Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: RB vs. OL? Pretty much cut-and-dried

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    22,211

    Default RB vs. OL? Pretty much cut-and-dried

    RB vs. OL? Pretty much cut-and-dried

    Short-haul and long-haul, grabbing a tailback is going to be better for you


    Early in this year's draft process, pick No. 4 in the 2010 NFL draft presented Mike Shanahan, Bruce Allen and the Washington Redskins with a tough decision: how best to fix a running game that produced just 94.3 yards per game in 2009, sixth-lowest in the NFL?

    With quarterback Sam Bradford and defensive linemen Ndamukong Suh and Gerald McCoy expected to be the first three picks in the draft, the Redskins would have their choice of any blocker or runner available. Who was more likely to make a bigger impact: a star runner like Clemson's C.J. Spiller, or a dominant tackle like Russell Okung out of Oklahoma State?

    The Redskins tipped their hand when they acquired veterans Willie Parker and Larry Johnson to team with Clinton Portis in the backfield. It's now almost a lock that Okung will be wearing a burgundy jersey this fall -- and that may be bad news for the Redskins' rushing game.

    History shows that teams with top-10 picks fare better on the ground after drafting a running back than they do when drafting tackles.

    Between 2000 and 2009, nine teams selected running backs in the first 10 picks of the NFL draft, while 14 teams picked tackles. The RB teams averaged 3.7 rushing yards per carry the year before the draft, a little lower than the 3.9 yards averaged by teams drafting tackles.

    Not surprisingly, the influx of talent boosted the running game of both sets of teams -- but the RB teams saw better results.

    The rookie tackles led their teams to 4.1 yards per carry, up 0.2 yards from the year before. Those teams that drafted runners, though, ran for 4.2 yards per carry, an increase of 0.5 yards. Prefer to measure things by yards per game? Teams drafting tackles went from 99 to 113 yards per game, while teams drafting backs went from 98 to 121 yards per game.

    So in the short term, it looks like drafting a runner is usually the better call. But teams don't make draft picks for a one-year surge, they're looking for long-term benefits. And in the long term, it looks like going with a running back is still the best decision for the running game. (This makes some sense, because top-10 tackles are generally prized for their ability to protect the quarterback's blind side, not their ability to open holes for running backs.)

    The two groups of teams were virtually identical two or three years after the draft, regressing in year 2 and rebounding in year 3. In year 4, however, RB teams fared better, averaging 4.2 yards per game, compared to 4.0 for the OT teams.

    It's no surprise that the most successful RB team of the last decade was the Minnesota Vikings, who picked Adrian Peterson seventh overall in 2007. The Vikings were no slouches on the ground in 2006, averaging 4.1 rushing yards per carry. But Peterson took them into another stratosphere; they collected 5.3 yards per carry as a team in his rookie season. That figure dipped in the next two seasons, which is typical for most teams on this list that drafted backs. But since Peterson was drafted, the Vikings have averaged 4.63 yards per carry. (Remember that boost running backs gave their teams in their fourth season? Peterson will be playing his fourth campaign in 2010.)

    Picking a running back, however, is not guaranteed to improve a team's ground game. The New Orleans Saints racked up 4.0 yards per game on the ground in 2005, then added Reggie Bush with the draft's second pick. Over the next two seasons, the Saints averaged 3.7 yards per carry, significantly worse than before Bush's arrival, before jumping back to 4.0 in year 3 and 4.5 in year 4. An even better example is Cedric Benson. The Chicago Bears collected 3.8 yards per carry the year before they picked the Texas runner in 2005. In Benson's rookie season that jumped to 4.3. Benson carried the ball only 67 times that season, so he deserves little credit for the improvement. In the next three seasons, as Benson got more touches, the Bears' yards per carry went from 3.8 to 3.1 to 3.9.

    Of those teams that went with a tackle in the top-10 picks, none has been more successful than the Vikings. They ran for 4.3 yards per game in 2001, then picked Miami's Bryant McKinnie with the fourth overall selection. In the next four seasons -- all before Peterson was drafted -- the Vikings averaged 4.7 yards per carry.

    On the other side of the coin, we find the Oakland Raiders. In 2003, Oakland produced 4.3 yards per carry. Iowa's Robert Gallery, taken second overall in 2004, was supposed to turn the team into a juggernaut. Instead, the bottom fell out -- the Raiders managed only 4.0 yards per carry (technically, 3.95) in the first four years of Gallery's career.

    The only other team to see its ground game collapse like that was, ironically, the Redskins -- although they deserve an asterisk. In 1999 they tallied 4.4 yards per carry, fourth in the NFL. They then took Alabama's Chris Samuels with the third overall pick. When you start out in the league's top five, however, you're likely to get worse no matter what -- after all, you can't get much better. The Redskins averaged 4.0 yards per game in the four years after they drafted Samuels, much lower than they were able to amass before he arrived, but fairly typical results for a top-10 tackle. Now that they're looking for Samuels' replacement, if the Redskins do select Okung, they can expect to match Samuels' production.

    Vince Verhei is a writer for Football Outsiders. Research provided by Alvin Anol of the ESPN Stats & Information Group.


    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/s...age=NextLevel2
    (the previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Shelby Harris
    Posts
    10,128

    Default

    If there is one thing Mike Shanahan is good at, it is getting awesome runners NOT in the 1st round. If he feels the need for a back, I am sure he has his eye on a couple in later rounds. If Shanahan picked spiller over the immense talent available at offensive tackle, I will eat my hat.

  3. The Following 3 Users High Fived atwater27 For This Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    22,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by atwater27 View Post
    If there is one thing Mike Shanahan is good at, it is getting awesome runners NOT in the 1st round. If he feels the need for a back, I am sure he has his eye on a couple in later rounds. If Shanahan picked spiller over the immense talent available at offensive tackle, I will eat my hat.
    I agree....and I'm with the same line of thinking. There is a TON of talent (especially at RB) in later rounds. There is no need to draft a top pick at RB.
    (the previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)

  5. The Following User High Fived Ravage!!! For This Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Big Sky Country
    Posts
    22,387

    Default

    I think Shanny goes OL or QB....even with McNabb.
    Quote Originally Posted by King87 View Post
    All must hail NostraTimmy!
    Quote Originally Posted by chazoe60 View Post
    Nostratimmy was right again. All hail nostratimmy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MOtorboat View Post
    I’m the hobbit.

  7. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Adopted Bronco:
    Ray Finkel
    Posts
    86,712

    Default

    Man he tipped his hand, oh boy.

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    high elevation
    Adopted Bronco:
    Baron Browning, Jaleel McLaughlin
    Posts
    43,173

    Default

    cut and dried, is it?

    he kind of neglected to compare how long those top running backs last compared to good tackles. . . you know, not to mention the impact the tackles have on the passing game. . .

    i mean, really-- adding a stud RB makes your numbers spike quicker than improving 20% of the O-line? no shit?

    the football outsiders approach is interesting, and i do think things like their adjusted O-line ratings and whatnot are useful statistical tools, but. . . when they try to go beyond numbers-- like this piece-- i think a lot of their stuff is just bullshit, plain and simple. . . .
    “When we do find that guy, we’ve got to have the continuity on the offensive side to where we can train him and develop him and get him there. This is our fourth offense in probably three or four years. Quarterbacks need to be developed. You don’t find one ready-made. We got to have a solid system in place for when we do go after whatever guy it may be, a young guy or a trade or whatnot.”
    - John Elway

  9. The Following 2 Users High Fived dogfish For This Post:


  10. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    31,747

    Default

    You will never convince me that taking a stud RB will make your team over all better than getting a Stud OT or OG for the long run.

    stats may kinda say that but long term premier OLINE types are hard to come by compared to RB's.

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    22,211

    Default

    Anytime you get a "premiere " player... at ANY position..... its going to make the most difference. So I think that has to be taken into consideration. Just because you take a RB at the top slots, doesn't mean he's premiere. Just because you draft a top OLman, doesn't mean he's premiere.

    Premiere OL last a long time, and keep their starting jobs.... but so do premiere RBs.

    I think the writer isn't separating the 'premiere' from the average. He's pointing out that top OL picks don't necassarily make the impact some think. Short term or long term.

    Five years down the road, is long term in the NFL now days. Thats past your rookie contract renogiation period.

    I don't think we should take a RB in the first round....but I also know you can get very good OL in the later rounds, and don't need to spend those top picks on OLman....by any means.
    (the previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Russellville, AR
    Adopted Bronco:
    PS2
    Posts
    12,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jrwiz View Post
    You will never convince me that taking a stud RB will make your team over all better than getting a Stud OT or OG for the long run.

    stats may kinda say that but long term premier OLINE types are hard to come by compared to RB's.
    Then why is it that Adrian Peterson made such a huge difference over Chester Taylor in Minnesota his rookie year? Taylor played behind the same line and both had not so good QBs to work with. How about TD? It's not like Shanahan brought in that O-line special for TD in the 97 season. They were already in place. Sure they made TD look great, but he made them look HOF worthy...


    “Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.” -Winston Churchill

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    31,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HORSEPOWER 56 View Post
    Then why is it that Adrian Peterson made such a huge difference over Chester Taylor in Minnesota his rookie year? Taylor played behind the same line and both had not so good QBs to work with. How about TD? It's not like Shanahan brought in that O-line special for TD in the 97 season. They were already in place. Sure they made TD look great, but he made them look HOF worthy...

    If you did not notice he was behind one of the best OLINEs in the NFL.

    and that is a moot questions when you reply to
    Originally Posted by Jrwiz
    You will never convince me that taking a stud RB will make your team over all better than getting a Stud OT or OG for the long run.

    stats may kinda say that but long term premier OLINE types are hard to come by compared to RB's.

    Your trying to deflect my comments by comparing one RB against another.

    BTW did they win a super bowl that year? With Peterson

  14. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Russellville, AR
    Adopted Bronco:
    PS2
    Posts
    12,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jrwiz View Post
    .

    BTW did they win a super bowl that year? With Peterson
    Was that the point of the thread at all? Did it say anything about winning superbowls or did it simply say that the stats favor drafting an elite RB to an elite OL man? I think it's pretty obvious that there are several examples of this being at least a possibility like the two I mentioned above. There are plenty of others out there if you think about it.. Carolina for example has two fantastic RBs, but their OL is only mediocre. They still are top 5 in rushing just about every year now because if those RBs.


    “Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.” -Winston Churchill

  15. The Following User High Fived HORSEPOWER 56 For This Post:


  16. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Anderson, TX
    Adopted Bronco:
    Demaryius Thomas
    Posts
    36,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jrwiz View Post
    If you did not notice he was behind one of the best OLINEs in the NFL.

    and that is a moot questions when you reply to


    Your trying to deflect my comments by comparing one RB against another.

    BTW did they win a super bowl that year? With Peterson
    Did the the Bengals ever win a Super Bowl with Anthony Munoz at left tackle?

  17. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    22,211

    Default

    did the Jags win a Super Bowl with Tony Boselli?
    (the previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)

  18. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    high elevation
    Adopted Bronco:
    Baron Browning, Jaleel McLaughlin
    Posts
    43,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravage!!! View Post
    did the Jags win a Super Bowl with Tony Boselli?
    no, but the broncos won the super bowl with gary zimmerman and terrell davis. . . and john elway. . . and a bunch of other really good guys. . .


    does that help?
    “When we do find that guy, we’ve got to have the continuity on the offensive side to where we can train him and develop him and get him there. This is our fourth offense in probably three or four years. Quarterbacks need to be developed. You don’t find one ready-made. We got to have a solid system in place for when we do go after whatever guy it may be, a young guy or a trade or whatnot.”
    - John Elway

  19. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    22,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dogfish View Post
    no, but the broncos won the super bowl with gary zimmerman and terrell davis. . . and john elway. . . and a bunch of other really good guys. . .


    does that help?
    yes
    (the previous comment was not directed at any particular individual and was not intended to slander,disrespect or offend any reader of said statement)

Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group