Post by whoskmoon on Jun 14, 2023 19:24:06 GMT -6
Throughout NFL fandom, particularly people heavily into analytics, there is a theory that the running back by committee (RBBC) approach can be just as successful as having a so-called bell cow running back who gets the vast majority of carries. They point to successful franchises like the Patriots, KC and 49ers and their use of RBBC, as well as all of the analytics that show there is no significant difference in offensive success between having a single great running back, and having a few solid ones. Investing in a RB either with high draft picks or lots of salary cap just isn't worth it, and the smartest football talking heads will shout that till they are blue in the face. If RBBC can get you 4.5 YPA, it really can't be worth it to invest heavily in a RB just to average 4.6 YPA, right? I know Vikings fans certainly want to believe that is the case after cutting their best RB in favor of RBBC.
Unfortunately, it really is worth it. Or at least the smartest football minds in the NFL believe it is. You see, despite the fact NE, KC and SF have had lots of success with RBBC, they have actually invested quite heavily in that position with draft picks and cap space in SF's case. NE spent a 1st on Sony Michel in 2018 and a 3rd on Damien Harris in 2019. KC spent a 1st in 2020 on Clyde Edwards-Hellaire and just this past season the 49ers traded a 2nd, 3rd and 4th for the very expensive CMC. Three of the best GMs in football spending significantly on the position despite the talking heads claiming they are content with RBBC. Could it be that these teams that have had success with a mix of backs would prefer to lean heavily on one great RB? Of course they do, and it really isn't logical to argue otherwise when you really think about what RBBC means. Teams don't do QB by committee, center by committee, LT etc, for a reason. They want a guy who is good enough that it hurts the team to play anyone else for a significant amount of time. The same goes for RB, and the fact that teams have had success rotating backs doesn't change that.
Teams only use RBBC because they don't have any other choice. They don't have a running back good enough to carry the majority of the load so they make do with what they have. Despite rumors to the contrary, really good reliable RBs are not a dime a dozen anymore than QBs or left tackles are. That is why Todd Gurly has the 13th most carries since 2017 even though he hasn't played since 2020. Bell cow backs are just incredibly rare and Dalvin Cook and his 4th most carries, 5th most starts since entering the league is one of the rarest, most durable RBs in the NFL. A RB who survives to the playoffs averaging 15+ carries a game doesn't come along very often, but Vikings fans have become so accustomed to that I don't think we realize how rare it is.
More than just durability, bell cow backs do bring more success even if the analytics disagree. I shouldn't have to tell Vikings fans this, but a great RB is still a difference maker even in the modern NFL. To the point they can carry Christian Ponder to the playoffs. Heck even teams with great QBs benefit from the bell cow back.
Through week 9 the Chiefs were going with RBBC until in week 10 they started giving Pacheco a similar load as the Vikings gave Cook over that same time period. They went from an overall offensive DVOA of 24.4% in the first 9 weeks to 30% after week 9. Their rushing offense jumped from 21 to 9th and even their passing offense improved over that time.
A better example from last season of a team going from RBBC (sort of) to a bell cow back is the 49ers. Weeks 1-7 they were 26th in rushing DVOA, 21st in offensive DVOA overall. Week 8-18, after trading for CMC they jumped to 3rd in rushing DVOA, #1 in overall DVOA. A lot of that overall offense is the QB change admittedly, but Purdy was 0 help in the run game.
The bell cow running back is still important in today's NFL and RBBC is not the best option. It is what teams resort too when they can't find their great running back, and it is not the ideal for any NFL team. The Vikings look to be going the RBBC approach this coming season and while it can work, I have a feeling we will be drafting a RB in the first 3 rounds next season, assuming Chandler doesn't prove he has the talent to handle a big chunk of the carries or Mcbride isn't the next Pacheco.
Unfortunately, it really is worth it. Or at least the smartest football minds in the NFL believe it is. You see, despite the fact NE, KC and SF have had lots of success with RBBC, they have actually invested quite heavily in that position with draft picks and cap space in SF's case. NE spent a 1st on Sony Michel in 2018 and a 3rd on Damien Harris in 2019. KC spent a 1st in 2020 on Clyde Edwards-Hellaire and just this past season the 49ers traded a 2nd, 3rd and 4th for the very expensive CMC. Three of the best GMs in football spending significantly on the position despite the talking heads claiming they are content with RBBC. Could it be that these teams that have had success with a mix of backs would prefer to lean heavily on one great RB? Of course they do, and it really isn't logical to argue otherwise when you really think about what RBBC means. Teams don't do QB by committee, center by committee, LT etc, for a reason. They want a guy who is good enough that it hurts the team to play anyone else for a significant amount of time. The same goes for RB, and the fact that teams have had success rotating backs doesn't change that.
Teams only use RBBC because they don't have any other choice. They don't have a running back good enough to carry the majority of the load so they make do with what they have. Despite rumors to the contrary, really good reliable RBs are not a dime a dozen anymore than QBs or left tackles are. That is why Todd Gurly has the 13th most carries since 2017 even though he hasn't played since 2020. Bell cow backs are just incredibly rare and Dalvin Cook and his 4th most carries, 5th most starts since entering the league is one of the rarest, most durable RBs in the NFL. A RB who survives to the playoffs averaging 15+ carries a game doesn't come along very often, but Vikings fans have become so accustomed to that I don't think we realize how rare it is.
More than just durability, bell cow backs do bring more success even if the analytics disagree. I shouldn't have to tell Vikings fans this, but a great RB is still a difference maker even in the modern NFL. To the point they can carry Christian Ponder to the playoffs. Heck even teams with great QBs benefit from the bell cow back.
Through week 9 the Chiefs were going with RBBC until in week 10 they started giving Pacheco a similar load as the Vikings gave Cook over that same time period. They went from an overall offensive DVOA of 24.4% in the first 9 weeks to 30% after week 9. Their rushing offense jumped from 21 to 9th and even their passing offense improved over that time.
A better example from last season of a team going from RBBC (sort of) to a bell cow back is the 49ers. Weeks 1-7 they were 26th in rushing DVOA, 21st in offensive DVOA overall. Week 8-18, after trading for CMC they jumped to 3rd in rushing DVOA, #1 in overall DVOA. A lot of that overall offense is the QB change admittedly, but Purdy was 0 help in the run game.
The bell cow running back is still important in today's NFL and RBBC is not the best option. It is what teams resort too when they can't find their great running back, and it is not the ideal for any NFL team. The Vikings look to be going the RBBC approach this coming season and while it can work, I have a feeling we will be drafting a RB in the first 3 rounds next season, assuming Chandler doesn't prove he has the talent to handle a big chunk of the carries or Mcbride isn't the next Pacheco.
... and neither is this Chris guy.