Will we see a rise in RBBC in 2009 and beyond? (1 Viewer)

[Sinrman]

It has always been a fantasy owner's nightmare in years past, but to me, it seemed that we saw a good deal of RBBC and coaches wanting to mix it up a bit more than usual in 2008. Will we see this more and more in 2009+ to keep players fresh or to simply mix it up?

Examples I can think of:

Dallas -- Barber, Jones, Choice

Arizona -- Hightower, James, Arrington

NYG -- Jacobs, Ward, Bradshaw

Miami -- Brown, Williams

Pittsburgh -- Parker, Moore

Baltimore -- McGahee, McClain

Jax -- Jones-Drew, Taylor

New England -- Maroney, Morris, Jordan

Denver -- Young, Hillis, Pittman, Hall

Oakland -- McFadden, Fargas, Bush

Tennessee -- Johnson, White

Indy -- Addai, Rhodes

Carolina -- Williams, Stewart

Atlanta -- Turner, Norwood

Minnesota -- ADP, Taylor

Some it didn't matter as much. Norwood did well, and cut a bit into Turner's production, but it apparently didn't affect Turner much. But others like the split in Tennessee and Carolina, makes it harder to decide whom to pick up in the offseason/2009 drafts.

Am I alone in thinking it's more and more prevalent in the NFL?

 

[Desert_Power]

Every year...

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

It has always been a fantasy owner's nightmare in years past, but to me, it seemed that we saw a good deal of RBBC and coaches wanting to mix it up a bit more than usual in 2008. Will we see this more and more in 2009+ to keep players fresh or to simply mix it up?Examples I can think ofallas -- Barber, Jones, ChoiceArizona -- Hightower, James, ArringtonNYG -- Jacobs, Ward, BradshawMiami -- Brown, WilliamsPittsburgh -- Parker, MooreBaltimore -- McGahee, McClainJax -- Jones-Drew, TaylorNew England -- Maroney, Morris, JordanDenver -- Young, Hillis, Pittman, HallOakland -- McFadden, Fargas, BushTennessee -- Johnson, WhiteIndy -- Addai, RhodesCarolina -- Williams, StewartAtlanta -- Turner, NorwoodMinnesota -- ADP, TaylorSome it didn't matter as much. Norwood did well, and cut a bit into Turner's production, but it apparently didn't affect Turner much. But others like the split in Tennessee and Carolina, makes it harder to decide whom to pick up in the offseason/2009 drafts.Am I alone in thinking it's more and more prevalent in the NFL?

You're not alone. In fact, I would argue that teams like the Giants, Cowboys, Raiders, and Ravens are showing that maybe it's a THREE back league, with the pounding that RBs take and the need to have RBs that fit in different game plans depending on the opponent.It can't be a coincidence that so many of the playoff teams are RBBC teams. Even the playoff teams we would think of as one back teams (SD, PHI) should be playing their backups (sproles, buckhalter) more in the playoffs.

 

[MAC_32]

The league has always been a by committee league, the trend over the few years previous to the last one or two was more of a fluke than the other way around.

The trend toward the three headed monster may be of greater concern though.

Basically, expect two backs/most teams and hope they don't go for three.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Every year...

exactly since the start of the league alot of teams have used the RBBC approach. Rarely is there a cast where there is a LT, Emmitt or Faulk to handle the bulk.

 

[renesauz]

Wasn't there a study last year that disproved the trend?

If I remember correctly, the study showed that while RB2's have gotten more touches in the past few seasons, those touches have generally come at the expense of the RB3s, RB4s, and other positions (WRs and TEs). We think we see a RBBC, but the reality is that the RB1s are seeing the same work, the same fantasy points. What we're really seeing is more and more fantasy-viable NFL RB2's.

That study would imply that teams like the Giants are the ones going back to an earlier time by giving their RB3 significant work.

 

[lyon812]

Wasn't there a study last year that disproved the trend?

If I remember correctly, the study showed that while RB2's have gotten more touches in the past few seasons, those touches have generally come at the expense of the RB3s, RB4s, and other positions (WRs and TEs). We think we see a RBBC, but the reality is that the RB1s are seeing the same work, the same fantasy points. What we're really seeing is more and more fantasy-viable NFL RB2's.

That study would imply that teams like the Giants are the ones going back to an earlier time by giving their RB3 significant work.

Yes, there was a study, though I can't find the damn link to it.

 

[Despyzer]

Will we see this more and more in 2009+ to keep players fresh or to simply mix it up?

It depends on who wins the SB, and how convincingly they do so.

 

[Sinrman]

Wasn't there a study last year that disproved the trend?

If I remember correctly, the study showed that while RB2's have gotten more touches in the past few seasons, those touches have generally come at the expense of the RB3s, RB4s, and other positions (WRs and TEs). We think we see a RBBC, but the reality is that the RB1s are seeing the same work, the same fantasy points. What we're really seeing is more and more fantasy-viable NFL RB2's.

That study would imply that teams like the Giants are the ones going back to an earlier time by giving their RB3 significant work.

Interesting. I'd like to see that study (must've missed it before) and more importantly would like to see it re-done after this season to see if it holds true...

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I alsos wouldnt consider Atl, Jax or Minnesota RBBC

 

[bigmiiiiike]

What's intriguing from a coaching standpoint is how many teams use RBBC with backs that are relatively similar. There doesn't have to be a "thunder" and a "lightning" anymore (although sometimes there is, like with CJ and Lendale). How different are Williams and Stewart? Parker and Moore? Ronnie and Ricky? Jacobs and Ward (Jacobs is different from everyone, but neither are really speed backs)? Addai and Rhodes? The success of RBBC where the backs have similar qualities shows that the purpose of RBBC for many teams is for the RB to stay fresh, rather than to act as a change of pace. It remains to be seen, but another benefit will probably be the longevity of each RB's career.

 

[lyon812]

Wasn't there a study last year that disproved the trend?

If I remember correctly, the study showed that while RB2's have gotten more touches in the past few seasons, those touches have generally come at the expense of the RB3s, RB4s, and other positions (WRs and TEs). We think we see a RBBC, but the reality is that the RB1s are seeing the same work, the same fantasy points. What we're really seeing is more and more fantasy-viable NFL RB2's.

That study would imply that teams like the Giants are the ones going back to an earlier time by giving their RB3 significant work.

Interesting. I'd like to see that study (must've missed it before) and more importantly would like to see it re-done after this season to see if it holds true...

I tracked some of it down; Dirty Weasel was the person who did the study, and I found a lot of data strewn across multiple posts. If I wasn't leaving for work in 10 minutes I'd do more hunting, but maybe this will get us on the right track. In the first thread, it starts with people thinking RBBC is increasing, but..bear with it and read all of it, particularly post 13.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...913&hl=myth

The second important thread is here, which is a month or so later.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...399&hl=myth

 

[DawnBTVS]

The "issue" of seeing a RBBC is not that it's a true RBBC... more it's the effect of injuries where a RB is out for 2-3 games so the other RBs get carries and the end of year totals look like the team went to a RBBC format.

New England's Sammy Morris had 30% of the team's carries but the whole team was ravished by injuries. Brandon Jacobs played in only 13 games (44% carries), which helped Derrick Ward get a larger part of the pie (36%). Fred Taylor played in 13 games and helped MJD get 46% of the carries. Same went for the Oakland Raiders and Indianapolis Colts.

Here are the percentages of the 'true' RBBC (i.e. both RBs played in 15+ games except where noted).

- Miami Dolphins: Ronnie Brown (48%) and Ricky Williams (36%)

- Buffalo Bills: Marshawn Lynch (57%) and Fred Jackson (30%)

- Tennessee Titans: Chris Johnson (49%) and LenDale White (39%)

- Carolina Panthers: DeAngelo Williams (54%) and Jonathan Stewart (37%)

- Seattle Seahawks: Julius Jones (38%) and Maurice Morris (32%) - This one is arguable as JJ played 14 games, MM played 13 games.

Outside of Seattle, the "lead" RB still got almost 50% of the overall team carries on the year, whereas the backup seemed to get around 35-40% of the team carries.

From what I've looked at, it seems that most backups on RB heavy teams (i.e. San Diego, Atlanta, Washington) still average around 16-18% of the total team carries. The big difference isn't so much the carries as the catches though.

- Jerious Norwood: 36 catches

- Tashard Choice: 21 catches

- Mewelde Moore: 40 catches

- Fred Jackson: 37 catches

- Tim Hightower: 34 catches

- DeShaun Foster/Michael Robinson: Combined for 33 catches

- Leon Washington: 47 catches

Part of the RBBC issue is that the 3rd down backs are being featured more as a result of their receiving ability (Norwood, Washington, Jackson) and therefore the emphasis by teams of having a RB that can play downs 1, 2, and 3 has devolved into a RB who can play downs 1 & 2 while pairing up a RB who can block/catch the ball on 3rd down.

In terms of RBBC, I wouldn't look at carries but focus more on backup RBs that could vulture catches.

 

[ratbast]

With the rise in performance of the #2 RB, there are more fantasy friendly options, which means more depth and less scarcity. Leon Washington, Chester Taylor etc are all possible plays or at least bench depth ready to play if needed and the tier above them is huge. Middle to bottom tier RBs seem to have caught up with the top tiers. This of course is my perception but for the first year I am fading away from my normal belief that "RB heavy" is the way to go.

The general pattern of my 5 keeper league's keeper choices used to be 1QB, 3RB and 1 WR. This year it will be 1, 2, 2. FWIW

 

[JKL]

Wasn't there a study last year that disproved the trend?

If I remember correctly, the study showed that while RB2's have gotten more touches in the past few seasons, those touches have generally come at the expense of the RB3s, RB4s, and other positions (WRs and TEs). We think we see a RBBC, but the reality is that the RB1s are seeing the same work, the same fantasy points. What we're really seeing is more and more fantasy-viable NFL RB2's.

That study would imply that teams like the Giants are the ones going back to an earlier time by giving their RB3 significant work.

Interesting. I'd like to see that study (must've missed it before) and more importantly would like to see it re-done after this season to see if it holds true...

I tracked some of it down; Dirty Weasel was the person who did the study, and I found a lot of data strewn across multiple posts. If I wasn't leaving for work in 10 minutes I'd do more hunting, but maybe this will get us on the right track. In the first thread, it starts with people thinking RBBC is increasing, but..bear with it and read all of it, particularly post 13.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...913&hl=myth

The second important thread is here, which is a month or so later.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...399&hl=myth

Here is one I started:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=421454