(11-29-2021, 07:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Maybe I just don't understand what "AAV" mean?  

The cash was paid over 5 years.  The cap hit was spread over 5 years.  So why do they "average" the contract over just 4 years?

Annual average value, the idea being people who’s new money on their deals averages 12+ a year. I think it was just how they qualified who was or wasn’t in the list, it doesn’t really change the injury related outcome no matter how they did their accounting.

Mixon is great medicine for Burrow, takes pressure off of him, we are a better team when we keep Burrow under 30 passes, a balance attack is best with this team... Hope we can keep that balance going, was nice to see us finally do something in 1st quarter lets hope that becomes a trend

(11-29-2021, 07:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And that is where people are wrong.  They see 3 or 4 top RBs that were drafted in the second round, but they don't see the dozens who flopped.  If you plan on replacing your RB every 4 years in the draft you are going to end up with a lot of bad RBs.

Rounds 1 and 2 are all I'm talking about maybe early part of the 3rd. But since 2015 most of the RBs taking in those RDs have worked out. 2018 was the exception as I think only Nick Chubb was the good RB out of the 6 or so that were drafted in those Rds. Also I didn't look at this years draft.

(11-29-2021, 07:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are falling into the same trap as a lot of other people.  You see 5 good RBs taken in the second round and ignore the dozens who failed.

From '10-'20 there were 33 RBs taken in the second round.  Only 5 of them have ever been to a Pro Bowl.  So, yes, you can find a good RB in the second round.  But the problem is that your chances are about one in six.  And your odds get even worse the lower in the daft you go.

I agree with you that RBs wear out quicker than other positions.  I would not pay big money to one over 28 years old.  But if I had a good one I would pay to keep him that long instead of taking a chance on getting a guy like Isaiah Pead in the second round.

You're right. I thought that there had been other successful guys, and there has been but not as many as I had thought. For instance, J.K. Dobbins, D'Andre Swift, AJ Dillon are all good, along with the obvious addition of Taylor. I don't like the use of Pro Bowl as the criteria but the strange thing is that aside from those Pro Bowlers, there hasn't really been anyone who has done much at all. It has either been Pro Bowl or nothing, no in-between guys who are solid committee runners. 

(11-29-2021, 08:00 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: You're right. I thought that there had been other successful guys, and there has been but not as many as I had thought. For instance, J.K. Dobbins, D'Andre Swift, AJ Dillon are all good, along with the obvious addition of Taylor. I don't like the use of Pro Bowl as the criteria but the strange thing is that aside from those Pro Bowlers, there hasn't really been anyone who has done much at all. It has either been Pro Bowl or nothing, no in-between guys who are solid committee runners. 

The issue with this exercise is defining what is “good”. In reality many backs can give you 4+ a carry, and that is why analytics usually say the backs are pretty interchangeable for the most part. If we look at backs this season who average at least 10 carries a game they appeared in (to account for injuries), there are a total of 24 that average 4 yards a carry or more. That tells me there are plenty of capable backs in the league, if we added in guys who added more through the air rather than just carries that number probably climbs a couple more.

People get enamored with volume stats like TDs and YDs when in reality those are stats of opportunity. When you look at efficiency based numbers that are contextualized with at least a decent workload you see there are an abundance of capable HB’s in the league.

(11-29-2021, 08:10 PM)Au165 Wrote: The issue with this exercise is defining what is “good”. In reality many backs can give you 4+ a carry, and that is why analytics usually say the backs are pretty interchangeable for the most part. If we look at backs this season who average at least 10 carries a game they appeared in (to account for injuries), there are a total of 24 that average 4 yards a carry or more. That tells me there are plenty of capable backs in the league, if we added in guys who added more through the air rather than just carries that number probably climbs a couple more.

People get enamored with volume stats like TDs and YDs when in reality those are stats of opportunity. When you look at efficiency based numbers that are contextualized with at least a decent workload you see there are an abundance of capable HB’s in the league.

Oh I 100% agree, volume stats are worthless in evaluation. I usually look at a combination of YPC, EPA and SR for RBs. Ben Baldwin plots data by EPA per rush and PFF Run Blocking Grade, which is a good look. Even by using those three metrics, the second round RBs from the last 10 years are either boom or bust. Usually you’ll find some good committee guys, but those seem few and far between. It’s strange.

(11-29-2021, 08:17 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Oh I 100% agree, volume stats are worthless in evaluation. I usually look at a combination of YPC, EPA and SR for RBs. Ben Baldwin plots data by EPA per rush and PFF Run Blocking Grade, which is a good look. Even by using those three metrics, the second round RBs from the last 10 years are either boom or bust. Usually you’ll find some good committee guys, but those seem few and far between. It’s strange.

Why is the 2nd round important? Are they actually busting at a rate higher than any other position? I think I missed why we got tied up on 2nd round. The amount of guys who hit my criteria above after the 2nd into undrafted is expansive and why many feel you shouldn’t pay them because they could be had anywhere, especially with the right line.

(11-29-2021, 08:24 PM)Au165 Wrote: Why is the 2nd round important? Are they actually busting at a rate higher than any other position? I think I missed why we got tied up on 2nd round. The amount of guys who hit my criteria above after the 2nd into undrafted is expansive and why many feel you shouldn’t pay them because they could be had anywhere, especially with the right line.

I had mentioned the 2nd round in a post, is all. I mentioned other mid-round guys but Fred specifically honed in on my 2nd round comment. I agree with you overall, that was just how we got on the 2nd round.

(11-29-2021, 08:56 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I had mentioned the 2nd round in a post, is all. I mentioned other mid-round guys but Fred specifically honed in on my 2nd round comment. I agree with you overall, that was just how we got on the 2nd round.

Makes sense. Yea, I chose 4.0 and greater but if we took my numbers down to 3.5 (essentially anyone who can get a 1st on 3 carries) we are at nearly 30 backs and if we open it up to people who only averaged 9 carries a game instead of 10 we are close to 35. In reality, most guys can be effective runners if given enough opportunities but most guys work out of committees which is why workhorses like Mixon get a lot of the praise for volume stats. In reality Chub and Taylor averaging an INSANE 5.8 a carry should be the talk of the league, that is wild for as many carries as they get.

I'm a tiny bit concerned about Mixon's usage level. 58 carries over the last two weeks is kind of insane for the modern league. I am sure he is fine for the moment, but I don't know if that's sustainable.

(11-29-2021, 09:06 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: I'm a tiny bit concerned about Mixon's usage level. 58 carries over the last two weeks is kind of insane for the modern league. I am sure he is fine for the moment, but I don't know if that's sustainable.

Probably not, but I think that probably comes back down based on various opponents.

(11-29-2021, 09:00 PM)Au165 Wrote: Makes sense. Yea, I chose 4.0 and greater but if we took my numbers down to 3.5 (essentially anyone who can get a 1st on 3 carries) we are at nearly 30 backs and if we open it up to people who only averaged 9 carries a game instead of 10 we are close to 35. In reality, most guys can be effective runners if given enough opportunities but most guys work out of committees which is why workhorses like Mixon get a lot of the praise for volume stats. In reality Chub and Taylor averaging an INSANE 5.8 a carry should be the talk of the league, that is wild for as many carries as they get.

Chubb and Taylor are far and away the best backs in the league and I’ve led this argument against plenty of folks who come screaming “King Henry”. I also recognize that it is hard to separate a RB from their o-line, and both of those guys have wonderful lines but I agree, their performance is NUTS.

Another guy that I really like is Ekeler. He doesn’t get brought up much but he is a dynamic back that I am a huge, huge fan of.

(11-29-2021, 09:06 PM)JaggedJimmyJay Wrote: I'm a tiny bit concerned about Mixon's usage level. 58 carries over the last two weeks is kind of insane for the modern league. I am sure he is fine for the moment, but I don't know if that's sustainable.

No such thing as a sustainable RB. Get what you can out of them before they expire because that date comes quick.

(11-29-2021, 09:31 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Chubb and Taylor are far and away the best backs in the league and I’ve led this argument against plenty of folks who come screaming “King Henry”. I also recognize that it is hard to separate a RB from their o-line, and both of those guys have wonderful lines but I agree, their performance is NUTS.

Another guy that I really like is Ekeler. He doesn’t get brought up much but he is a dynamic back that I am a huge, huge fan of.

That is when you have to start adding what they bring in the receiving game as Ekeler is a solid back when just accounting for carries but he becomes really good when adding in his receiving skills.

(11-29-2021, 09:58 PM)Au165 Wrote: That is when you have to start adding what they bring in the receiving game as Ekeler is a solid back when just accounting for carries but he becomes really good when adding in his receiving skills.

Yes, this is something I need to be better about. Yards per touch is overall a better metric to use to analyze a backs total contribution because a back that can receive is incredibly deadly. I like using R to analyze NFL data and gathering EPA/SR for receiving AND running on the same player can be a nuisance.

(11-29-2021, 08:10 PM)Au165 Wrote:  there are a total of 24 that average 4 yards a carry or more. That tells me there are plenty of capable backs in the league,

How can you say there are "plenty" when there are a lot fewer (24) than one per team.

Plus the difference between 5 yards per carry and 4 yards per carry is 25%.  That seems to be a pretty large difference.

I’ve seen a lot of improvement the past two games from the oline. Started poorly against a great Raiders front and took it to them in the second half. That carried over into dominating the Steelers.

Mixon looks like the back I always thought he was capable of being. The oline has always held him back in my opinion. He’s on quite the tear and healthy. I could see him stringing a couple highly productive years together.

His injuries have all been minor so far and I’m hoping he can avoid a major one. I’m hopeful he has a good and healthy couple years and then it’s probably best to let him walk after his contract.

I definitely think he’s worth the money at this point. Last year it sucked he was hurt—but we sucked as a team so it was almost good he avoided more wear and tear. Let’s hope his best years are from now until the end of his contract. I have a good feeling about it—he’s prime.

(11-29-2021, 06:25 PM)Au165 Wrote: I saw an interesting stat earlier today regarding the group of big money HB's from this offseason.

When a lot of people talked about not re-signing Mixon this is what they were worried about. While Mixon has been really good, and pretty healthy, the group as a whole has in fact been injury ridden much like the stats tell us usually happens on contract #2. So why does this matter? I saw people mentioning pulling Mixon to save him as much as possible in the blowout, and that is probably the right call, but for this season we should plan to abuse him down the stretch and ride him as much as we can this year and then plan on him most likely getting hurt next season and Evans holding a bigger role.

The big ($12m+ AAV) RB contracts…

CMC - done for year
Henry - out indefinitely
Cook - out indefinitely
Kamara - out injured
Zeke - playing through injury
Aaron Jones - just back from injury
Chubb - missed two games with injury but playing well
Mixon - very good

— Bill Barnwell (@billbarnwell) November 29, 2021

My biggest question was why they would pay someone that much if he wasn't going to have a bigger role on the team...and I don't just mean as a receiver.  Many of those teams are run-first.  That is their identity.  The Saints use Kamara as much as a WR as they do a back, ditto CMC.  

Fast forward to 2021, and Mixon's role is growing as the season progresses.  It was like "Establish the deep game, ok...now let's eat underneath while Chase draws everyone deep".  

I absolutely LOVE that they took a deep shot with Higgins, who played that ball PERFECTLY and didn't use any push on the DB at all.  He just turned his back to him and timed the jump perfects.  So, you think you are taking the deep ball away with a double on Chase?  Wrong.  Haha.  

The thing with RBs..Use em or lose em.. Devastating injuries can come at any time..See Icky Woods for example.. They're also usually pretty high strung guys with a tendency to do really dumb stuff off the field as well..everything from shooting themselves in the leg to beating their wives and gf's.. Personally I think you really have to have more than just a few lose screws to want to even do it for a profession. They make almost all their money as young men.. As older guys they're always trying on new wheelchairs and other methods to ease the pain of their youths..

(11-29-2021, 09:32 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: No such thing as a sustainable RB. Get what you can out of them before they expire because that date comes quick.

There was a farmer that had a dog and Bingo was his name-o.. B I N G O.. They expire almost as fast as raw chicken left out in the backyard in the summer time.. That said, there have been a few exceptions, but very few.