Ian Allan
Brian Gryzbowski asked yesterday about rushing production on bad teams. Specifically, whether it’s worth even trying to select a running back from a bad team – can we expect a 4-12 team to score a reasonable number of rushing touchdowns?
There is a correlation between winning games and rushing production. The teams that win games tend to put up much better numbers.
For example, there have been 91 teams in the last 20 years that have finished 4-12 or worst. Those teams, on averaged, have run for only 1,542 yards and averaged only 8.5 rushing touchdowns. Pretty dismal. Of that group, only 10 reached 12 rushing TDs (and those teams are listed below).
Keep in mind, however, that those numbers come only with the benefit of hindsight. While we all know that the Rams and Lions were terrible last year, this season well can only guess that they might be terrible again. Some of these seemingly terrible teams that go 2-14 will actually wind up being pretty good. I would put the Lions in this class. I don’t think it would be a shocker if they climbed up to 7-9 this season and moved past the Bears in the NFC North.
Using the same data, consider those same teams mentioned previously. Of those clubs, a significant number of them put up good rushing production THE YEAR AFTER they went 4-12. Now the group shrinks to 86 (to account for the five teams from 2009 that haven’t yet played that next year). Of that group, 39 – almost half – scored at least 12 rushing touchdowns. They finished with 1,714 rushing yards, on average, and 11.2 rushing touchdowns.
So: rushing production up 186 yards, on average, and rushing touchdowns up by 3.7.
So I would caution folks against going into drafts with the mindsight, “Buffalo and Detroit are terrible, so I won’t be drafting C.J. Spiller or Jahvid Best”.
Marshall Faulk, Barry Sanders, LaDainian Tomlinson. All of those running backs went to seemingly horrible teams that couldn’t do anything right, but each was an instant star. They all put up very good numbers in their first year.
The great running backs don’t need super offensive lines. It helps, of course, but those special backs can create on their own.
I’m not saying Spiller and Best are quite in that class. But I think they both deserve some attention in fantasy drafts.
4-12 TEAMS SCORING AT LEAST 12 RUSHING TDS, 1989-2009
Att Yds TD Year
395 1385 17 1998 St. Louis Rams
417 2146 16 2003 San Diego Chargers
464 2248 16 1991 San Diego Chargers
423 1822 15 2003 Oakland Raiders
418 2095 14 1999 San Francisco 49ers
490 1746 14 1997 Chicago Bears
389 1569 14 2007 Miami Dolphins
495 2314 13 2000 Cincinnati Bengals
426 1730 13 2002 Cincinnati Bengals
381 1389 12 1991 Green Bay Packers
4-12 TEAMS SCORING AT LEAST 12 RUSHING TDS THE NEXT YEAR, 1989-2009
Shown is the year the team went 4-12 (or worse). But the stats are then from the following season. So for the 2003 Chargers at the top of the list, the rushing numbers are from 2004.
Att Yds TD Year
526 2185 24 2003 San Diego Chargers
560 2443 23 2007 Atlanta Falcons
422 2004 20 2007 New York Jets
472 1761 19 2005 New Orleans Saints
489 1875 18 1991 San Diego Chargers
448 1897 18 2007 Miami Dolphins
450 1627 18 1997 Arizona Cardinals
424 1904 18 2003 New York Giants
388 1596 17 2001 Buffalo Bills
476 2127 16 1989 New York Jets
416 1801 15 1999 San Francisco 49ers
491 1738 15 2005 New York Jets
469 2214 15 2005 Tennessee Titans
419 1660 15 1998 Indianapolis Colts
449 1872 15 2006 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
475 1668 15 2003 Arizona Cardinals
469 1956 15 1994 Washington Redskins
495 2060 15 1993 Indianapolis Colts
505 2068 14 1999 New Orleans Saints
521 1880 14 1992 New York Jets
421 1651 14 2002 Houston Texans
431 2059 13 1998 St. Louis Rams
495 2314 13 1999 Cincinnati Bengals
431 1650 13 1995 Jacksonville Jaguars
324 1288 13 2006 Detroit Lions
431 1685 13 2005 Houston Texans
443 1763 13 2002 Chicago Bears
440 1895 13 2006 Cleveland Browns
435 1695 13 2000 San Diego Chargers
393 1500 13 1989 Dallas Cowboys
473 2015 13 1992 Seattle Seahawks
481 1987 12 2002 Cincinnati Bengals
356 1525 12 1998 Carolina Panthers
452 1809 12 1992 Phoenix Cardinals
393 1659 12 1991 Los Angeles Rams
389 1360 12 1990 Cleveland Browns
478 1664 12 1994 Houston Oilers
438 2172 12 2005 San Francisco 49ers
438 1706 12 1991 Tampa Bay Buccaneers
- Comments [7]
Readers' Comments
Add a Comment
Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.
To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.
Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | May. 11 at 04:16 AM
The other thing of course is that running is only part of the game with some of these backs. Reggie Bush averages just 37 rushing yards per game over his career, so in that respect he has almost no value in fantasy leagues. But he averages 5 receptions and 74 total yards per game, which makes him a starter in most leagues. New Orleans has a much better offense, of course, but they also use 2-3 backs. I don't see why Spiller can't catch 4-5 passes per game no matter how bad Buffalo is this year. Arguably he'll get more touches on a bad team than he would if Buffalo wins a lot of games (in which case Fred Jackson running the ball might be a bigger part of the offense than Spiller catching passes).
Posted by Brian Grzybowski | May. 11 at 04:30 AM
Nice. However, I think I didn't articulate a greater point very well. Yes, a runner on a bad team can excel on a statistics level (and I used 4-12 as a benchmark for "bad") but it does help if the team selecting the runner has some history of being able to evaluate talent and being committed to running the ball. It's one thing if it's a "perfect storm" situation where the Vikings select Adrian Peterson, but generally the situation is more cloudy. That 2007 draft was similar to 2010 in that the talent pool at RB was very thin. In fact, Peterson will be the only RB taken that year that has a starting gig this year (depending on what happens to Lynch). The very next year, 2008, was incredibly deep at RB. It would have been hard to mess up selecting a running back....and yet! So this is where a teams ability to appraise talent, as it conforms to their system, and general commitment to running becomes an important factor. In that draft,2008, the Raiders took Darren McFadden. Most pundits agreed on the move (I think Ian was lower on him) but after he went came the names of: Johnathan Stewert, Felix Jones, Rashard Mendenhall, Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, Ray Rice, etc. I would guess that if the draft were held today that McFadden would go after all these guys. Heck, Tashard CHoice went at pick #122 and has exactly the same numbers as McFadden. Chris Johnson would go first- but could he put up 2,000 yards on a Raiders team? No chance. Situation matters. It's like Priest Holmes in Baltimore vs. Priest Holmes in Kansas City. To me, Spiller in Buffalo has more in common with McFadden in Oakland than Peterson in Minnesota, or even Tate in Houston. I'd draft Spiller or grab him in an auction, but late or for very little.
Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | May. 11 at 05:02 AM
Situation matters, but you make it sound as if we can definitively say that situation was why guys prospered or flopped. Maybe McFadden just isn't any good; as you note, if the draft were held today he'd be taken after a lot of those backs, which suggests the problem wasn't the Raiders, but him. Johnson wouldn't have put up 2,000 yards in Oakland, but he might still put up better overall numbers than those other backs, because of his talent. Remember, people paid no attention to Rice when he was drafted, because the Ravens had a 26-year-old running back coming off a 1,200 yard season in McGahee. But gradually, his talent came through. I guess I'm still a believer in talent over situation....Tate is in a great situation in Houston, but if his talent turns out to be mediocre, he won't stay in the lineup for long. As an aside, I'd agree with you that Spiller's 2010 prospects don't appear particularly good. Two or three years from now, though, I think he'll prove to be the best back in this class, even if he starts out slower.
Posted by Brian Grzybowski | May. 12 at 01:42 AM
Nothing is definitive about any of this, that is why it's intriguing. My point is that Oakland can't evaluate talent. That's how they ended up with Jamarcus Russell, Robert Gallery, Darren McFadden, Darius Heyward-Bey, etc. Also, the situation is horrible- Jake Grove, center, wallowed in obscurity there. I bet he makes a Pro Bowl in Miami. So this leads me to the point about Buffalo: they don't seem to be able to evaluate talent, either. If you owned a NFL team would you rather have Chan Gailey draft a RB in the first round for you or Jeff Fisher in the second? Or Mike Shanahan in the third? Added too this is Buffalo's recent history of throwing away picks on runners- kind of like Matt Millen with receivers. Travis Henry, Willis McGahee, Marshawn Lynch. These players aren't necessarily busts, but they do represent high draft picks that did not stay employed by the Bills for very long (4 picks in 7 years). So why is Spiller supposed to be so different? Look at his college game logs. His first 3 years aren't anything special and his senior year is built on a few monster games, but the rest are average. When the first two teams to draft a running back go with William Green and T.J. Duckett you have to say that those team didn't evaluate the players very well because Clinton Portis was just sitting at home waiting for the phone to ring, so was Brian Westbrook. General Managers also can't say "We need to fill position X and this player is the best one in this draft class." If the level of talent isn't very good in a particular year then you must address other needs, not talk yourself into picking someone that is only okay. This is how Alex Smith gets drafted, or David Carr, or the last five QBs in Washington. Speaking of Washington, they'll probably out-rush Buffalo by a considerable amount using a bunch of cast-offs and retreads. I digress. Looking at all this evidence it is hard for me to think that Spiller is going to be "great." I think he might be "very good" but you have to wonder how long he would stay there if the situation doesn't improve. Henry and McGahee demanded trades and Lynch isn't exactly trying to stay there.
Posted by IAN ALLAN | May. 12 at 01:51 AM
I don't think you can blame Russell, Gallery and McFadden on Oakland's evaluators. There were a few rumblings about Russell perhaps not being motivated enough, but if the Raiders weren't picking there, some other team would have taken him No. 1. Gallery definitely would have been a top-4 overall pick. And everybody seemed to agree that McFadden was the top running back. With all of those guys, you wonder how they might have fared had they been selected by another franchise.
Posted by ANDY RICHARDSON | May. 12 at 03:24 AM
Brian - I considered the point about Buffalo's history with running backs, but they've got a brand-new GM in Buddy Nix who previously worked with some success in finding talent in San Diego. I can't fault him for Buffalo's curious -- at the time and in retrospect -- decision to draft McGahee with Henry already there, or for that matter to trade McGahee. They've done some curious things over the years, but I've got to give the new decision-maker the benefit of the doubt for now. BTW, not that Spiller was necessarily Gailey's pick, but I actually would go with him over Shanahan drafting me a running back in the third round. The last running back Shanahan drafted in the third was....Maurice Clarett.
Posted by Brian Grzybowski | May. 12 at 04:08 AM
Ok, those are all excellent points. How did I forget the Maurice Clarett reach?