The future of RBBC.

[kris_kapsner]

Well, with the league drifting towards RBBC as the predominant way to handle the backfield what are your thoughts?

First, is it a fad like WRs going from shorter and quicker WRs to TALL WRs to more back to the middle? Will we see the pendulum swing back the other way in the future?

Second, what is the cause? Are we seeing more talent at the position OR is it that medical advances are allowing for longer careers OR is it that the defenses are hitting harder now so more rest is needed for the "bell cow" RBs... ?

Third, do you like RBBC? It does make it easier to play in larger leagues because there are more RBs out there that put up stats. But, the disparity between the elite and the middle of the pack is bigger than ever because of RBBC.

I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

[lake3711]

I think RBBC is effective because it keeps your best RB from wearing down at the end of the game. It also keeps your RB from wearing down at the end of the season and being less than 100% in the playoffs. Keeping a guy fresh all year is important from a coaching standpoint.

I don't think RBBC is a fad, I think it will continue. Most teams will use it, and some will split the carries evenly, most will maybe do a 20 to 10 carry type backfield. Teams are learning how to use scat-backs more effectively after the success of Westbrook and Reggie Bush, and teams like having more weapons and more dynamic to their offense.

It will be important to have the best RB in each committee. Guys like Marion Barber will be really valuable in this format because although they have a complimentary back to share with, they still get around 20 carries in each game and they get all the red zone looks in a top-tier offense. The complimentary back should help ease the wear and tear on the power back.

Hypothetically, if every team used it, then the RB's should score less points than they used to earlier this decade. That would make WR's just about as valuable as RB's.

I don't really think anyone necessarily likes it, but it is what it is. In fantasy, I could see more leagues introduce the Flex position.

[Fletch_F_Fletch]

Well, with the league drifting towards RBBC as the predominant way to handle the backfield what are your thoughts?

First, is it a fad like WRs going from shorter and quicker WRs to TALL WRs to more back to the middle? Will we see the pendulum swing back the other way in the future?

Second, what is the cause? Are we seeing more talent at the position OR is it that medical advances are allowing for longer careers OR is it that the defenses are hitting harder now so more rest is needed for the "bell cow" RBs... ?

Third, do you like RBBC? It does make it easier to play in larger leagues because there are more RBs out there that put up stats. But, the disparity between the elite and the middle of the pack is bigger than ever because of RBBC.

I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

I don't have an answer, but just wanted to pass along a random thought I had on the topic. It's generally that, unless you have two RBs with overlapping skill sets, you tip your offense's hand based upon the RB in the game (i.e., "here comes the scat back, watch for the screen or swing pass" or "it's second and five, the bulldozer is in the game, let's play the run"). I guess my point is, since coaches scout tendencies so heavily, a RBBC that lacks overlapping skill sets can lead to some seriously predictable/recognizable tendencies. I don't think they're going away, but I see multi-facited guys becoming more valuable. For your more 1st/2nd down guy, he better have some hands. For your 3rd down guy, he better be able to run between the tackles on occaision too. I guess pass protection would be somehting they both should be able to do too. Anyway, just some stream of consciousness there.

[Headhunter]

I always struggle with wondering who to start when you have a situation like Minny. I have both AD and Chester on one roster and we are able to start a 3rd (at flex) in that league, so would you go ahead and start BOTH along with a 3rd RB or go with AD (in this situation) plus the OTHER RB and then start 3 WRs (2+1 flex)?

[garyhorcher]

Agree with much of what has been stared above. From a FF standpoint, I think it will serve as another means of separating the men from the boys. In other words, leagues (especially larger ones) could come down to who has put in the due diligence/scouting to land the best of the ever-increasing amount of RB's to look at as additions to your team. More work will have to be done on more players in order to put together the best draft board possible.

[Steelersfan]

RBBC gives teams better options in larger leagues but I miss the old days where RB's mostly played all 3 downs.

[Entropy]

I think it is a natural result of a couple different evolutions and is here to stay. The evolution towards the passing game is part of it, but that has driven and combined with better, deeper scouting to identify previously under-utilized value.

I still think there will always be a premium for those rare Tomlinson types who can actually carry the whole load because there are advantages to it. The more a back plays within a game the better he can set defenders up, and get the feel for how a defense defends various types of plays in a more visceral and instinctive way than on tape. The o-line gets used to how quickly a player hits a hole, which way he'll want to break in the open field (as a pulling guard in the open field, would my back prefer that I pop the inside defender or the outside one?).

But the vast majority of the league is going to start using RBBC. I believe the trend towards being a passing league is the main culprit. Most offenses are what, ~65% pass now? You can't afford a player who is dead weight in the passing game anymore. That tends to favor the smaller quicker runners over the OJ Anderson types.

But smaller players have trouble withstanding the pounding of high workloads. The good news though is that there are ALOT of them that in years past would be buried on depth charts or used solely as 3rd down & return specialists. You can find under-sized but seriously talented backs as late as the 3rd and 4th round EVERY YEAR. It's cheaper to buy 2-3 of these and rotate them to keep them healthy than one LT. It isn't that there are MORE of them than there used to be, just that in years past they would have been scoffed at and passed over, they now have value. Mike Shanahan takes this trend to an un-healthy extreme, being so confident in his ability to find and train RBs that he trades proven ones away rather than pay them.

While I understand it, I don't LIKE it from a fantasy or real fan perspective. As a fan, I like the single identifiable back. It's the macho gunfighter. My best man against your defense. It's one guy to identify with and cheer for. It personalizes it as opposed to a rotating stable wherein one merely cheers from the helmet sticker.

From a fantasy perspective, I play in a couple of fairly shallow leagues, and it makes decisions harder. I may feel X is the better player, he is splitting time with Y, but how many carries will each get? Will they get situational workloads as one would expect (bigger back near the end zone, smaller on 3rd downs) or not? Is there even a primary? Alot of time the coach won't say (nor is he required to, but it makes my life harder). If X outperforms Y will he earn a larger and larger share of the touches, or will the coach stay with what he is dong?

[Phish Brigade]

I thought I'd revive this topic after thinking about this subject today. I almost started a new topic, but I did a quick search first.

There definitely is a trend in the NFL. More teams are gravitating towards the RBBC approach and keeping their stud RBs fresh for the end of the season. And maybe more importantly, to keep the player that they've invested a lot of money in around long enough to finish their huge contracts. When teams sign a rookie RB, the first few years of the contract aren't too bad. But if that player performs well, typically, they are rewarded. LJ got paid. SJax got paid. LT has gotten paid. And MJD has gotten paid. Which reminds me, Leon Washington should have gotten paid. He was a true professional though, played out his contract... and now his big payday is up in the air. But I digress.

I thought it might be interesting to see how many carries the bell cow RBs have been getting. I think we've all noticed this trend anyway, but the numbers really emphasize the point. The numbers below are for rushing attempts only. Obviously, season ending injuries would impact some of these numbers... but there's no way that I'm looking up all that information over a 10 year period.

2009

350 - 1
300 - 6
250 - 9
200 - 22

2008

350 - 2
300 - 5
250 - 13
200 - 24

2007

350 - 0
300 - 6
250 - 12
200 - 22

2005

350 - 4
300 - 10
250 - 17
200 - 24

2000

350 - 3
300 - 9
250 - 19
200 - 24

The drop off in the numbers of 300+ and 350+ carries isn't that much. I think that might even be expected. And the number of RBs who have 200+ carries in a season has been pretty consistent. But the number that best reflects the RBBC trend is seen in the 250+ carries. Ten years ago, there were 19 RBs. Last year, there were 9 RBs with 250+ carries.

I think it's fair to say that as the size of contracts have gone up, more and more teams have chosen to spread the wealth a bit more. It makes sense. But it certainly is killing the RB-RB draft approach, especially in PPR leagues. I remember when I used to draft RBs with my first 3 picks. In the past year, I ended drafting 2 WRs in the first 3 rounds several times.

Food for thought.

[jeff_eaglz]

building on the math above, I took a look at 2000 vs. 2009 for ALL running backs.

Total carries by RBs, 2009: 12544

Total carries by RBs, 2000: 11658

So we've actually had MORE rushing this year than nine years ago - an increase of 7.6%. That's not a small increase.

So where are the carries going?

The difference is apparent if you look at the # of RBs who had at least 100 carries:

# of RBs with 100 or more carries, 2009: 50
# of RBs with 100 or more carries, 2000: 38

The total carries for each of these groups:
2009: 9,823
2000: 8,991

So doing the math, how much of a percentage do the 100+ carry guys represent as far as the total NFL workload?

2009 = 9823/12544 = 78.3%
2000 = 8991/11658 = 77.1%

The bottom line - RBBC has resulted in a bigger spread of the top (77-78%) workload, giving 12 more RBs a piece of the majority workload.

[Phish Brigade]

I almost posted some of those numbers as well. I first used 150 carries as the low number, but realized that there were a lot of quality RBs that didn't quite have that many carries in 2000 or in 2009.

Again, it's a trend that we all know about. And I think we've all noticed how many more WRs are showing up in draft in the top 40-50 picks. But the reason why I started thinking about it is because I'm having a harder time putting a trade value on players who aren't typically drafted in the top 20-25. The RBBC is having an impact on more than just weekly lineup decisions.