Don't believe in the player

[jgcrawfish 232]

There's threads going now regarding Michael Turner and his possible trade. Turner is a good player, no doubt. But he benefits from the same system that has helped make LaDanian Tomlinson great. There are certain teams, certain systems that make players better. The fact is that many RB have become plug-n-play in how their teams use them, hence the rise of the tandem RB systems and how many unheralded RB become high-producers.

 

The following is based off a 3 year statistical average weighted toward production most recently and adjusted for FF scoring (including a bonus for 20 yrd runs). It does not account for RB performance in the passing game, in which case teams like New Orleans and Philadelphia would obviously rank higher than they do:

 

Teams w/ good systems/offensive lines (in order, best first): San Diego, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, New England, NY Giants, Dallas.

 

Teams w/ bad systems/offensive lines (in order, worst first): Cleveland, Oakland, Detroit, Arizona, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Miami, Green Bay, Buffalo, Minnesota.

 

Teams in probable transistion downward: San Diego (major coaching changes), Kansas City (offensive line age), Pittsburgh (coaching changes), NY Giants (retirement of true feature back), Atlanta (coaching changes and primary RB age)

 

Teams in probable transition upward: Denver (acquisition of feature RB, good system), New England (better WR core = better balance), NY Jets (developing offensive line + new feature RB), New Orleans (great offense that was penalized by 2004 and 2005 years, great RB tandem), St. Louis (great feature RB and balanced attack), San Francisco (good feature RB, developing system).

 

Your input and response would be appreciated.

[t.j 35]

I agree man. In offensive football, coaches and offensive lines never get enough credit. But those are almost always the unsung heroes. The importance of running backs and wide receivers is almost always overrated.

[Road_Cats 1]

There's threads going now regarding Michael Turner and his possible trade. Turner is a good player, no doubt. But he benefits from the same system that has helped make LaDanian Tomlinson great. There are certain teams, certain systems that make players better. The fact is that many RB have become plug-n-play in how their teams use them, hence the rise of the tandem RB systems and how many unheralded RB become high-producers.

 

The following is based off a 3 year statistical average weighted toward production most recently and adjusted for FF scoring (including a bonus for 20 yrd runs). It does not account for RB performance in the passing game, in which case teams like New Orleans and Philadelphia would obviously rank higher than they do:

 

Teams w/ good systems/offensive lines (in order, best first): San Diego, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, New England, NY Giants, Dallas.

 

Teams w/ bad systems/offensive lines (in order, worst first): Cleveland, Oakland, Detroit, Arizona, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Miami, Green Bay, Buffalo, Minnesota.

 

Teams in probable transistion downward: San Diego (major coaching changes), Kansas City (offensive line age), Pittsburgh (coaching changes), NY Giants (retirement of true feature back), Atlanta (coaching changes and primary RB age)

 

Teams in probable transition upward: Denver (acquisition of feature RB, good system), New England (better WR core = better balance), NY Jets (developing offensive line + new feature RB), New Orleans (great offense that was penalized by 2004 and 2005 years, great RB tandem), St. Louis (great feature RB and balanced attack), San Francisco (good feature RB, developing system).

 

Your input and response would be appreciated.

Don't see how you can have San Fran upward lost their Oc, No Wr, and a QB who will be learning a new system in his 3rd year and i don't care how similiar it is to the old system F.Gore should be a buyers beware.

Now with that being said I don't see how Tenn. did not make it on any list. Jeff Fisher has always been run first team winning or losing and has had some good RB out put. If M.Turner goes to Tenn. I think it would be a solid move and he would be just fine there. Jets are RBBC I don't care who they sign. Have JAX as one of the better rushing teams last year but you do't think they wil achieve the same success? Even though not counting rec yards or td I'm pretty sure they out produced NO duo.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Don't see how you can have San Fran upward lost their Oc, No Wr, and a QB who will be learning a new system in his 3rd year and i don't care how similiar it is to the old system F.Gore should be a buyers beware.

Now with that being said I don't see how Tenn. did not make it on any list. Jeff Fisher has always been run first team winning or losing and has had some good RB out put. If M.Turner goes to Tenn. I think it would be a solid move and he would be just fine there. Jets are RBBC I don't care who they sign. Have JAX as one of the better rushing teams last year but you do't think they wil achieve the same success? Even though not counting rec yards or td I'm pretty sure they out produced NO duo.

 

The list was generated by taking into account current players. I will agree that Tennessee will trend upward if they acquire an RB in trade or draft. San Fran was a tough one. Gore, fumbles aside, is obviously talented and Smith at QB continues to improve. I took a bit of a gut instinct guess on that one based on the fact that they get Vernon Davis healthy hopefully all year plus the excellent production Gore had last year. I also think Jacksonville will still be a great run team, but their now 3-back system just splits it even further.

[Riddlen 1]

the lions OL should be ok, dont know about the system though...

[scoobs03 0]

For a running back the system and Oline in Minnesota are great. Chesters numbers were very average because he fumbled at key times last season. If LT ran in Minnesota he would look the exact same....

[Ruphus 0]

For a running back the system and Oline in Minnesota are great. Chesters numbers were very average because he fumbled at key times last season. If LT ran in Minnesota he would look the exact same....

 

Not true, no way.

 

While I am with the OP on the team, OL and coaches having a profound impact on skill positions FF values, taking LT and putting him in MN would not = he would look the exact same....

 

Multiple reasons...

 

#1. Most important, Lorenzo Neal. He is to stud blockers what LT is to stud runners.

 

#2. SD is a Helluva lot more balanced on offense. They can run and they can pass. I failed to see where MN carried anyone with their passing game last year. Make things worse, they are w/o even a remotely serviceable, albeit even proven, QB this year. Not even gonna go into their WR's.....

 

#3. Defense. A lot of people will claim MN had this vaunted defense last year, but honestly it was nothing more than slightly above average. They played some bad teams last year and made some mediocre ones look good. It's just not the same caliber defense as SD's, which is a solid compliment to a good running game

 

#4. Team Balance and Power in general. SD from top to bottom is a more potent team. Coaching is good, the lines are good, the defense, ST and offense are good.

 

While LT would still be very good in MN, he wouldn't, nor would MN be what he is in SD.

[Vikings4ever 496]

Not true, no way.

 

While I am with the OP on the team, OL and coaches having a profound impact on skill positions FF values, taking LT and putting him in MN would not = he would look the exact same....

 

Multiple reasons...

 

#1. Most important, Lorenzo Neal. He is to stud blockers what LT is to stud runners.

 

#2. SD is a Helluva lot more balanced on offense. They can run and they can pass. I failed to see where MN carried anyone with their passing game last year. Make things worse, they are w/o even a remotely serviceable, albeit even proven, QB this year. Not even gonna go into their WR's.....

 

#3. Defense. A lot of people will claim MN had this vaunted defense last year, but honestly it was nothing more than slightly above average. They played some bad teams last year and made some mediocre ones look good. It's just not the same caliber defense as SD's, which is a solid compliment to a good running game

 

#4. Team Balance and Power in general. SD from top to bottom is a more potent team. Coaching is good, the lines are good, the defense, ST and offense are good.

 

While LT would still be very good in MN, he wouldn't, nor would MN be what he is in SD.

Except for number 1, I have to agree. In response to number 1: Tony Richardson. He was hurt last year, but in previous years, he was opening holes for the likes of Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson, and even helped Derrick Blaylock to a couple damn good games.

[jkg31885 0]

this isnt the argument but

 

LJ=system 100%

[Ras66not99 0]

 

Teams w/ bad systems/offensive lines (in order, worst first): Cleveland, Oakland, Detroit, Arizona, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Miami, Green Bay, Buffalo, Minnesota.

 

Your input and response would be appreciated.

I agree that systems and offensive lines have everything to do with success in the real NFL and in fantasy....

 

I highlighted the above Lions, because they do not belong there fantasy wise..... yeah there OLine is pretty trash, but the system is there as long as Mike Martz is the OC.... the guy is a fantasy savior... I mean Mike Furrey led the NFC in receptions for chri$t sake

[Wildman 0]

There's threads going now regarding Michael Turner and his possible trade. Turner is a good player, no doubt. But he benefits from the same system that has helped make LaDanian Tomlinson great. There are certain teams, certain systems that make players better. The fact is that many RB have become plug-n-play in how their teams use them, hence the rise of the tandem RB systems and how many unheralded RB become high-producers.

 

The following is based off a 3 year statistical average weighted toward production most recently and adjusted for FF scoring (including a bonus for 20 yrd runs). It does not account for RB performance in the passing game, in which case teams like New Orleans and Philadelphia would obviously rank higher than they do:

 

Teams w/ good systems/offensive lines (in order, best first): San Diego, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, New England, NY Giants, Dallas.

 

Teams w/ bad systems/offensive lines (in order, worst first): Cleveland, Oakland, Detroit, Arizona, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Miami, Green Bay, Buffalo, Minnesota.

 

Teams in probable transistion downward: San Diego (major coaching changes), Kansas City (offensive line age), Pittsburgh (coaching changes), NY Giants (retirement of true feature back), Atlanta (coaching changes and primary RB age)

 

Teams in probable transition upward: Denver (acquisition of feature RB, good system), New England (better WR core = better balance), NY Jets (developing offensive line + new feature RB), New Orleans (great offense that was penalized by 2004 and 2005 years, great RB tandem), St. Louis (great feature RB and balanced attack), San Francisco (good feature RB, developing system).

 

Your input and response would be appreciated.

 

This is interesting. I'm not sure where I stand because I don't fully understand how you based the results. Can you break down the methodology? It would be interesting to have a clear way to identify a system and correlate it to performance.

 

Outside of this study, I do tend to believe in the player more than the system. It does require both a good line and RB working together. I've been a big fan of Gore since college but it was the fact the Niners got Larry Allen, J Jennings, and Smiley all playing well together that helped Gore have some big games (although 2 of the three got hurt during the season and it didn't stop Gore either).

 

Westbrook seemed to have one of his best seasons due to their 3rd year guard finally looking like the lineman they expected (S. Andrews) when they drafted him. But Westbrook was still good.

 

Again, I want to look at the stats but my feeling purely from an observational perspective is that a very good-great player can make a below average or average system/team look good to very good (Marshall Faulk w/the Colts; Walter Payton in Chicago; LT prior to 2004; Dickerson with the Colts; etc.) and a very good-great player can make a good system a great offense.

 

In other words, a I think I'd rather have a great runner because he'll at least produce decently on a bad offensive squad--if you can get him at the right value...which you won't because he'll be overrated by most people in fantasy drafts--than an average runner in a good system. I still think in most cases it will rate out the same.

 

That said, this is research still goes in a good direction because it's these "system backs" that represent better values in fantasy drafts than the great back on a new team.

 

Maybe it's also good to figure out which backs are system backs in terms of talent versus backs than could play in any system. Or which backs are excellent fits for a new system.

[sharkie22 0]

There's threads going now regarding Michael Turner and his possible trade. Turner is a good player, no doubt. But he benefits from the same system that has helped make LaDanian Tomlinson great. There are certain teams, certain systems that make players better. The fact is that many RB have become plug-n-play in how their teams use them, hence the rise of the tandem RB systems and how many unheralded RB become high-producers.

 

The following is based off a 3 year statistical average weighted toward production most recently and adjusted for FF scoring (including a bonus for 20 yrd runs). It does not account for RB performance in the passing game, in which case teams like New Orleans and Philadelphia would obviously rank higher than they do:

 

Teams w/ good systems/offensive lines (in order, best first): San Diego, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta, New England, NY Giants, Dallas.

 

Teams w/ bad systems/offensive lines (in order, worst first): Cleveland, Oakland, Detroit, Arizona, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Miami, Green Bay, Buffalo, Minnesota.

 

Teams in probable transistion downward: San Diego (major coaching changes), Kansas City (offensive line age), Pittsburgh (coaching changes), NY Giants (retirement of true feature back), Atlanta (coaching changes and primary RB age)

 

Teams in probable transition upward: Denver (acquisition of feature RB, good system), New England (better WR core = better balance), NY Jets (developing offensive line + new feature RB), New Orleans (great offense that was penalized by 2004 and 2005 years, great RB tandem), St. Louis (great feature RB and balanced attack), San Francisco (good feature RB, developing system).

 

Your input and response would be appreciated.

 

While I do appreciate this thread and the time and thought that went into it, there are a few indicators used that can just as easily be interpreted to go opposite the point they were used to make. For example, while San Diegos offensive line turned out to be one of the better lines in the league last season, they've been fairly consistently poor throughout Tomlinsons career yet his numbers in any of the seasons previous to last year have always been among the leagues best. Also, I'm not sure I would anticipate Norv Turner's taking the job of head coach of the Chargers as a threat to their running game based on his fairly long term history.

 

Certainly system and surrounding personnel play a very significant role, but to undervalue actual player talent would be as much a mistake as undervaluing the system and supporting cast. In regard to offensive lines it's more often than not the health of the starters and number of games played together during a given season where the variations between success and not so much success can be equated together. Running backs on teams that managed six or fewer games with at least four of their five starters on their O-line playing typically finished in the lower half of the league statistically and the correlation becomes more apparent when you look at the teams that managed to have four or more starters from the line playing in ten or more games. Personally, I try to utilize health, talent, supporting cast and lastly sytem when determining my projections. Consider Marshall Faulk as an example. How many other backs playing during his biggest seasons would have produced numbers to match if they were the Rams starter? How well would Faulk have done if Orlando Pace had been out for the season in any of those years? Like I said, the original post is much appreciated but I think there's more to look at too.

[Stalker711 0]

In general, I like the concept. People draft too many good players from crappy teams, and wonder what happened to their FF season.

 

If you rank two players similarly, I almost always prefer to select the one from the better team as I think it reduces downside risk.

[XToday 0]

I'm not trying to be a Green Bay homer, but I wouldn't necessarily consider them a 'bad system'. They use a simpler West-Coast offense, have a very young offensive line who really started to improve down the stretch last season, and I fully expect an improvement at WR this offseason. Not to mention a new, young fullback to open holes.

 

Now... Unless you're considering Favre's inevitable (so they say...) retirement, I think they've got a pretty good system/o-line going. I guess it just depends on who you think will take over for Favre. Rodgers is getting some heat from everyone but the Green Bay Packers. I see him being a lot like Pennington, whom he reminds me of. He won't win games for you, but he sure won't lose them either. IF that is the case, and I admit there are a lot of assumptions here, then any RB in Green Bay should do pretty well over the next several years.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Now with that said, I don't want Turner in Green Bay. Not for a 1st round pick, anyway. Then again, I don't want AP or Lynch, either. I'm hoping they'll go after a guy like Irons or Bush in the 2nd round and use their first for D-line or WR.

[jgcrawfish 232]

List was generated by taking an average of every team's running game for the last 3 years, weighted a bit more heavily for this past season. I am a bit of a pessimist and wrote a successful season last year off to a good run of luck at the right time, and make no mistake, luck in this is important. But I'm always looking at making better decisions, so I started looking at the trends. From a fan perspective, I don't think I ever would have viewed Jacksonville as a powerhouse rushing team, but they indeed are, especially last season. I rode Jones-Drew for all the little bowling-ball was worth. This game seems to adapt and change and the traditionaly "every down back" is very rare nowdays. So I was looking at a way to make up for not having a top 3-5 pick which are the only spots you're basically guaranteed what should be a single-back backfield for the most part. Everybody knows that SatanShannihan turns just about any chump into a 1000 yrd per season rusher, what it doesn't show is how that translates to FF. I used a basic system for allowing pts for rushing yrds per team, rushing td per team, and threw in runs over 20 yrds (which get bonuses in some leagues). Denver churs out tons of yrds, but not much in the way of TD normally. Whereas Jacksonville has an almost identical 3 yr average across the board but benefits heavily due to the TD total for last season. Atlanta is traditionally among the top 3 rushing teams in the league in yardage, and led the league in rushing yards last season, but ranked 20th in FF RB production in my listing for last year due to only 5 rushing TD.

 

Admittedly, the flaw in the ranking is in teams that utilize their back(s) more freqently in a receiving situations, where teams like Philly, New Orleans and even St. Louis would have higher rankings. Receiving TD by RB also isn't factored in.

 

Team 3 Yr Comp Score

San Diego 191.0

Kansas City 171.0

Pittsburgh 131.5

Jacksonville 129.2

Seattle 128.1

Denver 127.1

Atlanta 126.8

New England 124.6

New York (N) 123.9

Dallas 119.7