What is an RBBC to you?

[ArrylT]

Spurred in part by the Carson/Penny discussion, as well as threads on Hyde/Chubb/Duke, Michel/Burkhead, Henry/Lewis, etc ... what do you as a fantasy owner consider to be a RBBC - running back by committee.

I've added a poll for those who want a simple easy answer - but I'd like to hear what people think constitutes RBBC vs. Bell-Cow. Please make sure to note that the percentage % used is the percentage you deem is necessary for an RB to NOT be considered to be in some form of a RBBC.

Does your definition of RBBC change with scoring settings? IE STD vs. PPR vs. PPC vs TD Heavy?

Does your definition change when considering carries versus actual touches (ie receptions)?

Is it possible to have a Bell-Cow back, and still have a 2nd RB with fantasy value (ie RB3 or flex)?

Would a COP/Receiving back on a strong offense (Cohen? Lewis? T. Coleman?) have more value than a potential Bell-Cow back on a weak offense? (Guice? Mixon? Collins?)

[UATahoe]

I voted right around the 60% mark. Looks like the average number of rushes in a season is right around 430 or so for the whole season. 60% of the 'touches' would equate to around 260 carries and then whatever the percentage works out to be for passes. At that 55-60% target share you are a pretty significant part of that offense.

If the touches are being split more evenly, then i think it lends more towards scoring what each is doing with their opportunity share.

[kamihamster]

When both backs average >12 PPR points a game.

[_yeti]

I voted 70-74% or more to not be RBBC. I don't think my definition of RBBC changes with scoring settings as it is more a description of the players roles on the field than how they apply to our games. I do think that the values of players in different roles changes based on scoring setting though, bumping up or knocking down the value depending on settings.

I think in the true historical sense of the RB, it is based on carries, though nowadays overall touches is probably more apt. I think in some situations with your next question this can get murky as a bell-cow back could theoretically end up with a Theo Riddick type guy and it still not really be a committee but the Riddick type player still put up significant points.

As to whether a "COP/Receiving back on a strong offense (Cohen? Lewis? T. Coleman?) have more value than a potential Bell-Cow back on a weak offense? (Guice? Mixon? Collins?)" hard to say? Maybe for Best Ball but I think I would still always rather have the guy who is the bell-cow for other formats.

[Phaded]

I think snap count would be a better indicator to be honest. That said - only 5 RBs played above 70% of their team offensive snaps. Bell had a ridiculous 85%.

Also - interestingly enough, only 16 RBs were on the field greater than 50% of the time last year.

[Mjvb5]

I said 60-65%, but to me its really just 60+% range. NFL average was 27 attempts per game which puts an rb 16 carries a game which is plenty, honestly I dont want my backs getting 20+ touches a week it'd wear them down really quick.
Definitely possible for backup RB behind a bellcow to have value, TeCo, Cohen, Riddick in the past, Woody, Sproles,etc. Generall they need to be a good receiver for this to happen as you can tell.
To me the last part is very situational, depends on what you mean by value, in season value, points, or offseason value. In offseason value the bell cow would win probably every time, but in season when Crowell is wasting a top 5 oline and thompson was going off every week I'd have made that swap.

[nathanq42]

I like the snap count point.

For me it is about the players cannibalizing each other. While both will be of decent value in your lineup, neither will receive meaningful opportunity while the other is playing as well.

[OhCruelestRanter]

I’m not sure what the R stands for but I’m pretty sure this isn’t that kind of forum.

[nathanq42]

I’m not sure what the R stands for but I’m pretty sure this isn’t that kind of forum.

Stands for real

[BigBawseRoss]

i dont look at percentage. i see if a guy is getting 15+ carries per game on average.

[ArrylT]

So far looks like about 50% of voters feel you need at least 65% of targets/snaps/carries to avoid being in the 'dreaded RBBC'.

[FantasyFreak]

Coach Jay Gruden was noncommittal when asked which running back would garner the majority of the carries. He said “that’s a great question” and said the team still needs to settle on “one, one and a half . . . or two guys” to get the bulk of the carries, and that the team would probably only dress three on game day.

Rob Kelly has been sharing first team reps with Guice. So if they split time and Thompson is a 3rd down back, I'd say that qualifies as a RBBC. Supposedly Kelley is down to 221 pounds this year. He's gone from "fat Rob" to "fit Rob".

Could we see a RBBC in Washington to start the year? I would have to think Guice would eventually steal the lions share of early down work, if he is anywhere close to as good as people think he is, but it looks like it may take some time.

[kadun2]

Voted 70, agree with yeti

[Ice]

Depends on the team IMO but 65% plus would be my choice.

[ArrylT]

Appreciate all the thoughts from different owners with different perspectives.

Maybe at the end of the season we'll revisit also, as well as check and see which teams did end up going with a RBBC.