$8 million+ RB's since 2010

[kungfoodude]

27 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Yep our offense was “give it to cmac come hell or high water”

403 touches, which was more than any single season that Adrian Peterson had. 

Hmmm....wonder if maybe that is why he spent all year injured?

[BrianS]

50 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I can do the same breakdown for QB's but it will likely be fairly heavily weighted in the QB's favor for obvious reasons. I've done a top 10 QB Super Bowl breakdown before and it was pretty obvious how critical the QB is to getting a title. 

That just isn't the case for RB's or really most positions on the field, in all honesty. 

Sure, but set aside QB for a moment.  Honestly, QB is so obvious it's not even very interesting.  Everyone gets it.

I think the interesting data here would be what positions actually increase your chances over the baseline.  Is it WR?  Is it RB?  DE?  LT?  I'd love to know, I just don't even know where to start to collect all that data.

[kungfoodude]

Just now, BrianS said:

Sure, but set aside QB for a moment.  Honestly, QB is so obvious it's not even very interesting.  Everyone gets it.

I think the interesting data here would be what positions actually increase your chances over the baseline.  Is it WR?  Is it RB?  DE?  LT?  I'd love to know, I just don't even know where to start to collect all that data.

WR would be easy to do a side by side, similar to RB's. The pool would be equally diluted as the RB pool due to multiple players being utilized and less #1 overall WR's. DE would be a little more complex because you really have to agree on what you want to consider critical aspects of their production. Sacks are obvious, QB Pressures and Hits are important, turnovers forced, maybe tackles for loss. That needs some fine tuning before you could do a good comparison.

LT would be extremely difficult. You have to rely on a lot of subjective data to get you there. PBWR, RBWR, PFF ratings, Sacks Allowed, Pressures Allowed, etc. I think OL stats are the most difficult to isolate because they operate so much as a unit that when you have the guy next to you screwing up, it might impact your play pretty considerably. I suppose DT play could be considered that, as well. 

It would probably be easier to judge OL/DL play on the entire unit than specific players, although pass rushers are probably easier to isolate. 

[Catsfan69]

8 hours ago, KillerKat said:

No. He's not. 

He's already only one  receiving td behind LTs career total and only about 1k yds behind as well. 

If he had played this year he probably would have surpassed him this year.

He's just under half as many receiving TDs as Faulk.

Let's not forget that both of those guys had way better QBs than Cmac as well. 

 

[CRA]

16 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Reminds me of the stuff I've seen about hundred million dollar quarterbacks.

I think Roethlisberger and Manning are the only ones to actually win a Super Bowl after getting a hundred million contract.

Granted, Tom Brady kind of skews things.

I would wager the w/l record is a lot better for the 100m QBs though than those RBs listed

[therealmjl]

9 hours ago, Catsfan69 said:

Man OP you really seem to have a grudge against Cmac.

And I hate to inform you that right now he is better than LT or Faulk.

Now if he retires early I will be glad to adjust that statement. 

But right now I wouldn't trade for either of those guys straight up for Cmac.

lolololwat

[Catsfan69]

2 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

Guarantee that dude has never seen LT or Marshall Faulk play other than YouTube. 

I'm 51.

I watched them  both in college on ESPN'S west coast late night games and in the pros.

I've been a Panthers fan since it was announced that we would try to get a team.

Before that I was also a big fan of our USFL bid in the early 80s.

Matter of fact I even attended the exhibition games at Memorial stadium in Charlotte. (Remember that? I think Larry Csonka was part of the ownership group. I remember how big his hands felt when I shook it at the game as a kid. One of my all time favorite backs)

[therealmjl]

10 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

He's already only one  receiving td behind LTs career total and only about 1k yds behind as well. 

If he had played this year he probably would have surpassed him this year.

He's just under half as many receiving TDs as Faulk.

Let's not forget that both of those guys had way better QBs than Cmac as well. 

 

And that's the issue with your stupid skewed statistical rampage. 

Way better QBs are actually going to push the ball downfield, not check it down to a running back 15 times a game. 

[Ricky Spanish]

OK, this is great, super insightful information, HOWEVER I have a few questions and a few tweaks that I would recommend that might improve the data integrity. Also, I would absolutely love to deep dive into this if you have the data available:

• I think a hard number of 8 mil/year is not necessarily the best way to go in terms of determining if paying a RB is good or bad for the team. The cap in 2012 was different in 2020 and paying a RB 8 million today isn't nearly as bad as paying one 8 million even 5 years ago. Instead, at what percentage of overall cap used does the investment into RB become detrimental to the overall record of a team?
• Truth be told, I would love to see the overall cap percentage correlations between winning and losing franchise for all positions (QB, WR, RB, TE, C, G, T, CB, LB, Pass Rusher, S, DT, K, P, LS). At what percentage of the cap allocated to a WR do you start hurting the other areas of the team? At what percentage of a combo of QB and WR does it start hurting the team? etc. etc. 

Like I said, if you have the overall salary of the players, the team's record, and an individual player's stats broken down by year, I would love to dive in and see what the data says in terms of where the best teams allocate their resources. 

@kungfoodude

[CanadianCat]

I get the point the OP is trying to make. Its just really hard to let a player go basically in their prime. 

I can see the value to drafting a RB in rounds 1 or 2 but the (theory) should then be to let them play out their contract and tag then 2x, then draft another RB and start the process over again. 

 

But there are a lot of theories on how to build a team. The newest is to draft a QB in the first round every year because they almost never lose their value coupled with the importance to find a 'franchise guy'. But theory is rarely reality. So I get why we paid CMC.

[BrianS]

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

WR would be easy to do a side by side, similar to RB's. The pool would be equally diluted as the RB pool due to multiple players being utilized and less #1 overall WR's. DE would be a little more complex because you really have to agree on what you want to consider critical aspects of their production. Sacks are obvious, QB Pressures and Hits are important, turnovers forced, maybe tackles for loss. That needs some fine tuning before you could do a good comparison.

LT would be extremely difficult. You have to rely on a lot of subjective data to get you there. PBWR, RBWR, PFF ratings, Sacks Allowed, Pressures Allowed, etc. I think OL stats are the most difficult to isolate because they operate so much as a unit that when you have the guy next to you screwing up, it might impact your play pretty considerably. I suppose DT play could be considered that, as well. 

It would probably be easier to judge OL/DL play on the entire unit than specific players, although pass rushers are probably easier to isolate. 

I was more thinking in terms of positional spending versus post season success.  I tried to do it with Spotrac but apparently that's a "premium" feature.  What positions SHOULD you spend on to achieve post seaons success, again, QB aside since it's stupidly obvious.

[Catsfan69]

10 minutes ago, therealmjl said:

And that's the issue with your stupid skewed statistical rampage. 

Way better QBs are actually going to push the ball downfield, not check it down to a running back 15 times a game. 

The rams fed Faulk the ball alot in the passing game. Not just swing passes and screens. 

You give Cmac the 11 to 13 yrs they had and touches and he will obliterate them. 

[mrcompletely11]

4 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

The rams fed Faulk the ball alot in the passing game. Not just swing passes and screens. 

You give Cmac the 11 to 13 yrs they had and touches and he will obliterate them. 

13 years.    Lolololololololol

[ECHornet]

1 hour ago, Malt Liquor said:

And as much as I love CMC as a football player. What was the Panthers record when CMC had his 1,000 yds rushing and receiving? And did the Panthers go to the playoffs?

Isn’t this the same as saying what was Watson’s record last year while putting up elite stats?