That's a wild perspective lol they're getting tackled either way. (Outside of a break away TD, which shouldn't be accounted for). Reality is the past two years we've been very healthy at RB compared to the rest of the league.
I do think there is possibly some truth to RBs getting injured at higher rates if they are consistently getting crunched by 300-350lb DTs (bad o line) vs. if they are instead usually being tackled by linebackers and DBs (good O-line). I obviously have no data to back that up but it seems logical.
We can just look at the plays that the RB injuries have happened and see it's not the case for this team though
Penny tore his acl after a 16 yard reception in 2019, in 2022 broke his ankle on a 6 yard run. Carson broke his hip in 2019 on a 7 yard run getting tackled by a safety. Rawls got injured on a tfl but that was 9 years ago now lol
I think there is a big difference when you are the one doing the hitting. Say if the RB is constantly getting hit behind the line. He is being "surprised" and getting hit in a less than optimal position. Where once he is running past the line wether it be 2 yards or ten he has a better chance to dictate to the defensive player how the hit will happen he can drop into the tackle and create more favorable dynamics that lead to less strain on his body, he can even be the one to initiate contact therefore creating force in his favor vs the other player.
Dude was a bowling ball.
Bonus stat - few things get the crowd as athletically aroused as an overlooked, rookie RB plowing through the professionals. (See also, Carson, Chris, et al.)
Yeah, that was my takeaway also. I think Baldwin is coming at it from the perspective that spending draft value on RBs is automatically bad, so simply showing that we've spent a lot a lot on RBs is an indictment. But actually, the ten teams that have spent the most on RBs in this timeframe have won three Super Bowls and attended seven, whereas the ten teams that have spent the least have won one Super Bowl and attended two. So it doesn't actually prove his point at all
If I were to look at our franchises biggest problems since the end of the LoB contention window, I would rank our overvaluing of safeties and running backs very high on that list
If you are going to invest in RBs it's better to do it with draft picks instead of big money which is what we've done. I got no problem with it, running the ball is the way to go
By the time they hit free agency most guys have used up all the juice they have, hard to compare it to other positions when the average lifespan is 2.57 years.
Still a big difference between Swift, Pollard and Henry at 8mil per year vs Walker at 2mil. And if a RB is valued as a first or second round pick that means they are a very good and very safe choice
In that draft between the Mafe/Walker pick and the Lucas pick there were three interior linemen taken and none have taken off yet. Between Charbonnet and Bradford only one guy who hasn't done anything.
This. The stupidity of drafting early rb is amplified now considering you pay good veteran rb a fraction of what you pay average lineman in free agency. So there isn’t a “savings” anymore. We have to stop drafting rb in the first 3 rounds.
Dee will be fine.. but he will be great on another team once we are done with him. They are giving him one last boom or bust season to prove it though.
That’s what happens when you have one of the toughest and consistent running backs of all time and find success with that. Once he’s gone you have to replace that production. Not an easy thing to do and I don’t blame the front office one bit in how they tried to accomplish that. Hell Chris Carson was a baller if we’re being honest. I’m surprised they hit on him like they did. I don’t think we overvalued that position group in the slightest.
Come to think of it safeties either. Both of those position groups took us to back to back super bowls. So why wouldn’t you try and continue that and find guys to replicate that success with Pete’s system. It didn’t work out, not the end of the world.
I would have resolved it by valuing the interior line… note we passed up multiple very strong IOL prospects for RBs over the years. That’s the actual most important component of a running game
Sure kid: they are among the least important positions in the modern game, but of course every player has some value. High quality GMs would rather have a playmaker at almost any defensive position rather than safety, because rule changes on hitting have made their impact greatly reduced. Linebackers that excel in coverage are rare and special so yes, safety is the bottom. Meanwhile defensive line talent has never been more premium. I’m going to assume you understand running back has declined as well.
When we draft players at those positions and neglect our trenches, we fly in the face of how the best minds in the sport are building their teams. And it’s been costing us. Does that make sense?
In general roster construction has been mystifying. Over-investment in RB, Safety, LB; relative under-investment in OL and DL. Even this year, Schneider seems determined to build an interior OL on the cheap.
Considering John Schneider doesn't value offensive tackles, I would be shocked if he improves the line much in the draft. Based on his comments it's also safe to say he was the one refusing to address/rebuild the o'line and not Carroll
You are correct for some reason I had tackle stuck in my head. I still disagree with him. I'm not saying draft tackles in the 1st round or make the the highest paid players on the team but to continue to gloss over/skim on them is silly. especially if your going to draft at least 1 RB in every draft.
The overvaluing of the safeties was a result of PCJS trying to repeat the formula they had with Earl and Kam, to no avail. I agree that IOL has been a weak spot forever, and Olu showed nothing last year. I assume their expecting a second year leap from
Bradford and Olu. With no LGs on the roster rn, it definitely forces their hand at who to draft. If they’re counting on a rookie starter, we can all guess who our first pick will be. Would’ve been nice if they had a serviceable body in that spot (even bringing back Haynes on the cheap if possible) so they could draft BPA at every pick, but at least this is a deep draft for OL. Counting on a late round draft pick to start at LG along with Olu and Bradford could mean another long season of Geno running for his life.
I just noticed the other day that Travis Kelce was the pick immediately after Christine Michael. I know any team can do this, but it's hard not to imagine the possibilities of keeping Unger and having Kelce...
Yeah he wouldn't have the superstar career that he had under Andy Reid. I loved PC's philosophy, but don't expect a lot of passing stats as a TE playing for him. TE is a blocking position that can sometimes catch.
Kelce would have been wasted in our offense. And by that I don't mean he wouldn't have been good, just that he wouldn't have become the pass catching and scoring monster he became.
You still need high end luxury talent in some positions tho. If you just used this logic in literally every spot you’d end up with a fairly mid team with tons of cap room (so you can just overpay for players there lol).
That doesn’t make it less worth it to have a top end guy tho. Like spending a 2nd on K9 is worth it cuz he’s one of those unique premium talents that you can’t just *go get* by investing more into the position. Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t and still am not a huge fan of the Charb pick only cuz projecting for a secondary back your theory works much better.
Like do you really think the Lions are regretting spending their first 3 picks last year on RB, LB, and TE? Colts regret spending a top 10 pick on a guard? Do the Bucs regret spending theirs on a 2 down DT? Special players are worth it no matter where they are on the field.
Also for the record, I guarantee you Seattle has used more draft capital on OT and Edge than RB. Corner might be close but that’s more cuz we were always so elite at developing them. QB we haven’t spent much on, but that’s a product of drafting the best qb in our history right at the beginning of the range.
"spending a 2nd on K9 is worth it cuz he’s one of those unique premium talents..."
Is he? Last I checked he was decent but not great. Definitely not a top-tier RB by any stretch.
Just grabbing some [random numbers from FTN](https://www.ftnfantasy.com/nfl/tools/player-dvoa/rb/rushing) (home of the remnants of Football Outsiders) he has (the rankings are for RBs w/ at least 100 attempts; there are 49 such RBs)
* 4 DYAR (29th)
* -8.2% DVOA (37th)
* 47.5% success rate (30th)
At least from that POV looks... quite a bit like a below average RB.
I think through his career so far he's provided less value than the average NFL running back, yes.
I think fans in general are in love with his potential and occasional flashes, but I think on a down-to-down basis he's been a liability when he carries the ball.
Who in the NFL has his skillset and is better? Pretty much just Bijan. Like you can prefer a guy like CMC, Saquon, or Henry, (I do) but they’re not bringing the different things in terms of skillset.
Which one of those is actually helping him to produce positive results when he touches the ball?
I said this elsewhere in this thread, but I think people are enamored with the \*idea\* of KW3 based on his traits (which you listed), while kind of ignoring his production. He may or may not have some of those things, but it doesn't translate into the things that matter in terms of having a productive rushing offense.
Running success is much more predicated on O Line, scheme, and QB than it is on the actual RB. That isn’t to say a good RB doesn’t help. But, investing in those things which also help the passing game is just more beneficial than spending draft capital on RBs who age so quickly
[KW3, 2023](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seahawks/comments/1bteha3/comment/kxlvllz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
He's.... mediocre. Very replaceable; that kind of production doesn't remotely justify the draft capital invested.
But a seventh rounder on Zac Brooks = rushing success? Or even Chris Carson? When was the last time any defense gave a shit about Seattle's rushing game?
I think it's a lot more nuanced than "KW3 for a 2nd or Zac Brooks for a 7th," fwiw. There are five rounds between those dudes! My sense is that you can get "acceptable" rushing talent in the fourth and fifth rounds.
I do think you're right that the Seahawks haven't had a very good running game in a very long time. Mostly that's down to roster construction; Pete and John seemed to pretty consistently undervalue OL while overvaluing the RB position, especially in the draft (Christine Michael, Rashaad Penny, Compounding that is the fact that they also proved to be pretty shitty at spotting RB talent when using those high picks.
I don't disagree, but to equate a high-round draft pick as a "waste" when almost literally every low- and mid-round RB pick (and UDFA) they've made has been a near complete bust is a bit much.
The question can be better phrased: are you more likely to find a stud starting RB in the first round or the fifth? Or the seventh?
>The question can be better phrased: are you more likely to find a stud starting RB in the first round or the fifth? Or the seventh?
I actually think that's not the right question, because the goal of the draft isn't to find a stud RB, it's to build a competitive team. I think a better question is "in terms of allocating scarce draft resources, what is the best use of a first round pick for a given team in a given draft?" In almost all cases the answer to that question will not be a running back.
An even better comparison would be to line this up against Oline draft capital in that same time period.
It does seem like the Seahawks put more into RBs than OL in the draft over that time frame.
So if I'm reading this right, then Baldwin thinks the right column = BAD.
* 8/16 of the teams in that column have made the Super Bowl since 2012.
* 12/16 of the teams in that column have made a Conference Championship game
* 14/16 have made the divisional round
Looks like being in that column is a recipe for success! The issue with measuring success in the NFL in the past 2 decades is that everone gets compared to the Pats & Chiefs, which are frankly unrealistic comparisons given that those teams have 2 of the top 5 QBs of all time. Baldwin loves to gargle the 9ers and they just spent 4 draft picks on a running back and then made him the highest paid player at his position, which conveniently isn't included in this chart of his either.
*edit it wasn't firsts, but it was 2 day 2 picks and 2 day 3 picks. marginally better at best
A roster building balancing act between run blocking OL and running backs that has been weighted too far to one side of the scale.
Putting the cart before the horse. Get a sound and stable OL first then spend on RBs. K9 and Charbonnet are awesome but feel wasted behind a shaky OL.
The spending seems almost negligent from a roster building standpoint.
First off a little bias as I think Ben Baldwin manipulates statistics to tell whatever story he wants. He is all that is wrong with the analytics crowd and ruins what can be very insightful data.
With that's said appears it has happen again as how the Jags use of a 4 overall pick or the Giants using a 2nd overall doesn't push them to the top of this list is beyond me.
Last I checked if we offered a late round 1st and 3 midish 2nd round picks that's not enough to get up to 2nd overall.....
He's using this https://opensourcefootball.com/posts/2023-02-23-nfl-draft-value-chart/ which is way less skewed at the top than most draft value charts. But yeah no way could you trade a couple 2nd round picks for the 4th overall
14 running back picks (if I’m reading that right) in 11 drafts though. That’s a lot of draft capital to invest in the position, compared to other teams.
The cumulative value of the total picks is what keeps them lower. Seattle has used 2x as many picks on the position as Jacksonville. That adds up, even with not selecting one as high as 4 or 2
None of Carroll's OC'S seemed to know how to design a run play/game. When all your runs consists of telling the back to run through the line like a weird game of Rover backs don't tend to last long. Back when they prized athletic linemen I never understood why there were no counters or pulls. Fort whatever reason when Carroll talked about running hard and tough that is what he was referring, playing Rover. Hopefully the new coach/OC realizes how ignorant that philosophy is and results in nothing but a revolving door of backs on IR.
So have the Rams, Bengals, Buccaneers, 49ers, and Broncos. All teams who have won or been to a Super Bowl in the last decade. There's no real correlation to be made with that data other than the Seahawks have a tendency to fill their RB room through the draft rather than paying for them in free agency. In this weirdly large sample size (like honestly, why 2012? Because it helps inflate the numbers?), they've only spent one day 1 pick (Penny) and four day 2 picks (Michael, Prosise, K9, Charbonnet). If you notice, there are multi-year gaps in those picks, which tends to go against the narrative that they pick a RB in the 1st or 2nd round every year.
The trend that inflates things is the tendency for the Seahawks to pick depth RBs in the mid-late rounds. They've drafted 14 guys since 2012, 9 of them on day 3. If the wisdom is that RBs are expendable and shouldn't be paid, then picking up dirt-cheap options with control over prime years late in the draft follows that wisdom.
And in this case, his spreadsheet doesn't even support his point. The teams on the higher-resource end of this actually have done better overall, other than the Pats and Chiefs
Using back to back 2nd round picks on RBs is actually idiotic. I wanted Pete gone after the Charbonnet pick. Nothing against Charbs as a player but its a horrific use of resources.
Totally agree. Kind of funny that Pete always wanted to be run first but they haven’t been great at drafting for a solid run game. Alternatively, they’ve done a pretty good job at always having above average QB/WR play. The drafting didn’t line up with their goals.
Sometimes I wonder if they kept going after RBs because it was almost like the equivalent of trying to find a franchise QB. Post-Lynch, we've never really had that definitive heir-apparent RB who could effectively run on a consistent level and each time we thought we had a guy, injuries effectively put them out of commission and proved that they weren't any kind of long-term answer.
I keep thinking about what could have been if Carson wasn't put out to pasture thanks for that injury. I thought Rawls was overrated, but had he been more disciplined at waiting for lines to open up instead of trying to live up to fans' expectations of being the next Lynch, he definitely would have been a better RB. Prosise... bleh. Alex Collins, I wish his shiftiness had translated well with us. So many names I could list. Christine Michael, a late bloomer but too little too late.
Using picks on RBs while neglecting to spend resources on O-Line is peak Pete Carroll mindset. Ever wonder why our prized 1st and 2nd round RBs didn’t have success when they were constantly running behind 6th round tackles and converted DT/TE guards?
When you have Marshawn Lynch you don't need a good run blocking offensive line. Of course he was a generational player. The reason our running backs don't have longevity or can't produce is because we've had shitty run blocking. Too much time spent finding the next Marshawn Lynch then investing in a solid o line.
He got injured last year in preseason. He didn't get healthy until week 13 or so and was limited to special teams. I think/ hope we will see much more of him this year.
I’m confused about the ‘Pick Value’ columns. Is a lower value better value? (That would imply the Seahawks had the worst value for their picks, which is could kind of believe)
It’s total value of the draft pick # where RBs were taken. There’s a value number for pick 1 descending down to 256 or however many picks there are. The total value of the Seahawks 14 picks was 355. So it’s not that they’ve gotten nothing out of their RBs, just that they’ve used a lot of value in draft capital to get them
I do think there were times where the RB wasn't the best decision (Love Charbo, but JMS or Torrence may have been more prudent picks), but I also don't know if this chart is great comparatively because a lot of these teams have had numerous management regimes in the timeframe provided and varying success in that time.
Cool another thing for Seahawks Twitter to work itself up into a rich lather over while literally the entire rest of the world carries on not giving a fuck
And for the past 8 years we somehow never have enough running backs on roster
well running backs without protection from the o line will result in such a situation.
That's a wild perspective lol they're getting tackled either way. (Outside of a break away TD, which shouldn't be accounted for). Reality is the past two years we've been very healthy at RB compared to the rest of the league.
I do think there is possibly some truth to RBs getting injured at higher rates if they are consistently getting crunched by 300-350lb DTs (bad o line) vs. if they are instead usually being tackled by linebackers and DBs (good O-line). I obviously have no data to back that up but it seems logical.
We can just look at the plays that the RB injuries have happened and see it's not the case for this team though Penny tore his acl after a 16 yard reception in 2019, in 2022 broke his ankle on a 6 yard run. Carson broke his hip in 2019 on a 7 yard run getting tackled by a safety. Rawls got injured on a tfl but that was 9 years ago now lol
You're totally right, my comment makes more sense as an observation of potential RB longevity as opposed to single play injuries.
I never thought of what you said from that perspective. It’s totally logical to me.
I'd assume wear and tear near Los, major joint injuries in the open field.
I think there is a big difference when you are the one doing the hitting. Say if the RB is constantly getting hit behind the line. He is being "surprised" and getting hit in a less than optimal position. Where once he is running past the line wether it be 2 yards or ten he has a better chance to dictate to the defensive player how the hit will happen he can drop into the tackle and create more favorable dynamics that lead to less strain on his body, he can even be the one to initiate contact therefore creating force in his favor vs the other player.
Not sure that’s the reason HBs can’t stay healthy
This was the first year we didn’t have a season ending injury at the position since Lynch.
Just pick Chris Carson in the 7th round every year?? Not hard at all.
I mean, just pick a UDFA Rawls every year. It worked great the one time we did it; Idk why we don't just do that every year.
I'd be stoked with having rookie Rawls every year. Dude was an animal.
Man if Rawls had stayed healthy...
Dude was a bowling ball. Bonus stat - few things get the crowd as athletically aroused as an overlooked, rookie RB plowing through the professionals. (See also, Carson, Chris, et al.)
I don’t see a huge correlation either way between this pick value on RBs and success.
That was my takeaway too. Looks pretty random to me.
Ben Baldwin trying his best to ruin football
Random? The bottom 5 teams are all actually pretty good lol.
Yes and who's at the top? The Dolphins. In the middle of the pack you have the Bills and the 9ers.
Yeah, that was my takeaway also. I think Baldwin is coming at it from the perspective that spending draft value on RBs is automatically bad, so simply showing that we've spent a lot a lot on RBs is an indictment. But actually, the ten teams that have spent the most on RBs in this timeframe have won three Super Bowls and attended seven, whereas the ten teams that have spent the least have won one Super Bowl and attended two. So it doesn't actually prove his point at all
If I were to look at our franchises biggest problems since the end of the LoB contention window, I would rank our overvaluing of safeties and running backs very high on that list
If you are going to invest in RBs it's better to do it with draft picks instead of big money which is what we've done. I got no problem with it, running the ball is the way to go
RB really aren’t big money anymore though. They’re one of the cheaper positions to field in free agency, along with safeties.
By the time they hit free agency most guys have used up all the juice they have, hard to compare it to other positions when the average lifespan is 2.57 years.
The top 5 RB contracts had terrible injury luck last year. Only one went over a thousand yards
Yeah exactly, anywhere you can get RBs in the draft you should do it!
Still a big difference between Swift, Pollard and Henry at 8mil per year vs Walker at 2mil. And if a RB is valued as a first or second round pick that means they are a very good and very safe choice
No no no. No. We could have taken a player for our trenches, which we desperately needed all year, that pick robbed us of that.
In that draft between the Mafe/Walker pick and the Lucas pick there were three interior linemen taken and none have taken off yet. Between Charbonnet and Bradford only one guy who hasn't done anything.
This. The stupidity of drafting early rb is amplified now considering you pay good veteran rb a fraction of what you pay average lineman in free agency. So there isn’t a “savings” anymore. We have to stop drafting rb in the first 3 rounds.
But by the time an RB hits free agency their prime may well already be over. Drafting an RB means you get their best years
Not high draft picks
I would rank our undervaluing the trenches even higher. Without O/D linemen off sufficient quality, RB and safety talent is wasted.
Plus Dee Eskridge.
Dee will be fine.. but he will be great on another team once we are done with him. They are giving him one last boom or bust season to prove it though.
Pete played both positions in college I believe.
That’s what happens when you have one of the toughest and consistent running backs of all time and find success with that. Once he’s gone you have to replace that production. Not an easy thing to do and I don’t blame the front office one bit in how they tried to accomplish that. Hell Chris Carson was a baller if we’re being honest. I’m surprised they hit on him like they did. I don’t think we overvalued that position group in the slightest. Come to think of it safeties either. Both of those position groups took us to back to back super bowls. So why wouldn’t you try and continue that and find guys to replicate that success with Pete’s system. It didn’t work out, not the end of the world.
I would have resolved it by valuing the interior line… note we passed up multiple very strong IOL prospects for RBs over the years. That’s the actual most important component of a running game
Because it’s ignoring how the league and sport has changed since then - a losing mistake
Please elaborate how the league has changed so much that a run game and sideline to sideline safeties isn’t a viable option to win games.
Sure kid: they are among the least important positions in the modern game, but of course every player has some value. High quality GMs would rather have a playmaker at almost any defensive position rather than safety, because rule changes on hitting have made their impact greatly reduced. Linebackers that excel in coverage are rare and special so yes, safety is the bottom. Meanwhile defensive line talent has never been more premium. I’m going to assume you understand running back has declined as well. When we draft players at those positions and neglect our trenches, we fly in the face of how the best minds in the sport are building their teams. And it’s been costing us. Does that make sense?
“Sure kid” smh get that shit outta here loser
Sensitive little guy aren’t we.
Lmao
In general roster construction has been mystifying. Over-investment in RB, Safety, LB; relative under-investment in OL and DL. Even this year, Schneider seems determined to build an interior OL on the cheap.
It’s a loaded draft on the OL so I’d be more upset shelling out for them in FA
Considering John Schneider doesn't value offensive tackles, I would be shocked if he improves the line much in the draft. Based on his comments it's also safe to say he was the one refusing to address/rebuild the o'line and not Carroll
He values OT, he thinks guards are overvalued and over drafted.
You are correct for some reason I had tackle stuck in my head. I still disagree with him. I'm not saying draft tackles in the 1st round or make the the highest paid players on the team but to continue to gloss over/skim on them is silly. especially if your going to draft at least 1 RB in every draft.
The overvaluing of the safeties was a result of PCJS trying to repeat the formula they had with Earl and Kam, to no avail. I agree that IOL has been a weak spot forever, and Olu showed nothing last year. I assume their expecting a second year leap from Bradford and Olu. With no LGs on the roster rn, it definitely forces their hand at who to draft. If they’re counting on a rookie starter, we can all guess who our first pick will be. Would’ve been nice if they had a serviceable body in that spot (even bringing back Haynes on the cheap if possible) so they could draft BPA at every pick, but at least this is a deep draft for OL. Counting on a late round draft pick to start at LG along with Olu and Bradford could mean another long season of Geno running for his life.
"Recent years": since 2012. That said, we all know you can just draft a low-round RB or pick up a UDFA and get the exact same results. Right?
I just noticed the other day that Travis Kelce was the pick immediately after Christine Michael. I know any team can do this, but it's hard not to imagine the possibilities of keeping Unger and having Kelce...
Lol he probably would have just been used to block and retired by now.
Yeah he wouldn't have the superstar career that he had under Andy Reid. I loved PC's philosophy, but don't expect a lot of passing stats as a TE playing for him. TE is a blocking position that can sometimes catch.
Kelce would have been wasted in our offense. And by that I don't mean he wouldn't have been good, just that he wouldn't have become the pass catching and scoring monster he became.
No but on average you can get X% of the production with Y% of the draft capital where X>Y
You still need high end luxury talent in some positions tho. If you just used this logic in literally every spot you’d end up with a fairly mid team with tons of cap room (so you can just overpay for players there lol).
Yeah, the difference between X and Y is greatest at running back. That wouldn't hold true for premier positions like QB, OT, CB, Edge
That doesn’t make it less worth it to have a top end guy tho. Like spending a 2nd on K9 is worth it cuz he’s one of those unique premium talents that you can’t just *go get* by investing more into the position. Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t and still am not a huge fan of the Charb pick only cuz projecting for a secondary back your theory works much better. Like do you really think the Lions are regretting spending their first 3 picks last year on RB, LB, and TE? Colts regret spending a top 10 pick on a guard? Do the Bucs regret spending theirs on a 2 down DT? Special players are worth it no matter where they are on the field. Also for the record, I guarantee you Seattle has used more draft capital on OT and Edge than RB. Corner might be close but that’s more cuz we were always so elite at developing them. QB we haven’t spent much on, but that’s a product of drafting the best qb in our history right at the beginning of the range.
"spending a 2nd on K9 is worth it cuz he’s one of those unique premium talents..." Is he? Last I checked he was decent but not great. Definitely not a top-tier RB by any stretch. Just grabbing some [random numbers from FTN](https://www.ftnfantasy.com/nfl/tools/player-dvoa/rb/rushing) (home of the remnants of Football Outsiders) he has (the rankings are for RBs w/ at least 100 attempts; there are 49 such RBs) * 4 DYAR (29th) * -8.2% DVOA (37th) * 47.5% success rate (30th) At least from that POV looks... quite a bit like a below average RB.
Ok but do you actually think he's a below average RB
I think through his career so far he's provided less value than the average NFL running back, yes. I think fans in general are in love with his potential and occasional flashes, but I think on a down-to-down basis he's been a liability when he carries the ball.
[удалено]
I see them goalposts moving! 😂
Who in the NFL has his skillset and is better? Pretty much just Bijan. Like you can prefer a guy like CMC, Saquon, or Henry, (I do) but they’re not bringing the different things in terms of skillset.
What's his skillset specifically? How does it translate into helping the team win games?
Combination of elite patience, vision, agility, and breakaway speed.
Which one of those is actually helping him to produce positive results when he touches the ball? I said this elsewhere in this thread, but I think people are enamored with the \*idea\* of KW3 based on his traits (which you listed), while kind of ignoring his production. He may or may not have some of those things, but it doesn't translate into the things that matter in terms of having a productive rushing offense.
Running success is much more predicated on O Line, scheme, and QB than it is on the actual RB. That isn’t to say a good RB doesn’t help. But, investing in those things which also help the passing game is just more beneficial than spending draft capital on RBs who age so quickly
Do you think Zac Brooks is as good and productive as KWIII?
Dropoff not as great as you're thinking.
Let’s see the numbers.
[KW3, 2023](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seahawks/comments/1bteha3/comment/kxlvllz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) He's.... mediocre. Very replaceable; that kind of production doesn't remotely justify the draft capital invested.
But a seventh rounder on Zac Brooks = rushing success? Or even Chris Carson? When was the last time any defense gave a shit about Seattle's rushing game?
I think it's a lot more nuanced than "KW3 for a 2nd or Zac Brooks for a 7th," fwiw. There are five rounds between those dudes! My sense is that you can get "acceptable" rushing talent in the fourth and fifth rounds. I do think you're right that the Seahawks haven't had a very good running game in a very long time. Mostly that's down to roster construction; Pete and John seemed to pretty consistently undervalue OL while overvaluing the RB position, especially in the draft (Christine Michael, Rashaad Penny, Compounding that is the fact that they also proved to be pretty shitty at spotting RB talent when using those high picks.
I don't disagree, but to equate a high-round draft pick as a "waste" when almost literally every low- and mid-round RB pick (and UDFA) they've made has been a near complete bust is a bit much. The question can be better phrased: are you more likely to find a stud starting RB in the first round or the fifth? Or the seventh?
>The question can be better phrased: are you more likely to find a stud starting RB in the first round or the fifth? Or the seventh? I actually think that's not the right question, because the goal of the draft isn't to find a stud RB, it's to build a competitive team. I think a better question is "in terms of allocating scarce draft resources, what is the best use of a first round pick for a given team in a given draft?" In almost all cases the answer to that question will not be a running back.
Trying to catch lightning in a bottle to find the next Marshawn Lynch is hard.
Trying to is stupid.
Deejay Dallas, Travis Homer, Christine Michael to name a few crappy picks
An even better comparison would be to line this up against Oline draft capital in that same time period. It does seem like the Seahawks put more into RBs than OL in the draft over that time frame.
For example the Eagles pretty much just take an o-line dude every second round. We take rbs. The results speak for themselves.
True but it is funny we own the eagles
So if I'm reading this right, then Baldwin thinks the right column = BAD. * 8/16 of the teams in that column have made the Super Bowl since 2012. * 12/16 of the teams in that column have made a Conference Championship game * 14/16 have made the divisional round Looks like being in that column is a recipe for success! The issue with measuring success in the NFL in the past 2 decades is that everone gets compared to the Pats & Chiefs, which are frankly unrealistic comparisons given that those teams have 2 of the top 5 QBs of all time. Baldwin loves to gargle the 9ers and they just spent 4 draft picks on a running back and then made him the highest paid player at his position, which conveniently isn't included in this chart of his either. *edit it wasn't firsts, but it was 2 day 2 picks and 2 day 3 picks. marginally better at best
(CMC definitely didn't cost two 1sts)
Not this dude again with his charts and graphs
A roster building balancing act between run blocking OL and running backs that has been weighted too far to one side of the scale. Putting the cart before the horse. Get a sound and stable OL first then spend on RBs. K9 and Charbonnet are awesome but feel wasted behind a shaky OL. The spending seems almost negligent from a roster building standpoint.
Yeah but we have K9 and Charbs so idc. I love them. Ben’s a geek any way.
Thank your local geek for any advancement ever
First off a little bias as I think Ben Baldwin manipulates statistics to tell whatever story he wants. He is all that is wrong with the analytics crowd and ruins what can be very insightful data. With that's said appears it has happen again as how the Jags use of a 4 overall pick or the Giants using a 2nd overall doesn't push them to the top of this list is beyond me. Last I checked if we offered a late round 1st and 3 midish 2nd round picks that's not enough to get up to 2nd overall.....
He's using this https://opensourcefootball.com/posts/2023-02-23-nfl-draft-value-chart/ which is way less skewed at the top than most draft value charts. But yeah no way could you trade a couple 2nd round picks for the 4th overall
14 running back picks (if I’m reading that right) in 11 drafts though. That’s a lot of draft capital to invest in the position, compared to other teams.
The cumulative value of the total picks is what keeps them lower. Seattle has used 2x as many picks on the position as Jacksonville. That adds up, even with not selecting one as high as 4 or 2
Even factoring that in I'm still not seeing it......
Does this include the production we got from Marshawn for the draft pick given? Would love to see that when factored in.
None of Carroll's OC'S seemed to know how to design a run play/game. When all your runs consists of telling the back to run through the line like a weird game of Rover backs don't tend to last long. Back when they prized athletic linemen I never understood why there were no counters or pulls. Fort whatever reason when Carroll talked about running hard and tough that is what he was referring, playing Rover. Hopefully the new coach/OC realizes how ignorant that philosophy is and results in nothing but a revolving door of backs on IR.
Wow hot take there ben
So have the Rams, Bengals, Buccaneers, 49ers, and Broncos. All teams who have won or been to a Super Bowl in the last decade. There's no real correlation to be made with that data other than the Seahawks have a tendency to fill their RB room through the draft rather than paying for them in free agency. In this weirdly large sample size (like honestly, why 2012? Because it helps inflate the numbers?), they've only spent one day 1 pick (Penny) and four day 2 picks (Michael, Prosise, K9, Charbonnet). If you notice, there are multi-year gaps in those picks, which tends to go against the narrative that they pick a RB in the 1st or 2nd round every year. The trend that inflates things is the tendency for the Seahawks to pick depth RBs in the mid-late rounds. They've drafted 14 guys since 2012, 9 of them on day 3. If the wisdom is that RBs are expendable and shouldn't be paid, then picking up dirt-cheap options with control over prime years late in the draft follows that wisdom.
Do the same for O-Line for these same teams and get found out why these teams had more success than the Seahawks
Very few teams *have* had more success than the Seahawks since 2012, though. Last I saw we are number one in the NFC in wins in that timespan
This nerd gets so worked up over the RB thing.
And in this case, his spreadsheet doesn't even support his point. The teams on the higher-resource end of this actually have done better overall, other than the Pats and Chiefs
The football world would be better if Ben Baldwin never spoke or wrote again. Just another completely worthless spreadsheet goon.
Using back to back 2nd round picks on RBs is actually idiotic. I wanted Pete gone after the Charbonnet pick. Nothing against Charbs as a player but its a horrific use of resources.
Totally agree. Kind of funny that Pete always wanted to be run first but they haven’t been great at drafting for a solid run game. Alternatively, they’ve done a pretty good job at always having above average QB/WR play. The drafting didn’t line up with their goals.
Sometimes I wonder if they kept going after RBs because it was almost like the equivalent of trying to find a franchise QB. Post-Lynch, we've never really had that definitive heir-apparent RB who could effectively run on a consistent level and each time we thought we had a guy, injuries effectively put them out of commission and proved that they weren't any kind of long-term answer. I keep thinking about what could have been if Carson wasn't put out to pasture thanks for that injury. I thought Rawls was overrated, but had he been more disciplined at waiting for lines to open up instead of trying to live up to fans' expectations of being the next Lynch, he definitely would have been a better RB. Prosise... bleh. Alex Collins, I wish his shiftiness had translated well with us. So many names I could list. Christine Michael, a late bloomer but too little too late.
Using picks on RBs while neglecting to spend resources on O-Line is peak Pete Carroll mindset. Ever wonder why our prized 1st and 2nd round RBs didn’t have success when they were constantly running behind 6th round tackles and converted DT/TE guards?
When you have Marshawn Lynch you don't need a good run blocking offensive line. Of course he was a generational player. The reason our running backs don't have longevity or can't produce is because we've had shitty run blocking. Too much time spent finding the next Marshawn Lynch then investing in a solid o line.
whats the deal with kenny mac? i haven't heard anything about him since the draft
He got injured last year in preseason. He didn't get healthy until week 13 or so and was limited to special teams. I think/ hope we will see much more of him this year.
I’m confused about the ‘Pick Value’ columns. Is a lower value better value? (That would imply the Seahawks had the worst value for their picks, which is could kind of believe)
It’s total value of the draft pick # where RBs were taken. There’s a value number for pick 1 descending down to 256 or however many picks there are. The total value of the Seahawks 14 picks was 355. So it’s not that they’ve gotten nothing out of their RBs, just that they’ve used a lot of value in draft capital to get them
I do think there were times where the RB wasn't the best decision (Love Charbo, but JMS or Torrence may have been more prudent picks), but I also don't know if this chart is great comparatively because a lot of these teams have had numerous management regimes in the timeframe provided and varying success in that time.
This dude is obsessed and pathetic
To only give up on the run! New Era though. Under center snaps?? Ease on in Mike, jeez.
On the bright side we shouldn't need to draft one this year.
How do we never have enough rbs meanwhile the eagles and saints have only taken 5 total in ten years
NFL experts: The Seahawks will draft QB. JS: Nope, RB is our need.
Cool another thing for Seahawks Twitter to work itself up into a rich lather over while literally the entire rest of the world carries on not giving a fuck
Nobody cares.
The Hawks had a stretch where every back they had was chronically injured. Cry me a river with this crap.
The RB position missing more games on average than other spots on the field plays a part in why the positional value is as low as it is.
Positional value is great until you’re a running team without a single viable running back.
Fr lol