Fantasy Football Today - fantasy football rankings, cheatsheets, and information
A Fantasy Football Community!




Create An Account  |  Advertise  |  Contact      







Staff Writer
Email Matt

Matt's Articles

The Weekly Gut Check - Vol. 65
Workload Splits For Runners
7/4/06

Rookie Scouting Portfolio The “Gut Feeling” is often synonymous with a sense of desperation resulting from a lack of preparation. The Gut Check is a huge proponent of studying the numbers, but there’s a point where one can place too much emphasis on the wrong information. This can result in the undervaluing or overlooking a player’s potential. Therefore, The Weekly Gut Check is devoted to examining the frame of reference behind certain number-driven guidelines that fantasy football owners use to make decisions.

Although The Weekly Gut Check doesn’t claim to be psychic, he does believe that he can dispel certain numbers biases and help you make the best choices for your team. We’ll keep a running tally of The Weekly Gut Check’s insights. This way you can gauge his views as something to seriously consider, or at least seriously consider running the opposite way as fast as you can!


One of the more common questions radio hosts ask The Gut Check during preseason and in-season segments concerns the dreaded, running back by committee (RBBC) that is seemingly taking over the NFL. NFL analysts continue to indicate there is a trend away from feature backs and it is a foregone conclusion that an increasing number of teams are moving to this approach.

Teams will always use a running back by committee approach. The key to understanding how the term relates to fantasy value is not to make assumptions and get answers to some important questions. What is the average workload shared among runners on a depth chart? Is there a trend moving in either direction? If so, how should this impact a fantasy owner’s draft strategy?

Let’s start with the league overall. The table below shows the average rushing totals for the top three ground gainers on an NFL team between 2003-2005 regardless of position:

Avg Rushing Totals - Top 3 RBs: 2002-2005
NFL Avg 2003-2005 Att Yds R TDs  Att/G Yds/G Yds/Att % Att % Yds/G %TDs
#1 RB 253.11 1073.61 7.58 17.69 74.81 4.17 56% 58% 54%
#2 RB 89.54 362.21 2.55 7.13 28.61 4.02 20% 20% 21%
#3 RB 43.86 163.27 1.31 3.99 14.88 3.56 10% 9% 10%

On the surface, it doesn’t appear there is much of a trend moving towards RBBC. In fact, the primary ground gainer on an NFL team has nearly 3 times the productivity of the second-leading rusher behind him in terms of attempts, yards, and rushing touchdowns. These numbers weren’t hard to compile, so why is the committee approach still often seen as an inevitable thing?

The Gut Check believes when the general sports fan listens to journalists and analysts harp on the idea that NFL teams need two good backs on a team, he infers from the statement that the coach desires to have a committee approach. This assumption is incorrect: Most teams want a feature back that can stay on the field in passing situations and carry the ball enough times to wear out a defense in the 2nd half. In fact, they want a back that can accomplish these two objectives with a high degree of consistency for hopefully 19 or 20 games.

The reason why teams need two good backs has more to do with this last statement. The position of running back is one of the most punishing in football. The average career for a runner is among the shortest of any position. A starting RB missing time during a season has a noticeable impact on the productivity of a team’s ground game. That’s the true nature of a “ committee” for most teams. If the team doesn’t have a feature back, or loses their star and doesn’t have an adequate substitute, then a committee will be the course of action.

Avg. Number of Games per RB x Production
 Yds  2003  2004  2005  Avg
1400+ 15.44 15.83 15.88 15.7
1200-1399 15.20 15.00 15.50 15.2
1000-1199 14.75 14.25 14.50 14.5
>1000 13.92 12.86 13.19 13.3
Between 2003-2005, the average starting runner that gained at least 1400 yards for his team played in nearly 2.5 more games than the starting runner with less than 1000 total yards. It is becoming rapidly clear that having two good runners on a team is more about a team anticipating the first not able to play every game in a season. It has little to do with splitting time equitably between them. There are exceptions to this statement but generally, a situation where teams split the workload between two or more runners is more often due to the starter suffering an injury and not a pre-determined plan.

Only Denver and Miami appeared to have a true plan to split the workload between their top two runners. The rest of the teams where the 2nd back account for at least 30% of the rushing game did this by necessity in 2005. This was no different in 2004. Even Pittsburgh intended to use Bettis more as a goal line option and not an every down back, but Staley’s injury increased the Bus’ workload.

The exception was 2003 and that year might be the reason for so much hype surrounding the committee approach. There were five teams that had a pre-determined plan to use a backfield by committee and stuck with it:

Tampa Bay
Last Pos G Att Yds R Tds Att/G Yds/G Yds/Att % Att %Yds/G %Tds
Pittman rb 16 187 751 0 11.69 46.94 4.02 44.42% 45.57% 0.00%
Jones rb 16 137 627 3 8.56 39.19 4.58 32.54% 38.05% 60.00%
Stecker rb 16 37 125 0 2.31 7.81 3.38 8.79% 7.58% 0.00%
Alstott rb 4 27 77 2 6.75 19.25 2.85 6.41% 4.67% 40.00%
Johnson qb 16 25 33 0 1.56 2.06 1.32 5.94% 2.00% 0.00%
King qb 3 4 20 0 1.33 6.67 5.00 0.95% 1.21% 0.00%

When Thomas Jones bolted for Chicago, Jon Gruden made his disappointment well known. After a year with Pittman as the main back, Tampa drafted Cadillac Williams to be the feature back. Some fantasy owners cited Jon Gruden’s tendency to use an RBBC in Oakland as a reason why Pittman and Cadillac would have a much more equitable split. Yet despite missing significant time with injury, Williams was clearly the go to guy in this offense with at least 3 times the workload and production to Pittman in every rushing category. Don’t look for this to be any different in 2006. In hindsight, Tampa only used a committee because they didn’t feel they had a clear cut feature back until Jones’ stretch run, but the former 1st round pick out of UVA left for the Windy City.

Oakland
Last Pos G Att Yds R Tds Att/G Yds/G Yds/Att % Att %Yds/G %Tds
Wheatley rb 15 159 678 4 10.6 45.2 4.26 37.59% 37.21% 26.67%
Garner rb 14 120 553 3 8.57 39.5 4.61 28.37% 30.35% 20.00%
Crockett rb 16 48 145 7 3 9.06 3.02 11.35% 7.96% 46.67%
Fargas rb 10 40 203 0 4 20.3 5.08 9.46% 11.14% 0.00%
Mirer qb 9 20 83 1 2.22 9.22 4.15 4.73% 4.56% 6.67%
Redmond rb 1 9 30 0 9 30 3.33 2.13% 1.65% 0.00%
Gannon qb 7 6 18 0 0.86 2.57 3 1.42% 0.99% 0.00%
Tuiasosopo qb 4 6 22 0 1.5 5.5 3.67 1.42% 1.21% 0.00%
Martin qb 2 5 28 0 2.5 14 5.6 1.18% 1.54% 0.00%
Johnson qb 4 3 21 0 0.75 5.25 7 0.71% 1.15% 0.00%

Oakland used situational backs and wound up with a high first round pick to invest in Robert Gallery the following year. The year after, they signed Lamont Jordan to be their feature guy in the backfield. Jordan responded with over 75% of the ground game’s production despite fantasy owner’s fears that Zack Crockett would vulture goal line carries. Crockett accounted for only 9% of the rushing scores, Jordan had over 80%. Lamont Jordan is just getting started…

Philadelphia
Last Pos G Att Yds R Tds Att/G Yds/G Yds/Att % Att %Yds/G %Tds
Buckhalter rb 15 126 542 8 8.4 36.13 4.3 30.22% 26.90% 34.78%
Westbrook rb 15 117 613 7 7.8 40.87 5.24 28.06% 30.42% 30.43%
Staley rb 16 96 463 5 6 28.94 4.82 23.02% 22.98% 21.74%
McNabb qb 16 71 355 3 4.44 22.19 5 17.03% 17.62% 13.04%
Ritchie rb 16 1 1 0 0.06 0.06 1 0.24% 0.05% 0.00%

Philadelphia was the ultimate committee, but each back wanted to be the man. Staley bolted across state, Buckhalter hasn’t been able to stay healthy, and Westbrook emerged as the team’s offensive centerpiece. Although Ryan Moats should become a solid complement in the backfield, a healthy Westbrook should see well over 50% of the ground game’s workload in 2006.

New England
Last Pos G Att Yds R Tds Att/G Yds/G Yds/Att % Att %Yds/G %Tds
Smith rb 13 182 642 3 14 49.38 3.53 38.48% 39.95% 33.33%
Faulk rb 15 178 638 0 11.87 42.53 3.58 37.63% 39.70% 0.00%
Brady qb 16 42 63 1 2.63 3.94 1.5 8.88% 3.92% 11.11%
Cloud rb 5 27 118 5 5.4 23.6 4.37 5.71% 7.34% 55.56%
Centers rb 9 21 82 0 2.33 9.11 3.9 4.44% 5.10% 0.00%
Pass rb 13 6 27 0 0.46 2.08 4.5 1.27% 1.68% 0.00%
McCrary rb 6 3 3 0 0.5 0.5 1 0.63% 0.19% 0.00%

The Patriots had a very even split between Antowain Smith and Kevin Faulk on their way to a glorious 2003 season. Instead of maintaining that winning formula in 2004, they acquired Corey Dillon in free agency. The former Bengal only dominated the Patriots’ ground game on their way to another Super Bowl victory. Dillon’s numbers slid in 2005 because of a leg injury, but he was still nearly 50% of the rushing offense in terms of attempts and yardage (and 75% of the scores via the run). Laurence Maroney was drafted to eventually succeed Dillon, but look for the rookie to be used mainly as a complement to Dillon. If Dillon doesn’t come close to regaining his 2004 form, look for the roles to switch. Only then will Maroney be the main cog in the running game.

San Francisco
Last Pos G Att Yds R Tds Att/G Yds/G Yds/Att % Att %Yds/G %Tds
Barlow rb 16 201 1024 6 12.56 64 5.09 40.28% 44.93% 37.50%
Hearst rb 12 178 768 3 14.83 64 4.31 35.67% 33.70% 18.75%
Garcia qb 13 56 319 7 4.31 24.54 5.7 11.22% 14.00% 43.75%
Robertson rb 9 32 136 0 3.56 15.11 4.25 6.41% 5.97% 0.00%
Beasley rb 16 17 24 0 1.06 1.5 1.41 3.41% 1.05% 0.00%

The Hearst-Barlow combo was a fairly equitable split. The Niners clearly thought Barlow was ready to assume the role of starter, which was the reason they let Hearst go prior to 2004. Barlow accounted for most of 2004’s ground game, but his numbers were disappointing. Enter a new coaching regime and rookie runner Frank Gore in 2005 and once again, Barlow split time and often looked like the lesser back. Look for Mike Nolan to give Gore every opportunity to win the job—the 2nd year back from Miami averaged nearly 1.5 yards more per carry than Barlow.

All five of these teams clearly moved towards acquiring a feature back within two seasons after 2003. The talk of the NFL moving towards a committee system of runners makes little sense from this perspective. One key to landing a good fantasy running back is to pick a player that remains durable throughout the year—that’s generally where the luck factor falls into place. Things you can observe is if the runner is a good fit within the offensive philosophy, or possess an all-around game so when he is on the field in passing situations his presence still makes it believable for the defense to play pass when the call will be run.

Before The Gut Check identifies some of these players, let’s look at the level of production that separates the average from the good, and the good from the great. The Gut Check calculated the workload for the average NFL back within specific yardage tiers.

Leading Rushers Avg. Output and Pct. Of Team Total
NFL Avg
2003-2005
# RBs Att Yds R Tds Att/G Yds/G Yds/Att % Att %Yds/G %Tds Fpts
1400+ 23 340.09 1612.74 13.3 21.69 102.92 4.75 71% 75% 76% 241.1
1200-1399 13 311.85 1280.08 6.46 20.52 84.34 4.14 68% 71% 56% 166.78
1000-1199 16 257.81 1077.38 8.06 17.96 75.31 4.22 58% 59% 60% 156.11
>1000 44 194.61 754.57 4.95 15.04 58.69 3.9 45% 46% 42% 105.18

The producers at the 1400-yard baseline are generally the “stud backs.” They account for nearly three quarters of their team’s rushing offense and are the most sought-after players among fantasy owners. These backs averaged 332 yards more than the next tier of runners. Interestingly enough, this second tier isn’t much more productive than the third tier. Based on the productivity listed, there is a significant gap between the first and second tier and another gap between the third and fourth tier.

 NFL Avg 2003-2005  2003  2004  2005  Avg
1400+ 9 6 8 7.67
1200-1399 5 4 4 4.33
1000-1199 4 8 4 5.33
>1000 14 14 16 14.67
Surprisingly there were nearly as many runners in the first tier over this span of time as there were in the second and third tier combined. This information is one of the reasons why in theory, value-based drafting strategies make sense. Recent history shows there have only been 6-9 stud backs in a given season. This number does increase by 2-3 runners when one includes point per reception scoring systems, but so does the value of stud receivers and tight ends. Of course theory and reality don’t always complement each other. Despite the widespread knowledge of value-based drafting, the Stud RB approach is one of the most common, early round draft strategies in non-auction formats.

Proponents of value-base drafting will argue that Stud RB strategists are drafting to fill the position over those players’ true value. As a result, VBD owners believe the Stud RB strategy can force you to miss out on the best players. On the other hand, if the value-based drafter in a 12-team league picks a couple of receivers or a quarterback-receiver with his first two picks and the rest of the league picks runners, he could wind up with only the lowest tiers of backs on his roster. The VBD owner will often say he’ll just use his great value picks as collateral to trade for a runner. The problem is that owner will need to find someone that will agree to a trade! Even if he does, will the deal net him what he believes his players are worth?

Both strategies have their risks and rewards, but no draft theory will work for you unless you know your league. If you don’t have a bead on the league tendencies prior to the draft, it’s a good idea to look up from your calculations and observe what is actually happening in your draft. Going against the grain can be highly beneficial, but only to a point. The Gut Check has frequently heard experienced owners use the excuse “these backs were grossly over valued, so I loaded up on other positions.” Have these owners ever thought that maybe they grossly over valued their theory at the expense of adjusting to what was actually happening in front of them! We all make mistakes, but blaming a league’s tendency as strange rather than making the adjustment is a cop-out. Intelligence and wisdom are separate qualities. Having a good pre-draft strategy shows intelligence, but demonstrating the ability to use that strategy as a guideline and not the rule shows wisdom.

The point is the Gut Check doesn’t believe these numbers give you a definitive reason to pursue one draft strategy over another. The information thus far shows if anything, the more games a starter plays, the greater he produces in the stat column. A more practical application for this research is to see which players accounted for the highest percentage of their team’s ground attack in key categories. Based on the stats you’ll read about below, The Gut Check believes than in order for you to feel good about your starting backfield, you need to target two runners you think will earn at least 20 attempts per game and rush for at least 1200 yards. 75% of the top 12 scorers on the ground were the all-purpose backs in their offense.

Top 12 Scorers
Last First FF Pts FF Pts w/1
pt per Rec.
Year G GS R Yds R Tds Rec. Rec. Yd Rec. Td Rush Att
Alexander Shaun 363.8 378.8 2005 16 0 1880 27 15 78 1 370
Johnson Larry 335.3 368.3 2005 16 0 1750 20 33 343 1 336
Tomlinson LaDainian 303.2 354.2 2005 16 0 1462 18 51 370 2 339
James Edgerrin 268.3 312.3 2005 15 0 1506 13 44 337 1 360
Davis Stephen 131.4 136.4 2005 13 0 549 12 5 45 0 180
Dillon Corey 169.4 191.4 2005 12 0 733 12 22 181 1 209
Johnson Rudi 226.8 249.8 2005 16 0 1458 12 23 90 0 337
Anderson Mike 200.6 218.6 2005 15 0 1014 12 18 212 1 239
Portis Clinton 239.2 269.2 2005 16 0 1516 11 30 216 0 352
Barber Tiki 305.0 359.0 2005 16 0 1860 9 54 530 2 357
Jordan Lamont 224.8 294.8 2005 14 0 1025 9 70 563 2 272
Jones Thomas 201.8 227.8 2005 15 0 1335 9 26 143 0 314

So what do these backs have in common from a broader perspective?

  • 10 of the 12 (83%) backs had a quarterback with at least 3400 yards passing.

  • 10 of the 12 (83%) backs had a quarterback with at least 20 touchdown throws.

  • 8 of the 12 (67%) backs had a quarterback with at least a 60% completion pct.

  • 11 of the 12 (93%) backs were on an offense with one player (TE or WR) with at least 60 receptions, and another with at least 50 catches.

  • 13 receivers had at least 70 receptions while splitting opportunities with 11 of these backs.

It’s clear most of the top runners last year were on highly productive passing offenses. What someone should take from this is the true meaning of a balanced offense doesn’t mean a close to 50/50 split between run and pass. Balance is more about teams effectively running and passing with high productivity when they choose to do so.

 Player  TDs  % Of Team
Alexander 27 93%
McGahee 5 83%
T. Jones 9 82%
Jordan 9 82%
Tomlinson 18 82%
R. Johnson 12 80%
L. Johnson 20 77%
Dillon 12 75%
Portis 11 73%
James 13 72%
Which categories might help a fantasy owner determine which backs will be stud runners? The chart to the right displays the runners that accounted for the highest percentage of rushing touchdowns for their team in 2005. As you may have noticed, the top yardage runners aren’t always the top scorers. Tiki Barber is nowhere to be found on this list, because Brandon Jacobs accounted for 41% of the Giants rushing scores last year. If you are in league that minimizes yardage, Barber’s value is much lower than his stud status in standard scoring, or point per reception leagues. While Willis McGahee, Thomas Jones, and Lamont Jordan didn’t have awesome touchdown stats they accounted for enough of their teams ground scores to be formidable runners if the rest of the offense can get it into gear. This makes them good, second backs. Jordan may have additional reasons why he could be considered a good #1 back, which the Gut Check will mention later. Look for Edgerrin James to boost Arizona’s red zone offensive production. Even if he isn’t the recipient of as many goal line carries as desired, the passing game will benefit.

 Player  Yds  % Of Team
James 1506 88%
Barber 1860 84%
Droughns 1232 82%
McGahee 1247 78%
Alexander 1880 77%
R. Johnson 1458 76%
L. Jordan 1025 75%
L. Johnson 1750 73%
Tomlinson 1462 71%
Portis 1516 69%
Edgerrin James, Reuben Droughns, and Tiki Barber come up big in the yardage category. Droughns lack of significant rushing scores makes him a lower pick, but he could be of great value if the Browns develop a better red zone offense. Larry Johnson was a fantasy dream during the second half of 2005. It is no wonder many owners will be selecting Johnson among the top 3 backs in 2006. If he weren’t second string to Holmes to begin last season, he might have accounted for 90% of the rushing offense in Kansas City. Seven of the backs in this table also made the first table. While most of them are stud backs, Willis McGahee had an up and down year. He’ll likely be considered a mid-to-low fantasy #2 RB in 2006. McGahee in this area will be a much better value than his top seven ranking by many owners last year.

 Player  Atts  % Of Team
Droughns 309 78%
James 360 77%
McGahee 325 77%
Barber 357 76%
L. Jordan 272 75%
R. Johnson 337 73%
Tomlinson 339 73%
Alexander 370 71%
Portis 352 67%
S. Jackson 254 66%
Leaders in attempts differ little from the top yardage backs. The only new back on the list is the Rams’ Stephen Jackson. There has been some debate about Jackson’s value under new coach Scott Linehan. Some believe the 3rd year back out of Oregon State will finally get a chance to break out in 2006, while others point to the coaching staff’s desire to give Faulk 10-15 touches per game as a reason to downgrade Jackson. The Gut Check believes the Rams offense will have more of a run-pass balance under Linehan, which will mean more attempts across the board for the running game. Faulk will likely get at least half of his opportunities as a receiver. Faulk and Jackson will likely maintain a similar percentage of earned opportunities in the running game. If you believe Jackson gets the kind of attempts per game that Alexander and Barber get, then he’ll definitely be due for a breakout year. Jackson had nearly 17 attempts per game and Barber and Alexander had over 22 attempts per game.

Speaking of attempts per game, let’s focus this much-discussed topic. The Gut Check overhears a lot of fantasy owners correcting each other about the fact that runners rarely get 20 rushes per game. They claim this number is more a sum of rush attempts and targets as receivers. Is this true? Here’s another look at the average output of runners by their tiers of production.

Leading Rushers Avg. Output and Pct. Of Team Total
NFL Avg
2003-2005
# RBs Att Yds R Tds Att/G Yds/G Yds/Att % Att %Yds/G %Tds Fpts
1400+ 23 340.09 1612.74 13.3 21.69 102.92 4.75 71% 75% 76% 241.1
1200-1399 13 311.85 1280.08 6.46 20.52 84.34 4.14 68% 71% 56% 166.78
1000-1199 16 257.81 1077.38 8.06 17.96 75.31 4.22 58% 59% 60% 156.11
>1000 44 194.61 754.57 4.95 15.04 58.69 3.9 45% 46% 42% 105.18

Exactly 60% (36 out of 60) of the starting backs between 2003-2005 averaged at least 20 attempts per game. That number blows away the thought that a 20 rushing attempt per game average is rare. Who got the most opportunities last year?

 Player  Atts
E. James 24.00
Alexander 23.31
Barber 22.31
Portis 22.00
Tomlinson 21.19
R. Johnson 21.06
L. Johnson 21.00
T. Jones 20.93
D. Davis 20.91
C.Williams 20.71
McGahee 20.31
Edgerrin James was the most well fed runner in the NFL last season. But don’t presume it had everything to do with teams keying on Peyton Manning after his record-breaking campaign in 2004. James averaged 20.88 carries per game in 2004 and 23.85 carries in 2003. Although James isn’t the most exciting back in football, he’s one of the most effective—and a reason why The Gut Check has been championing James as a football player. If Colts’ rookie Joseph Addai earns the opportunity to start and receives even 60% of Indy’s rushing attempts from last year (nearly 20% less than James earned), the former LSU Tiger should exceed 1100 yards if he just averages the same yards per carry as his predecessor. Since Addai is much more of a breakaway threat than James, he’ll be in a great situation to be an impact fantasy rookie. Second-year runner Cadillac Williams should take another step forward in 2006. His average was more a product of a prodigious start, poor mid-season, and decent stretch run. A healthy Williams should average at least the same number of attempts and gain more yards. This is a player the Gut Check isn’t seeing owners anoint a top 10 back, but that’s just good news for those of you that, like yours truly, believe Cadillac is capable of much more.

Naturally, attempts per game carries over to consistency of performance. 70% of the backs with a top 10 Crank Score for their position were also in the top 10 for attempts per game.

Last Name First Name G FPG Crank Sub Par Elite RB #1 RB #2
Alexander Shaun 16 22.74 95.21 0.00% 56.25% 87.50% 87.50%
Johnson Larry 16 20.96 77.03 12.50% 56.25% 68.75% 75.00%
Barber Tiki 16 19.06 72.68 0.00% 31.25% 81.25% 87.50%
James Edgerrin 15 17.89 66.78 0.00% 20.00% 80.00% 93.33%
Tomlinson LaDainian 16 18.95 62.65 6.25% 31.25% 62.50% 75.00%
Holmes Priest 7 15.26 54.49 0.00% 28.57% 71.43% 85.71%
Jordan Lamont 14 16.06 52.76 0.00% 21.43% 64.29% 78.57%
Davis Domanick 11 15.21 52.54 0.00% 9.09% 72.73% 90.91%
Portis Clinton 16 14.95 49.4 6.25% 25.00% 62.50% 81.25%
Dillon Corey 12 14.12 46.72 16.67% 8.33% 75.00% 75.00%

Lamont Jordan was the only healthy back that didn’t make the attempts per game short list. If you add Jordan’s 70 receptions to the mix, he’d at least overtake McGahee and Cadillac on total opportunities. The receiving yardage for Jordan puts him within range of being a respectable #1 RB on a fantasy roster.

Based on the numbers, the Gut Check’s advice on selecting starting backs is simple. First, select players that remained healthy throughout the preseason (or leading up to your draft). Next, seek out runners that play on prolific passing offenses because a balanced team keeps the opposing defenses from stacking the line of scrimmage to stop the run. Unless the team is located within a half hour drive of the Rocky Mountains, spend less time worrying about running back committees. Injuries are more often the reason for committees than a coach’s predetermined plan.