Simpson1970	nyg	263	418	62.9%	Ron Johnson

The evolution is pretty amazing. O.J. was part of it, for sure, and Campbell took it to another level. But I think Wilder took it a step beyond that.

 

[FavreCo]

MJD should be bold. He's the only offense that team is going to have.

 

[Chase Stuart]

In the 70s teams ran 2 back (often split back) offenses where the FB was expected to be more of ball carrier. The running game was divided into inside/outside responsibilities between these guys. We look back on this now and the numbers look like todays RRBC, but until the late 70s/ early 80s football was played with two RBs on the field at the same time versus using multiple single backs with unique skills we see today.

Very interesting. So, you had no single ball-carrier (I started watching in the late 70s), but they were more of the traditional Fullback and Halfback mode. This is by definition RBBC, but I think that is fairly different than what we have today, with a 1st/2nd down back, then a 3rd down pass-catching specialist (and pass-blocker as was noted above).Maybe what we are noting, really, are more passing offenses with a different kind of 'specialized' RBBC.For Fantasy, esp in PPR, probably what we care about most is that guys are going off the field on 3rd down.

It was very rare to see anything besides 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB, 1 FB for much of the '60s and '70s. And not just as the starting lineup, but in most situations. Now that teams routinely have just one RB on the field, it the idea of shifting RBs in and out makes it seem more committee like.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Same list as above, except probably more caution is warranted w/r/t players changing teams. I've also listed the leader in both the NFL and AFL for the '60s.

YR	   tm	 rbrsh  tmrsh	%	  Player 1969	 chi	236	377	62.6%	Gale Sayers1969a	buf	181	328	55.2%	O.J. Simpson1968a	cin	238	363	65.6%	Paul Robinson1968 	phi	217	356	61.0%	Tom Woodeshick1967a	bos	269	355	75.8%	Jim Nance1967 	atl	180	286	62.9%	Junior Coffey1966 	was	93	104	89.4%	A.D. Whitfield1966a	bos	299	436	68.6%	Jim Nance1965a	oak	219	324	67.6%	Clem Daniels1965 	cle	289	448	64.5%	Jim Brown1964 	cle	280	397	70.5%	Jim Brown1964a	oak	173	275	62.9%	Clem Daniels1963 	cle	291	392	74.2%	Jim Brown1963a	oak	215	302	71.2%	Clem Daniels1962 	sfo	258	374	69.0%	J.D. Smith1962a	dtx	221	392	56.4%	Abner Haynes1961 	cle	305	450	67.8%	Jim Brown1961a	nyt	202	312	64.7%	Bill Mathis1960 	cle	215	363	59.2%	Jim Brown1960a	dtx	156	340	45.9%	Abner Haynes1959 	cle	290	431	67.3%	Jim Brown1958 	cle	257	430	59.8%	Jim Brown1957 	chi	204	405	50.4%	Rick Casares1956 	sfo	185	382	48.4%	Hugh McElhenny1955 	bal	213	382	55.8%	Alan Ameche1954 	chi	157	271	57.9%	Chick Jagade1953 	sfo	192	425	45.2%	Joe Perry1952 	nyg	183	408	44.9%	Eddie Price1951 	nyg	271	452	60.0%	Eddie Price1950 	pit	188	477	39.4%	Joe Geri1949 	gnb	208	439	47.4%	Tony Canadeo1948 	det	157	276	56.9%	Camp Wilson1947 	phi	217	427	50.8%	Steve Van Buren1946 	pit	146	412	35.4%	Bill Dudley1945 	phi	143	338	42.3%	Steve Van Buren1944 	crd	185	300	61.7%	John Grigas1943 	nyg	147	385	38.2%	Bill Paschal1942 	pit	162	471	34.4%	Bill Dudley1941 	crd	117	364	32.1%	Marshall Goldberg1940 	phi	81	197	41.1%	**** Riffle1939 	was	139	405	34.3%	Andy Farkas1938 	pit	152	356	42.7%	Whizzer White1937 	was	216	448	48.2%	Cliff Battles1936 	nyg	206	504	40.9%	Tuffy Leemans1935 	nyg	153	497	30.8%	Kink Richards1934 	cin	40	83	48.2%	Lew Pope1933 	phi	133	322	41.3%	Swede Hanson1932 	bos	148	288	51.4%	Cliff Battles

Before anyone asks about A.D. Whitfield, that's because I was too lazy to separate out RB/WRs who switched in mid-season. Charley Taylor (interesting link here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1442) is an example of that. He started half the season at RB before switching to WR the rest of his career. So his RB carries in '66 were ignored in this quick data dump, since he's classified as a receiver.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

In the 70s teams ran 2 back (often split back) offenses where the FB was expected to be more of ball carrier. The running game was divided into inside/outside responsibilities between these guys. We look back on this now and the numbers look like todays RRBC, but until the late 70s/ early 80s football was played with two RBs on the field at the same time versus using multiple single backs with unique skills we see today.

In the 1970s, there wasn't as big a difference between the fullback and the halfback. A lot of teams ran a split backfield, and both RBs had to be able to run, block, and catch. Rocky Bleier blocked for Franco Harris, but Franco Harris also blocked for Rocky Bleier. With a split backfield, and with either RB a threat to carry the ball, you can attack the strong and weak side at the same time.Defenses evolved to stop the split backfield. They started to attack and penetrate and disrupt things in the backfield before plays could develop.Offenses then adjusted and went more to the I, where the fullback is essentially an extra lineman -- just a blocker. It's very tough for a fullback to run out of an I formation (it's hard for him to read the blocks), so the fullback and halfback positions became more specialized. The halfback got pretty much all the carries, both inside and outside. Now instead of splitting the carries 60-40 or 70-30 between the halfback and fullback positions, it's more like 95-5. So the starting halfback is much more likely to get 350+ carries now than he would have been in the 1970s.

 

[Bri]

We don't have RBBC now; we have more feature backs than ever in the history of the league. Look it up.

try all caps next time

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Wow, those stats are really telling Chase.

1 out of 48 leaders had 80% or more of their team's carries from 1932-1980.

25 out of 29 leaders had 80% or more of their team's carries from 1981-2009.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

How many RBs have been drafted in the first round over the last five/ten years? Of those how many are still on NFL rosters?

I heard a ridiculous statistic (I think on NFL Live?) recently but didn't bother to confirm where I think that they said that their are currently 54 former first round RBs on NFL rosters. If that is correct then it seems that right now their is a glut of RB talent wasting away on NFL rosters that won't ever get the chance to become a workhorse for the team that drafted them.

Maybe someone can check out that stat because 54 first round RBs sounds awfully high. Add in the lower drafted RBs and free agent RBs to show an over abundance of RB talent.

No matter if that stat is corrct or not I think its clear that their is a lot of RB talent in the league so it makes sense for OCs to determine the best skills for each RB on their roster and how they can niche out rolls for them to exploit situational matchups to attack or counter defensive personnel goupings.

 

[Doug Drinen]

I heard a ridiculous statistic (I think on NFL Live?) recently but didn't bother to confirm where I think that they said that their are currently 54 former first round RBs on NFL rosters. If that is correct then it seems that right now their is a glut of RB talent wasting away on NFL rosters that won't ever get the chance to become a workhorse for the team that drafted them. Maybe someone can check out that stat because 54 first round RBs sounds awfully high. Add in the lower drafted RBs and free agent RBs to show an over abundance of RB talent.

Yeah, I'm not seeing that. I only see 30 first-round RBs who played in 2008. Here is a list of all first-round RBs who played in a game since 2005. There are only 35 of them.

+---------------------+| player			  |+---------------------+| Joseph Addai		|| Shaun Alexander	 || Michael Bennett	 || Cedric Benson	   || Jerome Bettis	   || Ronnie Brown		|| Reggie Bush		 || Ron Dayne		   || T.J. Duckett		|| Warrick Dunn		|| Marshall Faulk	  || William Green	   || Steven Jackson	  || Edgerrin James	  || Chris Johnson	   || Larry Johnson	   || Felix Jones		 || Kevin Jones		 || Thomas Jones		|| Jamal Lewis		 || Marshawn Lynch	  || Laurence Maroney	|| Deuce McAllister	|| Darren McFadden	 || Willis McGahee	  || Rashard Mendenhall  || Chris Perry		 || Adrian Peterson	 || Antowain Smith	  || Jonathan Stewart	|| Fred Taylor		 || LaDainian Tomlinson || Cadillac Williams   || DeAngelo Williams   || Ricky Williams	  |+---------------------+

In fact, if you look at a chronological list of first-round RBs, starting with Moreno/Wells and going backwards, you don't hit the 54th guy until 1992. There haven't even been 54 first-round RBs taken since Robert Smith and Garrison Hearst.

 

[David Yudkin]

Here are the total number of RB with 100 touches each year in the past 20 years, along with the average per team to account for an increase in total number of teams . . .

2008 55 1.72

2007 55 1.72

2006 52 1.63

2005 54 1.69

2004 50 1.56

2003 53 1.66

2002 50 1.56

2001 47 1.52

2000 46 1.48

1999 48 1.55

1998 47 1.57

1997 52 1.73

1996 50 1.67

1995 51 1.70

1994 51 1.82

1993 51 1.82

1992 50 1.79

1991 53 1.89

1990 50 1.79

1989 52 1.86

Based on that, I'm not sure I would conclude that there's been a massive surge in RBBC. There may be more specialists than in the past, but I suspect that there have always been guys that had backups or guys that took on some extra carries but we didn't notice or care as much as we do now.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

I heard a ridiculous statistic (I think on NFL Live?) recently but didn't bother to confirm where I think that they said that their are currently 54 former first round RBs on NFL rosters. If that is correct then it seems that right now their is a glut of RB talent wasting away on NFL rosters that won't ever get the chance to become a workhorse for the team that drafted them. Maybe someone can check out that stat because 54 first round RBs sounds awfully high. Add in the lower drafted RBs and free agent RBs to show an over abundance of RB talent.

Yeah, I'm not seeing that. I only see 30 first-round RBs who played in 2008. Here is a list of all first-round RBs who played in a game since 2005. There are only 35 of them.

+---------------------+| player			  |+---------------------+| Joseph Addai		|| Shaun Alexander	 || Michael Bennett	 || Cedric Benson	   || Jerome Bettis	   || Ronnie Brown		|| Reggie Bush		 || Ron Dayne		   || T.J. Duckett		|| Warrick Dunn		|| Marshall Faulk	  || William Green	   || Steven Jackson	  || Edgerrin James	  || Chris Johnson	   || Larry Johnson	   || Felix Jones		 || Kevin Jones		 || Thomas Jones		|| Jamal Lewis		 || Marshawn Lynch	  || Laurence Maroney	|| Deuce McAllister	|| Darren McFadden	 || Willis McGahee	  || Rashard Mendenhall  || Chris Perry		 || Adrian Peterson	 || Antowain Smith	  || Jonathan Stewart	|| Fred Taylor		 || LaDainian Tomlinson || Cadillac Williams   || DeAngelo Williams   || Ricky Williams	  |+---------------------+

In fact, if you look at a chronological list of first-round RBs, starting with Moreno/Wells and going backwards, you don't hit the 54th guy until 1992. There haven't even been 54 first-round RBs taken since Robert Smith and Garrison Hearst.

Well there you go. I may have heard wrong but the list you put up shows quite a bit of first round RBs considering that ther are 32 teams and you show 35 former first round RBs that can be on NFL rosters today before adding in the lower ranked RBs and free agents.So going back to the original topic:"Why do we have a shift to RBBC?"I think that the numbers show the reason why teams are trying to get more RBs involved in game plans is because teams probably have guys who have skills that can be exploited better than their primary back. Its a copycat league so the success of recent SB winners like, Indianapolis and New England, and the Giants, etc, have opened the eyes of the league's offensive coordinators that they can and maybe should exploit the talent on their bench.Doesn't that seem to be the reason why we have seen this shift to RBBC?

 

[Truman]

* Early '70s: Workhorse backs began to be more prevalent and dual backs fell from favor.

* 1978-1979: The use of pass-catching backs took off while the decline of RBBC usage flattened out. Also, running back rushing attempts began to fall while running back receptions rose, and pass-catching backs grew in number. These changes may have triggered the next transition.

* Mid-'80s: The workhorse and dual-back trends changed directions and the decrease in use of featured backs accelerated. Also, running back receptions began to decline.

* 1990: The number of teams using workhorse backs bottomed out and began to take off the next season. When this reached critical mass, it probably started the next transition.

* Mid '90s: RBBC stopped being used, featured backs came back into fashion, and the employment of pass catching backs fell off.

That brings us to the last several years. A number of trends appear to have changed direction again, although this depiction may exaggerate the changes. It may be too soon to definitively conclude this, but Coach Sparano's quotation at the beginning of Part I appears to be borne out: recently, both workhorse and featured back use has declined, while dual backs have become more common. In 2006, for the first time more than 20 percent of all NFL teams used dual backs. And in 2007 more teams used dual backs than workhorses for the first time since 1990.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings...b-usage-part-ii

 

[Couch Potato]

I've been doing FF since 1981, and every year there is whining about RBBC. Whether it's Freeman McNeil having all his TDs "stolen" by Johnny Hector, a combo of James Brooks and Icky Woods, or some present day combo, it's always been with us.

People focus on it because they get hurt by it, that's all. They see LenDale stealing THEIR GUY Chris Johnson's carries, esp. goal line carries, and it hurts. And so on and so on. Lots of anecdotal stuff that people remember because they have fantasy points "stolen," but the fact is there have always been teams who use workhorses and teams that use committees.

 

[David Yudkin]

I've been doing FF since 1981, and every year there is whining about RBBC. Whether it's Freeman McNeil having all his TDs "stolen" by Johnny Hector, a combo of James Brooks and Icky Woods, or some present day combo, it's always been with us.People focus on it because they get hurt by it, that's all. They see LenDale stealing THEIR GUY Chris Johnson's carries, esp. goal line carries, and it hurts. And so on and so on. Lots of anecdotal stuff that people remember because they have fantasy points "stolen," but the fact is there have always been teams who use workhorses and teams that use committees.

I do think that there has been a redistribution of carries/touches to some other backs than in years past . . . or as I mentioned earlier some specialists that now get more TD chances or receptions than in the past. So there are fewer top tier fantasy scoring guys and more second or third tier scoring guys.# of RB with 300, 200, and 100 fantasy points in a year:2008 0 12 452007 1 6 382006 3 9 392005 4 10 342004 2 11 362003 4 12 372002 3 17 372001 1 9 332000 2 17 301999 2 9 311998 2 10 291997 1 7 351996 0 8 321995 1 10 341994 1 6 331993 0 3 311992 1 9 311991 0 3 311990 0 3 331989 0 9 33

 

[Casting Couch]

I've been doing FF since 1981, and every year there is whining about RBBC. Whether it's Freeman McNeil having all his TDs "stolen" by Johnny Hector, a combo of James Brooks and Icky Woods, or some present day combo, it's always been with us.People focus on it because they get hurt by it, that's all. They see LenDale stealing THEIR GUY Chris Johnson's carries, esp. goal line carries, and it hurts. And so on and so on. Lots of anecdotal stuff that people remember because they have fantasy points "stolen," but the fact is there have always been teams who use workhorses and teams that use committees.

I do think that there has been a redistribution of carries/touches to some other backs than in years past . . . or as I mentioned earlier some specialists that now get more TD chances or receptions than in the past. So there are fewer top tier fantasy scoring guys and more second or third tier scoring guys.# of RB with 300, 200, and 100 fantasy points in a year:2008 0 12 452007 1 6 382006 3 9 392005 4 10 342004 2 11 362003 4 12 372002 3 17 372001 1 9 332000 2 17 301999 2 9 311998 2 10 291997 1 7 351996 0 8 321995 1 10 341994 1 6 331993 0 3 311992 1 9 311991 0 3 311990 0 3 331989 0 9 33

I would like to see some more up to date numbers regarding this subject. I disagree that there are fewer top tier FF playersnow than there were in the early 90s. based on your numbers, there were 8 for the 4 years between 2005 to 2008, and only 4 for the 9 years between 1989 and 1997.