What Does A RBBC Mean To You? (1 Viewer)

[DawnBTVS]

In perusing the board for a few years now, I've seen the rise of the term "®unning (B)ack (B)y ©ommittee" and several posters mention that it is on the rise or is likely featured in roughly 70-80% of teams. In prominent discussions about rookies, RB roles, and contract offers I've also seen stud names mentioned as being in RBBCs as well as injury rotations being referred to as RBBCs.

So, in the eyes of fellow FBGers, what constitutes a RBBC? Is it merely a 3rd Down back replacing the main RB? Do distributions in carries/receptions impact you more? If there is an injury situation, will that lead to a RBBC term even if a true starter emerges? Is it merely the number of players at the position that get a touch (such as Mike Goodson suddenly emerging in Carolina for a 3 headed RB group)? Does there have to be 2 RBs involved or do you need upwards of 3 or even 4 before you use the term?

Here's a comparison of several teams... some arguably a RBBC situation and others usually not mentioned as such.

Atlanta Falcons: Michael Turner had 334 carries but just 12 catches. Backup Jason Snelling had just 87 carries but 44 catches. Is this a RBBC?

Buffalo Bills: Fred Jackson had 222 carries and 31 catches. Backup CJ Spiller had just 74 carries but 24 catches. Is this a RBBC?

Jacksonville Jaguars: Maurice Jones-Drew had 299 carries and 34 catches. Backup Rashad Jennings had just 84 carries but 26 catches. Is this a RBBC?

Minnesota Vikings: Adrian Peterson had 283 carries and 36 catches. Backup Toby Gerhart had just 81 carries but 21 catches. Is this a RBBC?

New England Patriots: BenJarvus Green-Ellis had 229 carries but just 12 catches. Backup Danny Woodhead had just 97 carries but 34 catches. NE tends to more commonly be referred to as a RBBC situation, even during the 2010 Season.

It seems that most backups are getting about 60-90 carries during the season and 20-30 catches. That comes out to roughly 5 touches at the low end or 8 touches at the high end per game. It also seems that most starters are getting around 18-21 touches a game now, in part because the backups are getting more touches.

This is not drastically different from the 70's, 80's (San Francisco), and even some of the 90's (Dallas) though. The big difference seems to be that instead of the starter getting 330+ carries and the backup(s) getting 50-60 combined, now the starter is getting 280-290 and a single backup is getting 75-90.

Bonus Question: How much of a role does the passing game have and has it had a positive effect on the RB position as a whole?

 

[BuckeyeArt]

In perusing the board for a few years now, I've seen the rise of the term "®unning (B)ack (B)y ©ommittee" and several posters mention that it is on the rise or is likely featured in roughly 70-80% of teams. In prominent discussions about rookies, RB roles, and contract offers I've also seen stud names mentioned as being in RBBCs as well as injury rotations being referred to as RBBCs.

So, in the eyes of fellow FBGers, what constitutes a RBBC? Is it merely a 3rd Down back replacing the main RB? Do distributions in carries/receptions impact you more? If there is an injury situation, will that lead to a RBBC term even if a true starter emerges? Is it merely the number of players at the position that get a touch (such as Mike Goodson suddenly emerging in Carolina for a 3 headed RB group)? Does there have to be 2 RBs involved or do you need upwards of 3 or even 4 before you use the term?

Here's a comparison of several teams... some arguably a RBBC situation and others usually not mentioned as such.

Atlanta Falcons: Michael Turner had 334 carries but just 12 catches. Backup Jason Snelling had just 87 carries but 44 catches. Is this a RBBC?

Buffalo Bills: Fred Jackson had 222 carries and 31 catches. Backup CJ Spiller had just 74 carries but 24 catches. Is this a RBBC?

Jacksonville Jaguars: Maurice Jones-Drew had 299 carries and 34 catches. Backup Rashad Jennings had just 84 carries but 26 catches. Is this a RBBC?

Minnesota Vikings: Adrian Peterson had 283 carries and 36 catches. Backup Toby Gerhart had just 81 carries but 21 catches. Is this a RBBC?

New England Patriots: BenJarvus Green-Ellis had 229 carries but just 12 catches. Backup Danny Woodhead had just 97 carries but 34 catches. NE tends to more commonly be referred to as a RBBC situation, even during the 2010 Season.

It seems that most backups are getting about 60-90 carries during the season and 20-30 catches. That comes out to roughly 5 touches at the low end or 8 touches at the high end per game. It also seems that most starters are getting around 18-21 touches a game now, in part because the backups are getting more touches.

This is not drastically different from the 70's, 80's (San Francisco), and even some of the 90's (Dallas) though. The big difference seems to be that instead of the starter getting 330+ carries and the backup(s) getting 50-60 combined, now the starter is getting 280-290 and a single backup is getting 75-90.

Bonus Question: How much of a role does the passing game have and has it had a positive effect on the RB position as a whole?

I think it's one of those thinks that is hard to quantify but you know it when you see it.As a rough estimate, I'd say if the lead RB gets 75% of the RB touches, then it's not a RBBC.

 

[zilladog]

This is a very enlightening post. In the fantasy circles I frequent, Atlanta, Jax (post Fred Taylor), and Minny have been concidered shining examples of 'single back' teams that feature one guy and are supposedly a dying breed in the NFL. New England, on the other hand, has been a team whose RB's many owners have avoided (until Law Firm last year) because it is notoriously a RBBC team. Yet the numbers don't seem to support the myth. The Jets, however, is a team that seems to have a bonafide RBBC going for it (at least in '09 and '10, '11 may be a diff story altogether) where Shonn Greene had 230 carries and 17 rec. and L.T had 254 car. and 58 rec. I'd be interested to find more teams like the 2010 Jets, because I think the true RBBC's are more rare than many people think.

 

[belljr]

This is a very enlightening post. In the fantasy circles I frequent, Atlanta, Jax (post Fred Taylor), and Minny have been concidered shining examples of 'single back' teams that feature one guy and are supposedly a dying breed in the NFL. New England, on the other hand, has been a team whose RB's many owners have avoided (until Law Firm last year) because it is notoriously a RBBC team. Yet the numbers don't seem to support the myth. The Jets, however, is a team that seems to have a bonafide RBBC going for it (at least in '09 and '10, '11 may be a diff story altogether) where Shonn Greene had 230 carries and 17 rec. and L.T had 254 car. and 58 rec. I'd be interested to find more teams like the 2010 Jets, because I think the true RBBC's are more rare than many people think.

You can't look at just numbers. Peterson was injured 1 full game and parts of others same for MJD.Sure on "paper" it looks like an RBBC but Gerhart only played to give Peterson a breather or injury.

 

[zilladog]

This is a very enlightening post. In the fantasy circles I frequent, Atlanta, Jax (post Fred Taylor), and Minny have been concidered shining examples of 'single back' teams that feature one guy and are supposedly a dying breed in the NFL. New England, on the other hand, has been a team whose RB's many owners have avoided (until Law Firm last year) because it is notoriously a RBBC team. Yet the numbers don't seem to support the myth. The Jets, however, is a team that seems to have a bonafide RBBC going for it (at least in '09 and '10, '11 may be a diff story altogether) where Shonn Greene had 230 carries and 17 rec. and L.T had 254 car. and 58 rec. I'd be interested to find more teams like the 2010 Jets, because I think the true RBBC's are more rare than many people think.

You can't look at just numbers. Peterson was injured 1 full game and parts of others same for MJD.Sure on "paper" it looks like an RBBC but Gerhart only played to give Peterson a breather or injury.

I was actually pointing out the opposite. That there are fewer RBBC's than most people think. Below is a list of what I personally would consider RBBC's. Teams that had at least 2 RB's with at least 150 carries each, where all Rb's were running at the same time (rushing splits weren't due to injury):NYJKCMiaTeams that almost made the cut (2 Rb's with 100 carries or more). Some of these teams have a clear RB1 for fantasy owners though, and many probably wouldn't consider them true RBBC's.AriOakCarDalBalChiSeaThat's not alot of teams.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

In perusing the board for a few years now, I've seen the rise of the term "®unning (B)ack (B)y ©ommittee" and several posters mention that it is on the rise or is likely featured in roughly 70-80% of teams. In prominent discussions about rookies, RB roles, and contract offers I've also seen stud names mentioned as being in RBBCs as well as injury rotations being referred to as RBBCs.

So, in the eyes of fellow FBGers, what constitutes a RBBC? Is it merely a 3rd Down back replacing the main RB? Do distributions in carries/receptions impact you more? If there is an injury situation, will that lead to a RBBC term even if a true starter emerges? Is it merely the number of players at the position that get a touch (such as Mike Goodson suddenly emerging in Carolina for a 3 headed RB group)? Does there have to be 2 RBs involved or do you need upwards of 3 or even 4 before you use the term?

Here's a comparison of several teams... some arguably a RBBC situation and others usually not mentioned as such.

Atlanta Falcons: Michael Turner had 334 carries but just 12 catches. Backup Jason Snelling had just 87 carries but 44 catches. Is this a RBBC?

Buffalo Bills: Fred Jackson had 222 carries and 31 catches. Backup CJ Spiller had just 74 carries but 24 catches. Is this a RBBC?

Jacksonville Jaguars: Maurice Jones-Drew had 299 carries and 34 catches. Backup Rashad Jennings had just 84 carries but 26 catches. Is this a RBBC?

Minnesota Vikings: Adrian Peterson had 283 carries and 36 catches. Backup Toby Gerhart had just 81 carries but 21 catches. Is this a RBBC?

New England Patriots: BenJarvus Green-Ellis had 229 carries but just 12 catches. Backup Danny Woodhead had just 97 carries but 34 catches. NE tends to more commonly be referred to as a RBBC situation, even during the 2010 Season.

It seems that most backups are getting about 60-90 carries during the season and 20-30 catches. That comes out to roughly 5 touches at the low end or 8 touches at the high end per game. It also seems that most starters are getting around 18-21 touches a game now, in part because the backups are getting more touches.

This is not drastically different from the 70's, 80's (San Francisco), and even some of the 90's (Dallas) though. The big difference seems to be that instead of the starter getting 330+ carries and the backup(s) getting 50-60 combined, now the starter is getting 280-290 and a single backup is getting 75-90.

Bonus Question: How much of a role does the passing game have and has it had a positive effect on the RB position as a whole?

A RBBC is where two RBs get at least 25% of the carries, typically 30-35%. Clearly a 50-50 split would be a 100% timeshare, but even a 60-40 or 70-30 gets you there. Another decent way to look at it is that both the RB1 and RB2 get 10+ carries or if both backs get 12-13 touches (including the receptions). Feature backs usually get 20-25 or more carries/touches a game. Frank Gore, Steven Jackson are two.

Not all committees are created equally. Some have roles (3rd down back, goal line/short yardage, etc.) where the second back gives the first guy a rest.

A RBBC doesn't always mean that if RB1 gets hurt, the RB2 is the featured guy. Case in point was Dallas in 2009 - MB3, Felix Jones and T. Choice were all on the roster. If MB3 got hurt, Choice would take his touches, but Felix Jones remained in the same role despite being RB2.

To answer your team questions:

Here's a comparison of several teams... some arguably a RBBC situation and others usually not mentioned as such.

Atlanta Falcons: Michael Turner had 334 carries but just 12 catches. Backup Jason Snelling had just 87 carries but 44 catches. Is this a RBBC?

Atlanta - Not a RBBC. Snelling was a role player with 3rd down/passing down job. Snelling had 27.5% of the touches.

Buffalo Bills: Fred Jackson had 222 carries and 31 catches. Backup CJ Spiller had just 74 carries but 24 catches. Is this a RBBC?

Buffalo - More of a RBBC but not entirely. Heading in that direction though. FJax had 72.1% of the touches, so Spiller didn't get 30%.

Jacksonville Jaguars: Maurice Jones-Drew had 299 carries and 34 catches. Backup Rashad Jennings had just 84 carries but 26 catches. Is this a RBBC?

Same deal here - plus keep in mind MJD was hurt the last week. MJD had 333 touches (75.2%), Jennings 110 (24.8%).

Minnesota Vikings: Adrian Peterson had 283 carries and 36 catches. Backup Toby Gerhart had just 81 carries but 21 catches. Is this a RBBC?

Again, no. Injury did factor in and ADP needed a play or two (or short series) off each game. With him getting 319 touches (75.8%), that's still a strong lead back.

New England Patriots: BenJarvus Green-Ellis had 229 carries but just 12 catches. Backup Danny Woodhead had just 97 carries but 34 catches. NE tends to more commonly be referred to as a RBBC situation, even during the 2010 Season.

BJGE = 241 touches (64.8%)

Woodhead = 131 (35.2%)

That's in the RBBC area.

So a feature back has to get both over 70% of the touches (likely 75% or more) and over 300 touches for the team. RBBCs tend to be 65-35 or closer.

 

[Keepers]

Some good analysis, though it looks like you are eliminating some teams from the RBBC list and lumping them in with non RBBCs simply because they had some injuries, teams like GB, NO, Tampa, Detroit, Washington, Indy, and SD. Of this group maybe Detroit won't be a RBBC in the future but the others I would consider RBBCs.

For many teams there is not a clear #2 guy, yet the #1 guy still had less than 60 or 65% of the touches which to me is a RBBC. Also in a case like BJGE in NE, don't think we can ignore the touches Taylor and Morris had (72 between them). It may be easier to identify which teams have a clear #1 RB and define what that means (more than 70% of the touches?, 75%?) and would add guys like Gore who we know will reach that plateau.

 

[ZWK]

As a rough approximation, I'd say that a RB who gets over 70% of his team's RB touches when he plays is a RB1 who is not in a committee. Any team that does not have a RB over 70% is a RBBC. As an even simpler approximation (which is easier to calculate), we could say that any RB with over 20 touches/game is a true lead back.

Last year there were 13 RBs who went over 20 touches/game. Nine of them were unsurprising:

Maurice Jones-Drew JAC 23.9

Steven Jackson STL 23.5

Ray Rice BAL 23.2

Frank Gore SF 22.6

Chris Johnson TEN 22.5

Cedric Benson CIN 21.8

Rashard Mendenhall PIT 21.7

Michael Turner ATL 21.6

Adrian Peterson MIN 21.3

The other four were surprises who emerged from a potential committee:

Arian Foster HOU 24.5

Darren McFadden OAK 20.8

Peyton Hillis CLE 20.7

Ahmad Bradshaw NYG 20.2

And another 4 RBs came close to the cutoff and could at least be considered borderline RB1's:

LeSean McCoy PHI 19.0

Ryan Torain WAS 18.2

Matt Forte CHI 18.0

LeGarrette Blount TB 15.8 (18.5 over the last 10 games)

(Tomlinson was the only other RB over 18 touches/game - he had 18.1 - but he was clearly in a committee. The Jets just ran a lot.)

So about half the league had a full-fledged RBBC, a quarter of the league predictably had a true lead back, and a quarter of the league was at risk of a RBBC but ended up with a lead back or at least a borderline RB1.

 

[menobrown]

I consider it a RBBC when one of the two are at play:

1. Total team fantasy RB points are strong but the workload is split so that no one is an appealing starting lineup option.

and/or

2. Strong variance from week to week as to which RB on the team will produce better fantasy numbers.

 

[dickey moe]

Is Jamaal Charles the ultimate RBBC back to have then? Low numbers of touches, low wear and tear, but still producing RB1 numbers.