$8 million+ RB's since 2010

[Catsfan69]

5 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

13 years.    Lolololololololol

That's how long those guys played 11 and 13.

[mrcompletely11]

1 minute ago, Catsfan69 said:

That's how long those guys played 11 and 13.

Cmac ain’t sniffing that.  

[Catsfan69]

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Cmac ain’t sniffing that.  

That's why I said earlier if he doesn't decide to pull a Luke or Tiki and retire early.

[kungfoodude]

40 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. 

 

Let's see how that breaks down. I did this for Peppers years ago when some doofus Saints fan tried to compare Chicken Legs Jordan to him.

Rushing Yards

CMC: 61.7 career YPG
Faulk: 69.8 career YPG
LT: 80.5 career YPG

Games to reach Faulk: 148(9.25 seasons)
Games to reach Tomlinson: 171(10.67 seasons)

CMC: 0.57 career Rush TD/G
Faulk: 0.57 career Rush TD/G
LT: 0.85 career Rush TD/G

Games to reach Faulk: 125 games(7.81 seasons)
Games to reach Tomlinson: 204 games(12.72 seasons)

Receiving Yards

CMC: 52.4 career YPG
Faulk: 39.1 career YPG
LT: 28.1 career YPG

Games to reach Faulk: 81(5 seasons)
Games to reach Tomlinson: 40(2.5 seasons)

CMC: 0.31 career Rec TD/G
Faulk: 0.20 career Rec TD/G
LT: 0.1 career Rec TD/G

Games to reach Faulk: 65(4.03 seasons)
Games to reach LT: 4(0.25 seasons)

Total Yards

CMC: 114.1 career YPG
Faulk: 108.8 career YPG
LT: 108.6 career YPG

Games to reach Faulk: 111 games(6.92 seasons)
Games to reach LT: 111 games(6.92 seasons)

Total TDs

CMC: 0.88 career total TD/GM
Faulk: 0.77 career total TD/GM
LT: 0.95 career total TD/GM

Games to reach Faulk: 104(6.46 seasons)
Games to reach LT: 133 games(8.30 seasons)

So, the biggest question will be his longevity. As you can see here, both of these guys played 11-12 years in the NFL, so he needs to be able to maintain or exceed his level of production for the next 6-9 seasons to be able to surpass their total yards or TD's. You are correct that he is quickly walking down their receiving production, although he is pretty far off the pace in rushing yardage. 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by kungfoodude

[kungfoodude]

19 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

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

The $8 mil was arbitrary based on looking at the salaries during that period. That seemed to really be the line that differentiated the high paid backs from the rest of the crowd. What is actually surprising is how those numbers have actually trended somewhat downward over the years. It will tick upward the next two seasons, assuming there are not restructures or cuts that happen. 

The issue with cap percentage is that the cap has raised significantly in the past 10 years and setting a percentage might be challenging. If you set it based on some of the top 5 guys from the 2010-2013 range, it might exclude a lot of backs in the 2016-2020 range. 

I don't know if you can cleanly accomplish your last bullet point only because the dataset would be MASSIVE. That would take some serious time to deduce, although it does sound like an interesting idea. I think you have to also adjust for cap percentage usage, as well. 

[Catsfan69]

4 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Let's see how that breaks down. I did this for Peppers years ago when some doofus Saints fan tried to compare Chicken Legs Jordan to him.

Rushing Yards

CMC: 61.7 career YPG
Faulk: 69.8 career YPG
LT: 80.5 career YPG

Games to reach Faulk: 148(9.25 seasons)
Games to reach Tomlinson: 171(10.67 seasons)

CMC: 0.57 career Rush TD/G
Faulk: 0.57 career Rush TD/G
LT: 0.85 career Rush TD/G

Games to reach Faulk: 125 games(7.81 seasons)
Games to reach Tomlinson: 204 games(12.72 seasons)

Receiving Yards

CMC: 52.4 career YPG
Faulk: 39.1 career YPG
LT: 28.1 career YPG

Games to reach Faulk: 81(5 seasons)
Games to reach Tomlinson: 40(2.5 seasons)

CMC: 0.31 career Rec TD/G
Faulk: 0.20 career Rec TD/G
LT: 0.1 career Rec TD/G

Games to reach Faulk: 65(4.03 seasons)
Games to reach LT: 4(0.25 seasons)

Total Yards

CMC: 114.1 career YPG
Faulk: 108.8 career YPG
LT: 108.6 career YPG

Games to reach Faulk: 111 games(6.92 seasons)
Games to reach LT: 111 games(6.92 seasons)

Total TDs

CMC: 0.88 career total TD/GM
Faulk: 0.77 career total TD/GM
LT: 0.95 career total TD/GM

Games to reach Faulk: 104(6.46 seasons)
Games to reach LT: 133 games(8.30 seasons)

So, the biggest question will be his longevity. As you can see here, both of these guys played 11-12 years in the NFL, so he needs to be able to maintain or exceed his level of production for the next 6-9 seasons to be able to surpass their total yards or TD's. You are correct that he is quickly walking down their receiving production, although he is pretty far off the pace in rushing yardage. 

 

Which is what I said.

If he plays long enough. 

I don't want to lose him. It's not his fault he's payed what he is.

Yes I want a QB. We desperately need one. I just don't want to pay so much in picks to get Watson as what some of the rumors are. 

It'd be like getting a big ol house and not having furniture. 

Fng idiots just had to bring in Teddy last year. I knew this was going to happen. I predicted 5 games and told the world he would cost us Lawrence. 

 

[Ricky Spanish]

2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

The $8 mil was arbitrary based on looking at the salaries during that period. That seemed to really be the line that differentiated the high paid backs from the rest of the crowd. What is actually surprising is how those numbers have actually trended somewhat downward over the years. It will tick upward the next two seasons, assuming there are not restructures or cuts that happen. 

The issue with cap percentage is that the cap has raised significantly in the past 10 years and setting a percentage might be challenging. If you set it based on some of the top 5 guys from the 2010-2013 range, it might exclude a lot of backs in the 2016-2020 range. 

I don't know if you can cleanly accomplish your last bullet point only because the dataset would be MASSIVE. That would take some serious time to deduce, although it does sound like an interesting idea. I think you have to also adjust for cap percentage usage, as well. 

Most definitely. I think there would need to be multiple sheets most likely with some references to the salary cap on any given year. It would still be super fun to play with. 

[kungfoodude]

24 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

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.

And I would have been okay tagging him twice. At that point, you are likely past his prime and it's easy to move on. Then you take five relatively inexpensive years and have two expensive years(although less than his average contract now). Remember that CMC was a top 10 draft pick so he has actually been a top 10 paid RB in the NFL almost his entire career. That's a big downside of taking a RB in the top 10 like that.

I am not advocating for jettisoning him now. It would be detrimental to what we are doing. However, if he is banged up the next two seasons, I will be rattling sabers to cut him. We can't keep investing bad money in players that can't stay healthy(see KK). 

[kungfoodude]

17 minutes ago, ECHornet said:

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

It's rarer for QB's to put up video game numbers in losing efforts than it is for RB's to put up video game numbers in losing efforts in the modern NFL. 

We will get to see a good example of how that works out in Los Angeles this year. Matt Stafford is a top 10 QB that has been on a dumpster fire of a franchise. I'll be curious to see how that works out.

The biggest issue with RB's is that they rarely change teams in their prime, because their effective years are so unbelievably short. By the time CMC's contract is up(assuming he makes it to that), he'll likely be a shell of himself. That's just the way it goes for RB's in the NFL. 

[kungfoodude]

15 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

That's why I said earlier if he doesn't decide to pull a Luke or Tiki and retire early.

Not making it to 11 to 12 years isn't retiring early. RB's have an average career length of 2.7 seasons in the NFL. It is rare for them to play even 10 years. 

[kungfoodude]

6 minutes ago, Catsfan69 said:

Which is what I said.

If he plays long enough. 

I don't want to lose him. It's not his fault he's payed what he is.

Yes I want a QB. We desperately need one. I just don't want to pay so much in picks to get Watson as what some of the rumors are. 

It'd be like getting a big ol house and not having furniture. 

Fng idiots just had to bring in Teddy last year. I knew this was going to happen. I predicted 5 games and told the world he would cost us Lawrence. 

 

Oh I am in no way shape or form mad at HIM for taking that deal. Get your money. I am mad at Marty Hurney and our front office at the time for making such an unbelievably boneheaded decision. There was absolutely no reason to sign him with 2 years remaining on his deal and had we just not done that, we'd probably not be paying the ridiculous sum that we are now. But, that is Hurney 101, dump unholy money into positions of lower value or guys that don't deserve it(and this is definitely not CMC).  

Yeah, CMC is the second dumbest contract we have. Teddy is by far the dumbest.

[kungfoodude]

8 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

Most definitely. I think there would need to be multiple sheets most likely with some references to the salary cap on any given year. It would still be super fun to play with. 

That is probably better off being a programmed or database thing. It would probably choke Excel. 

[CRA]

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.

LT2 came into the NFL and routinely put up 2000k seasons.  I considered him the first true video game RB.  Run, catch and throw. Chargers also only posted two losing seasons while he was there. 

Love CMC, but longevity is the only way to get in those talks.  But he would have to get a better to pass LT2.

[Catsfan69]

14 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

It's rarer for QB's to put up video game numbers in losing efforts than it is for RB's to put up video game numbers in losing efforts in the modern NFL. 

We will get to see a good example of how that works out in Los Angeles this year. Matt Stafford is a top 10 QB that has been on a dumpster fire of a franchise. I'll be curious to see how that works out.

The biggest issue with RB's is that they rarely change teams in their prime, because their effective years are so unbelievably short. By the time CMC's contract is up(assuming he makes it to that), he'll likely be a shell of himself. That's just the way it goes for RB's in the NFL. 

Or he could still be ticking ala Walter Payton and Adrian Peterson.