[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by frozenchief

I’ve posted links to several articles, but the basic premise is a stat called “extra points added” or EPA. The basic gist is “How many extra points did the offense add on that play?” Its based upon analyzing NFL history to determine: in that play, with that down, distance, and distance to goal, what can a reasonable offense expect to get? If the offense gets more, they get a positive EPA. If they get less, they get a negative EPA.

And evidence shows that over the past 15-20 years, the game has substantially shifted to the point that passing plays have generally positive EPAs and running plays have generally negative EPAs. Put another way, the biggest variable in a team’s running game is not the RBs. It is the O line. In fact, the biggest predictor of whether a running play will be successful is not the particular RB. It is instead the O line. The identity of the RB does NOT matter when determining which play or player would be best in a particular situation. That means, if you have a good O line, it does not matter who is your running back. Nor do passes to RBs make up the difference. You’re better off making a WR a RB than a RB a WR.

Argue with me all you want. Tell me I’m having a meltdown (which is somewhat true). Ridicule me. Fine. I’m just saying what the evidence shows. And that evidence shows that a first round pick should be used for players and positions that can contribute a positive EPA.

I’m a big boy. I can take the slings and arrows. And if this guy runs for 4000 yards, feel free to post a link to any of my posts. But if you want offensive production, you’re better off with WRs, TEs, or O-linemen than a RB based upon the current evidence.

(BTW, nobody has challenged my data. Nobody has produced any analysis showing that drafting an RB in the first round is worth it. It’s just “calm down, dude.” That, though, is not an argument.)

I think the basic argument and the reason people aren’t much interested in breaking down the data is because our eyes tell us that if everyone treated and used RBs like Reid then the data would look way different.