Elite RBs are a waste of money· Page 5

macbob
Veteran Member

13 years ago

Rushing success doesn't equal rushing either.

Of course he was talking about success at an elite level. Which has proven to be a non factor. Specially if you look at recent trends.

Yes it was important 20 years ago. It isn't 20 years ago now though.

Were there any other changes in the Bronco's after they got Davis? If he was the only factor that changed including luck, who opponents are and they didn't change one bit, then people can say he was the reason they went from a super bowl team to a super bowl winning team. Otherwise it could easily be dismissed as coincidence. Statistically speaking.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

Dexter--Zombie IS saying all running is irrelevant (even though he subsequently said he wasn't)

OR

Zombie is saying running IS relevant, but it's SUCCESSFUL running (e.g., running success) that is irrelevant.

Despite other comments in this thread, Zombie's not a COMPLETE moron :icon_smile: (smiley face = just kidding), so it can't be #2.

So, contrary to later disclaimers, I'm back to #1.

vikesrule
Registered

13 years ago

#42

...I think people enjoy fvcking with you just as much as me..

"DakotaT" wrote:

While screwing with Z2C has provided much pleasure and entertainment over the past 5 years or so,
when you showed up, it brought messin' with a cheesehead to a whole new level.

I mean, that in your case, there is such an unending amount of material to work with.
A dufus of your caliber is pretty much a once in a generation type thing.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#43

Waiting to hear back to see if I'm approved for a car loan and went through some posts.

I think what's being said is that it's better to have an elite QB, rather than elite RB. Which is no secret. No one's ever said you NEED to have an elite RB to win a Super Bowl, at least, not in what I've read. A running game is needed, yes. As I've said countless times, I feel 10 carries for 30 yards is more efficient for the offense than 5 carries for 30 yards. My reasoning is that the more times you run, the more times the defense has to honor the run and it opens up play action passes.

Back to Barry Sanders @ 10mil vs Nance @450k. This is impossible to prove and anyone wanting facts to prove one way or the other is absurdly crazy go nuts. And since I fall into that category, I'll try to lay out why I think its difficult.

Barry + average QB = passing game a lot better.
Nance + elite QB = doesn't improve passing game, might hurt because there's no chance for Nance.
Barry + elite QB = pure offensive domination.

We also have to take into consideration the OL and WR... I mean there's just TOO many variables to even consider having an argument like this.

You give me an Matt Flynn, Barry Sanders, Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson and I'll give you a feared offense.

A Barry Sanders or even LaDanian Tomlinson simply just helps your team. Assuming said players are in their hayday.

If anyone wants to hold it against Barry because the Lions didn't win a Super Bowl with him is ridiculous. This goes along with zombieslayers point, it's easier to STOP the run than it is to stop the pass. That's just logic. Load up the box, maintain gap discipline and you should stop the run.

IF a team CAN get good yards running the ball and passing the ball its makes BOTH phases that much better.

If one were to say it's better to have elite QB + Ryan Grant @1 million over Elite QB + Barry Sanders @ 10 million ... I'd agree with that because Ryan might run into his own guys, but at times he can break one deep.

macbob
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#44

I think what's being said is that it's better to have an elite QB, rather than elite RB. Which is no secret. No one's ever said you NEED to have an elite RB to win a Super Bowl, at least, not in what I've read.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Zero, I'd like to agree with you that is what Zombie is saying. I originally thought that Zombie was just stating his argument poorly, but I don't think so anymore.

Through multiple threads this fall Zombie has had plenty of opportunity to clear it up, but he hasn't--he consistently phrases it as "running is irrelevant" or some variation.

If he truly meant that the passing game is more important than the running game, then he could have said that. And he'd have encountered very little disagreement.

I've made it clear through my posts that I think the Packers should be primarily a passing team, and running enough to attract the D's attention (and distracts them from the passing game, improving your passing). When Zombie said above he disagrees with me, what he is saying is he disagrees with that philosophy.

So, I am led to believe that Zombie truly believes all you need to do is pass, pass, pass. If running is irrelevant, why would you ever run??? If it's not irrelevant, why would you keep saying it is?

A running game is needed, yes. As I've said countless times, I feel 10 carries for 30 yards is more efficient for the offense than 5 carries for 30 yards. My reasoning is that the more times you run, the more times the defense has to honor the run and it opens up play action passes.

Zero2Cool wrote:

Agreed on the running 10 times attracts the D's attention more than 5, but running 10 times for 60 attracts the D's attention more than running 10 times for 30. The more effective your running game the more you'll attract the D's attention and open up your passing game.

zombieslayer
Registered Topic Starter

13 years ago

#45

And I'm perfectly fine with that, especially when it comes to Barry Sanders. I was just tying to tow the joking line, but guess I went to far.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Dude - I don't mind you joking with me. What I do mind is that you don't have any facts. Macbob slights me all the time but he's backing up what he's saying. Personally, I think Macbob's a utopian. The game has changed.

Barry + average QB = passing game a lot better.
Nance + elite QB = doesn't improve passing game, might hurt because there's no chance for Nance.
Barry + elite QB = pure offensive domination.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

OK, thank you. Now you're finally giving me something to argue with. This is what I want.

An elite RB like Barry Sanders will take passes away from the offense. He'll also take money away from the team. So thus, I'll take Nance + elite QB. All Nance really has to do is rush 15 times for 60 yards. That's it. The pass will give him those opportunities as the pass nowadays opens up the run, not the other way around. Yes, I saw Pack93z posted examples of the latter but those are exceptions, not the rule.

Macbob - Maybe I'm not stating my point very well. Rushing success is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you're the #1 rushing team or the #20. Your chances of winning the SB are exactly the same. Yes, you still need to hand the ball off. But you don't need to be good. Is that more clear?

Also, I went as far as saying an elite RB actually hurts the team by taking too many passes away from the offense. Also, he ends up asking for too much money where you're better off spending that money on a LB, DL, or DB.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#46

And I'm perfectly fine with that, especially when it comes to Barry Sanders. I was just tying to tow the joking line, but guess I went to far.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Barry + average QB = passing game a lot better.
Nance + elite QB = doesn't improve passing game, might hurt because there's no chance for Nance.
Barry + elite QB = pure offensive domination.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Packers are paying Ryan Grant 5.5 million for 2011 and if he's on the roster on the 15th day, another million. You're telling me you can't afford to throw another million or two or three for a Barry Sanders?

If one were to say it's better to have
Elite QB + Ryan Grant @ 1 million
OVER
Elite QB + Barry Sanders @ 10 million ...
I'd agree with that because Ryan might run into his own guys, but at times he can break one deep.

I see you didn't mention that Barry Sanders doesn't need a fullback when discussing money being used for other players. FB's get paid big bucks ya know!

When you have a Barry Sanders on your team, he makes other aspects better. He makes your OL better, he makes your defense better because they are on the field less. He makes your WR and TE better because of the play action pass.

Therefore you do not need to pay those extra millions to acquire/keep high level talent.

You give me an Matt Flynn, Barry Sanders, Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson and I'll give you a feared offense.

I think you're using Barry as a way to spite me. I mean, seriously, what GM would ever take Nance @600k over Barry Sanders @10million?

I do think Elite passing game > Elite running game. I've said this many times too.

I believe I get your point and concept and its something I've said far earlier and agree with, obviously, but again Nance over Barry, sorry, that's a mistake.

Barry Sanders makes others on your team better.
Nance does nothing for you, is no threat to take it the distance, does not put fear in anyone. A RB has to have SOME fear instilled in the defense, even if he rushes 10 times for 30 yards, he has to have that 'uh oh he can go all the way' or at least 30+ yards. Nance does not an will not offer that ever in his career, from what I've seen.

Packers_Finland
Registered

13 years ago

#47

I'm putting together QB, RB and Defense stats from the 2010 season which I'll put up when I'm finished. So far it's looking like the order of importance is DEF, QB, RB which is no surprise. But to say there's no correlation between running success and winning is hyperbole. The top 16 teams have clearly better RBs than the bottom 16.

In terms of running backs, the order is Teams 1-8 > Teams 17-24 > Teams 9-16 > Teams 25-32. (Ranked by reverse draft order and top RB fantasy points).

And even the fact that the 17-24 ranked teams have better RBs than the 9-16 ranked teams is very iffy, as the two most injury plagued running back situations in the league happen to be situated in the 9-16 range (Colts and Saints).

This is a placeholder

Cheesey
Preferred Member

13 years ago

#48

I think an elite QB can make up for a so-so running game. As we saw with the Packers this past season. A great QB can use short passes to get the gains a RB would get, and has the ability to go downfield for the big play.
If all you have is a great RB, a defense can key on that and stop your offense dead.
Barry Sanders.......he was awesome. But how many of you remember when the Packer D held him to i believe minus one yard for an entire game? The Lions did nothing that game, cause the Packers keyed on Sanders.
I can only imagine what Sanders could have done with a decent QB.

Packers_Finland
Registered

13 years ago

#49

Too damn tired to analyze will do it later. Numbers used for study are QB Rating for QBs, Fantasy Points for RBs, and Points Allowed for Defenses. Teams are in the draft order, so for the purposes of calculating success, the top teams are the worst and the bottom teams are the best.

This is a placeholder

zombieslayer
Registered Topic Starter

13 years ago

#50

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

For the record, I'm not using Barry Sanders to spite you. I'm using him because he's hands down the best RB I've ever seen. If you'd prefer, let's use Wallie instead, who I rank #2. Sorry Finny, Wallie's better than your beloved LT.

I'd take an offense of Aaron Rodgers, Nance, Gregorious, Finley, Jordy, JJ, and Driver over an offense of Aaron, Wallie, Gregorious, Finley, Jordy, JJ, & Driver + $10 million.

Why?

2 reasons:
1) $10 million can go to the D,
2) Wallie would take up too much of the O.

As I do believe you have to run, you don't want to run "too much." Too many teams with elite RBs run too much. If you look at a lot of the past recent SB winners, they didn't have elite RBs and passed to open up the run.

I actually think we are in agreement about several things but you're taking offense at the mention of Barry so I'll replace Barry with Wallie.

I do think that with Aaron scaring Ds, Nance could easily get 30 yards on 10 carries. He did get 32 yards on 9 carries against the Giants and we blew them away.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (1m) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (1m) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (2m) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (2m) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (4m) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (6m) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (10m) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (12m) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (12m) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (21m) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (27m) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (29m) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (30m) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (32m) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (41m) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (47m) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (50m) : Packers will get in

beast (51m) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (57m) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (57m) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (2h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (3h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (3h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (3h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (4h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (13h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (13h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (14h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (17h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (17h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (17h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (17h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak

beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other

beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)

Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.

beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs

packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.

beast (21-Dec) : Oh, that's how you keep beating buckeye, with cheating

Zero2Cool (20-Dec) : There is a rule that if your name starts with 'b' you lose 15 points. Hey, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them!

wpr (20-Dec) : and then there is Beast. Running away with it all.

beast (20-Dec) : As of tonight, 3 way tie for 2nd in Pick'em, that battle is interesting!

beast (20-Dec) : Lions vs Vikings could be the main last game as it could determine division winners or #1 vs #2 seed

Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Or if KC needs to win for the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Right now it looks like the only prime worthy games are Det-Minny and KC-Denver (if Denver can clinch a wild card spot)

Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : The entirety of week 18 being listed as flex is weird

Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Matt LaFleur today says unequivocally "Ted Thompson had nothing to do with the drafting of Jordan Love."

Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Apparently, the editing is what pieces comments together. That Ted thing ... fake news.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS