GiantsFan11 0 Posted July 17, 2009 What percent of touches out of the "running game" does the top back on a team require in order to not be concidered RBBC? I have defined the "running game" as all running plays and all receptions by RBs on the team. I know this is not the standard definition but since in my leagues the RBs get points for their receptions a reception is as good as a run. Below are some sample numbers Matt Forte had 75% of the touches Steve Slaton had 64% of the touches Adrien Peterson had 64% of the touches Thomas Jones had 63% of the touches Michael Turner had 60% of the touches Ronnie Brown had 50% of the touches Brandon Jacobs had 40% of the touches. Are these numbers surprising? I guess I am just trying to guage how we define RBBC. some cases are obvious but others are debatable and I am looking for consensus (like that happens here) on a definitions Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fantasymind 1 Posted July 17, 2009 The New England Patriots. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Octopus 0 Posted July 17, 2009 I'll go with 60% and above. Some of the percentages you provided may have been higher if not for injury. Turner's numbers are a little skewed due to his lack of receptions. Interestingly enough Matt Waldman who used to write here did a study which showed that so-called RBBCs aren't as prevalant as we think - or more correctly aren't anything new and always existed. Most teams in the 70s and 80s used their back-up (second) RBs more than we probably remembered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stonewall 647 Posted July 18, 2009 I'll go with 60% and above. Sounds right..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray_T 591 Posted July 20, 2009 yeah 60% seems about right. but there are cases where 55% works. especially if its a case where the Team gets way far ahead and pulls the starter on a number of occasions (to prevent injury) if there are a number of games like this for the team (as was the case with the chargers a couple of years back where Turner got a lot of carries when the chargers were up by more than 2 TD's) so dont go strictly by the numbers. look at the reason the RB got less than 60% of the carries and make a call based on that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shutdown 40 Posted July 20, 2009 What percent of touches out of the "running game" does the top back on a team require in order to not be concidered RBBC? I have defined the "running game" as all running plays and all receptions by RBs on the team. I know this is not the standard definition but since in my leagues the RBs get points for their receptions a reception is as good as a run. Below are some sample numbers Matt Forte had 75% of the touches Steve Slaton had 64% of the touches Adrien Peterson had 64% of the touches Thomas Jones had 63% of the touches Michael Turner had 60% of the touches Ronnie Brown had 50% of the touches Brandon Jacobs had 40% of the touches. Are these numbers surprising? I guess I am just trying to guage how we define RBBC. some cases are obvious but others are debatable and I am looking for consensus (like that happens here) on a definitions I think its case by case. A good example of that is Peterson's 64% and Jones 63% and Turners 60%. One could argue none of these are RBBC because they are all at 60% or over. The difference is the weekly utilization. Peterson gets his 20 touches a game every week but every week as part of the gameplan. Jones had some weeks where he got 25 - 30 and some where he got 10 - 15, the plan varied week to week. Turner always got his 20 as well as Atlanta committed to the run last year. You can't really just look at the percentage of touches. Another issue regarding Peterson is the Vikes are a running team so his 63% may represent more touches than Slayton's 64% for Houston that I'd argue is a more balanced team. Another factor is situational utilization. Jacobs 40% may lead you to worry about his stats, but he got nearly all the looks in the goal line situations resulting in a disparity of touches to TD's for Jacobs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmbryant09 1 Posted July 20, 2009 I don't think it should be a % thing - I used to do that, but guys like A.P. at 64% is a bit misleading. I pretty much throw out RBBC, and replace it with team opportunity and individual opportunity. For instance: Ryan Grant will prolly have a higher % then A.P. this year, but Minny will run the ball much more, most likely leading to more touches for AP, which is what we are all after. A RB getting 65% of the touches on a team that runs/throws to RBs 600 times is in line for 390 touches. A RB getting 75% of the touches on a team that runs/throws to RBs 450 times is in line for 337.5 touches. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parja 0 Posted July 22, 2009 What percent of touches out of the "running game" does the top back on a team require in order to not be concidered RBBC? I have defined the "running game" as all running plays and all receptions by RBs on the team. I know this is not the standard definition but since in my leagues the RBs get points for their receptions a reception is as good as a run. Below are some sample numbers Matt Forte had 75% of the touches Steve Slaton had 64% of the touches Adrien Peterson had 64% of the touches Thomas Jones had 63% of the touches Michael Turner had 60% of the touches Ronnie Brown had 50% of the touches Brandon Jacobs had 40% of the touches. Are these numbers surprising? I guess I am just trying to guage how we define RBBC. some cases are obvious but others are debatable and I am looking for consensus (like that happens here) on a definitions Where are you getting your numbers? I spot checked Forte, Slaton, and AP with the info that I have and Forte came out to 79% (379 of 480 touches by RBs), Slaton came out to 87% (318 of 362), and AP was 70% (385 of 553). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GiantsFan11 0 Posted July 22, 2009 Chicago ran 434 running plays (I did not limit them to just RB running plays) and the RBs had 83 receptions for 517 total plays. 379/517 is where I got 75%. I assume you took out the rushing plays by QBs and WRs, but I left those in as a QB that runs the ball can vulture as many carries as a change of pace RB. Thigpen for example rushed for 386 yards and 3 TDs last year...Those TDs could make a big difference to the Larry Johnson owners A good case could be made for either of our sets of numbers, I was just trying to figure out when do I worry about RBBC and when do I discout it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parja 0 Posted July 23, 2009 Chicago ran 434 running plays (I did not limit them to just RB running plays) and the RBs had 83 receptions for 517 total plays. 379/517 is where I got 75%. I assume you took out the rushing plays by QBs and WRs, but I left those in as a QB that runs the ball can vulture as many carries as a change of pace RB. Thigpen for example rushed for 386 yards and 3 TDs last year...Those TDs could make a big difference to the Larry Johnson owners A good case could be made for either of our sets of numbers, I was just trying to figure out when do I worry about RBBC and when do I discout it Ahh, ok. That would be it. Interesting to see the percentage difference when you only take the touches by RBs into account. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nobody 2,044 Posted July 23, 2009 The traditional RBBC definition is based on the percentage of times a certain runningback gets the ball when a ball goes to a runningback. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
