The Bell Offer

[Northern_Blitz]

Broaden the topic to "great" (HOF worthy) players of recent years and you will see how insignificant the RB position has been relative to other positions.

Since the Marshall Faulk (the last otential HOF caliber runningback to win a SB after the 99 season)

The following HOF discussion caliber defensive backs have started SB winners since Faulk:

Rod Woodson
Richard Sherman
Troy P
Ed Reed
Darrelle Revis
Aquib Talib
Charles Woodson

Other 1st team all pro players with rings in
2000s.

Rodney Harrison
John Lynch
Earl Thomas
Bob Sanders
Darrin Sharper
Ty Law
Rhode Barber

The best runningback of the 2000s with a ring is Marshall Lynch.....he was all pro ONCE. Just about every secondary player above was all pro twice or more.

I can add
Chris Harris
Malcolm Butler
Kam Chancellor

Better than any SB runningback other than Lynch.

The VAST MAJORITY of elite DB's of the era have rings.

The majority of SB's had players in the list above.
Great secondary play enhances your chances greatly.

Runningbacks? No correlation whatsoever to "greatness" associated with championships.

If you get a great back at a reasonable price, great.

But paying big bucks for an elite back is NOT a recipe for success.

Again, I agree that paying for skill positions isn't a great strategy (I think my priority for high spending would be something like QBs then DB/Edge).

But when you present your data above, I think it's worth mentioning that teams generally play 1 RB and 4 DBs.

So, we'd probably expect the ratio to be something like 4:1 for these other positions to RB.

It looks like it's higher than that from what you've posted so I'd agree that DBs are more important to success than RBs (again, this was my starting opinion so it might be confirmation bias). I guess the caveat would be that the small number of RBs makes the uncertainty in the ratio pretty high. If the Steelers (or another team with an all-pro caliber RB) win the SB this year, then the ratios probably look pretty close to what we'd expect.

[Mr.wizard]

How can you consider the RB position insignificant when it accounted for more than 30% of our offensive yards? Seems to me, if a guy is going to be 30% of the offense you would want the best person you can get. Let's examine the All-Pro back's from last season:

Bell -- Team went 13-3 made the playoffs
Gurley -- Team went 11-5 made the playoffs
Kamara -- Team went 11-5 made the playoffs

Are we to believe that these teams would have been better without these players?

[Northern_Blitz]

How can you consider the RB position insignificant when it accounted for more than 30% of our offensive yards? Seems to me, if a guy is going to be 30% of the offense you would want the best person you can get. Let's examine the All-Pro back's from last season:

Bell -- Team went 13-3 made the playoffs
Gurley -- Team went 11-5 made the playoffs
Kamara -- Team went 11-5 made the playoffs

Are we to believe that these teams would have been better without these players?

I think the argument is that the replacement cost for RB isn't as high at other positions.

I other words we might be able to get close to that same offence with a combination of players that cost less.

Having more than one competent RB also reduces the risk that the season goes south because of a single injury (eg we would have to start the equivalent of Toussaint in the playoffs if the starter got hurt)

If the cap didn't exist we'd clearly be better keeping as much elite talent as possible. But with the cap, it might be better to let an elite RB leave when you have to start paying G them market value (after their rookie contract) if it means that you can use the money for a position you believe has more impact on winning games. You can't know if it will work before hand though.

[Captain Lemming]

Again, I agree that paying for skill positions isn't a great strategy (I think my priority for high spending would be something like QBs then DB/Edge).

But when you present your data above, I think it's worth mentioning that teams generally play 1 RB and 4 DBs.

So, we'd probably expect the ratio to be something like 4:1 for these other positions to RB.

It looks like it's higher than that from what you've posted so I'd agree that DBs are more important to success than RBs (again, this was my starting opinion so it might be confirmation bias). I guess the caveat would be that the small number of RBs makes the uncertainty in the ratio pretty high. If the Steelers (or another team with an all-pro caliber RB) win the SB this year, then the ratios probably look pretty close to what we'd expect.

Close but not quite there.
ZERO HOF (great) caliber runningbacks have rings since the 99' season. I conservatively listed 7 great DBs. We are not talking "ratios".

[Disco1981]

How can you consider the RB position insignificant when it accounted for more than 30% of our offensive yards? Seems to me, if a guy is going to be 30% of the offense you would want the best person you can get. Let's examine the All-Pro back's from last season:

Bell -- Team went 13-3 made the playoffs
Gurley -- Team went 11-5 made the playoffs
Kamara -- Team went 11-5 made the playoffs

Are we to believe that these teams would have been better without these players?

New Englands backs :

Phillys backs :

Last years Super Bowl

[Captain Lemming]

How can you consider the RB position insignificant when it accounted for more than 30% of our offensive yards? Seems to me, if a guy is going to be 30% of the offense you would want the best person you can get. Let's examine the All-Pro back's from last season:

Bell -- Team went 13-3 made the playoffs
Gurley -- Team went 11-5 made the playoffs
Kamara -- Team went 11-5 made the playoffs

Are we to believe that these teams would have been better without these players?

No. I said very clearly "if you can get one cheap great".

The Vikings were "better" with AP than without him while he was cheap. But once he got his big deal they were limited.

AP was the best back of the era. The Viking of LAST SEASON were MUCH BETTER than any AP Viking team past his cheap rookie deal.

I would pay no runningback what we offered Bell including the ones you listed.

I'd invest those same dollars in a more valuable position, and be a better overall team as a result.

[Northern_Blitz]

Close but not quite there.
ZERO HOF (great) caliber runningbacks have rings since the 99' season. I conservatively listed 7 great DBs. We are not talking "ratios".

I think that the conclusion is correct, but I'm not super sold on the argument here.

The range is a bit cherry-picked because you're saying after Faulk. If you include that season, your ratio is 1:7. Then, it gets back to the expected ratio of 1:4 if the Steelers or the Rams win the SB next year.

Or if we include Faul and Lynch and the 3 other DBs you mentioned, then we get a ratio of 1:5 which is pretty close to 1:4.

Either way, I think that the success in both cases (DBs and RBs) is probably pretty highly correlated to "played with a great QB who was being paid less than market value". I think that the importance of the QB on a below market deal is probably much stronger than HOF RBs and DBs.

[Slapstick]

Also, Marshawn Lynch is definitely a Hall of Fame caliber RB...

10,000+ career rushing yards
Top 20 in career rushing TDs
5x Pro Bowl/2x All-Pro

Also:
Top 10 in playoff rushing yards
Top 20 in playoff rushing TDs
Super Bowl Champ

All in an era where the passing game has taken over and RB by committee is the norm...

Finally, he has a chance to add to his totals this year...

[Mr.wizard]

I think the argument is that the replacement cost for RB isn't as high at other positions.

I other words we might be able to get close to that same offence with a combination of players that cost less.

Having more than one competent RB also reduces the risk that the season goes south because of a single injury (eg we would have to start the equivalent of Toussaint in the playoffs if the starter got hurt)

If the cap didn't exist we'd clearly be better keeping as much elite talent as possible. But with the cap, it might be better to let an elite RB leave when you have to start paying G them market value (after their rookie contract) if it means that you can use the money for a position you believe has more impact on winning games. You can't know if it will work before hand though.

Well my point is just plugging in another back might not yield you the same success because these backs are such huge pieces of their offenses. So if I'm looking at a guy who accounts for 30% of my offense and I then look at my record at 13-3, how do I then turn around and say if we let that guy walk and invest in DB's we will win the Superbowl? Why pay Db's and then try and go cheap on position like RB which is huge part of your success, why not pay your all pro and build your DB's through the draft? I would rather invest in the guy who represents 30% of my offense at an elite level than some random DB through free agency.

[Captain Lemming]

I think the argument is that the replacement cost for RB isn't as high at other positions.

I other words we might be able to get close to that same offence with a combination of players that cost less.

Having more than one competent RB also reduces the risk that the season goes south because of a single injury (eg we would have to start the equivalent of Toussaint in the playoffs if the starter got hurt)

If the cap didn't exist we'd clearly be better keeping as much elite talent as possible. But with the cap, it might be better to let an elite RB leave when you have to start paying G them market value (after their rookie contract) if it means that you can use the money for a position you believe has more impact on winning games. You can't know if it will work before hand though.

Exactly NB.
Philly for example easily aquired what I believe is a better overall runningback circumstance (2 quality backs for cheap) than we had last season with a great but expensive back and how did their season end?

[Captain Lemming]

Well my point is just plugging in another back might not yield you the same success because these backs are such huge pieces of their offenses. So if I'm looking at a guy who accounts for 30% of my offense and I then look at my record at 13-3, how do I then turn around and say if we let that guy walk and invest in DB's we will win the Superbowl? Why pay Db's and then try and go cheap on position like RB which is huge part of your success, why not pay your all pro and build your DB's through the draft? I would rather invest in the guy who represents 30% of my offense at an elite level than some random DB through free agency.

Please share this wisdom with Bill Belichick. He never pays runningbacks and will absolutely pay big bucks for DB's.

[Captain Lemming]

Well my point is just plugging in another back might not yield you the same success because these backs are such huge pieces of their offenses. So if I'm looking at a guy who accounts for 30% of my offense and I then look at my record at 13-3, how do I then turn around and say if we let that guy walk and invest in DB's we will win the Superbowl? Why pay Db's and then try and go cheap on position like RB which is huge part of your success, why not pay your all pro and build your DB's through the draft? I would rather invest in the guy who represents 30% of my offense at an elite level than some random DB through free agency.

30 percent of the offense from one back is why Bell's near annual playoff injury has ended our playoff run more seasons than not.

BTW you mentioned Kamara. What NO is doing with the position is EXACTLY what I would like to see us do. More platooning.

[Captain Lemming]

Also, Marshawn Lynch is definitely a Hall of Fame caliber RB...

10,000+ career rushing yards
Top 20 in career rushing TDs
5x Pro Bowl/2x All-Pro

Also:
Top 10 in playoff rushing yards
Top 20 in playoff rushing TDs
Super Bowl Champ

All in an era where the passing game has taken over and RB by committee is the norm...

Finally, he has a chance to add to his totals this year...

Point taken. Again nice job finding the one point to argue with me when you actually agree with my point overall Slappy.

Yes, when paired with the best secondary of an era ONE running possible HOF back has a ring.

If we had the league of boom, Bell would likely have multiple rings, despite ending most seasons injured.

[Captain Lemming]

When Bell does sign, does anyone want to bet if he signs with a solid team or a historically stupid franchise?

[Slapstick]

Point taken. Again nice job finding the one point to argue with me when you actually agree with my point overall Slappy.

Yes, when paired with the best secondary of an era ONE running possible HOF back has a ring.

If we had the league of boom, Bell would likely have multiple rings, despite ending most seasons injured.

Lynch KILLED teams in the playoffs...he didn’t need the “Legion of Boom” for that...