"I remember Tom Brady being the ultimate “manage-the-game” guy in the Patriots Super Bowl season of 2001, and he did a fine job in the two-minute drill to win his first Super Bowl."

He still IS the ultimate manage-the-game QB. He throws a lame-duck deep ball, and compensates by picking teams apart underneath. He just happens to now have an absolute monster playing WR for him

Pat Kirwan, you got PUNK'D!

Re: 4. Corey Webster is one of the Giants’ corners who supposedly is just average. I asked Giants GM Jerry Reese about Webster and his first comment was, “Did you see the interception against the Packers?”

What did Kirwan expect him to say?

Perhaps the second thing Reese said "Damn he got luck with that one. He's really pretty shit and we'll be looking to take a new guy in the draft" ...

Bravo, I guess everyone gets there turn in getting their teeth kicked in, You are never as smart as you like to think.

nice analysis.

And as always Kirwans post makes me wonder, what is it about average that people find repulsive and why is it considered so poor.

I think that a secondary worth #16 in the league on its own, combined with an elite pass rush (that presumably does decent against the run too), is a decidedly potent defense that probably costs less than an average top 10 defense. I would say there is merit in that.

Also, I hate how the Denver O-line was the cause of running success, and yet netted 5 pro-bowls and 4 all-pros during this 12 year period (running 1995-2005). Granted both players who made those probowls (Zimmerman and Nalen) have excellent chances at the Hall of Fame, but in this period Denver had better ALY or ASR than Kansas City 6 out of 12 times, and KC had 19 pro bowls and 15 all pros (granted ALY only goes to 2000 so it could be hiding earlier domination on KCs part, but these o-lines were very similar in their dominance, but one gets loads of credit and the other none.

Bill,
If you were in the same cabin with Pat Kirwan at summer camp, I suspect you're the guy who held him down, pressed a tennis racket to his gut, and ran a hair brush over it.

I usually think he's one of the more grounded NFL writers--insightful and less likely to go off on "so-and-so is the greatest of all time" tangents or "I was texting Player X just the other day and he IMed me while I was in the hot tub..." But this is a beautiful vivisection of his piece. A piece which, on the surface, seems pretty reasonable. Just lacking in homework/depth of research and keen analytical thought.

You left out (perhaps intentionally?) at least one first round running back who started this year: fred taylor of jacksonville. (9th overall, 1998)

Bill,

I more-or-less agree with the FO party line that RBs are essentially fungible. However, when one is attempting to smack down an illogical essay, it is usually best to avoid simple mistakes like the Base Rate Fallacy.

From 2000 to 2007 there were 126 RBs drafted in the 2nd round or later, while 24 were drafted in the first round. You argue that exactly as many of the top 20 backs are former first round picks as not. This means that former first round picks are FIVE TIMES AS LIKELY TO BE IN THE TOP 20, with a hit rate of 10/24 as opposed to 10/126.

Naturally this is influenced by the fact that former first round picks are more likely to get carries. So metrics like yards or DPAR are a poor way to get the point across anyways.

The proper argument would be to compare, say, average DVOA of first round RBs to average DVOA of all other RBs. If RBs are fungible there should be no statistically significant difference between these figures.

Come on guys you can't compare Peterson's and Taylor's ypc as an apples to apples comparison. Defenses played very differently depending on who was on the field. With Peterson they had 8-9 man fronts as the norm.

What happened to Taylor from 2006 to 2007. He was a 4.0 YPC (team averaged 4.1 YPC) to a 5.4 YPC RB.

The other great fallacy is "Team X won the Super Bowl with Talent Y and Gameplan Z, so let's follow that formula." To paraphrase Leo Tolstoy, every bad team is the same, but Super Bowl champions are all different. And sometimes inferior teams win Super Bowls or conference championships because of one decision, fumble, or bad call.

Reserve running backs usually have a higher ypc than the starter. I think the real question is how does Taylor's time as a starter compare to Peterson's. Seeing as he spent roughly half the year as the starter, this shouldn't be too hard to compare.

For my part, I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a back with your first pick, so long as your drafting one as a finishing touch rather than a savior. If you're drafting in the top 10 (and not because you traded to be there), you're probably better off investing that pick in something else. I thought FO's thesis was that non-elite running backs are fungible, not that all running backs are essentially the same. If you already have a contender and there's an Adrian Peterson clone available when your turns up, why not pull the trigger?

As for game managers, I define that as someone who doesn't wow you but doesn't throw a whole lot of picks. It's someone who has enough experience to know where not to throw it, but he's also not hittin' you with bombs or surgically tearing you apart like Peyton Manning. Captain Checkdown might be a good description. Whether it exists or not, I seriously doubt anyone's actually hoping to build their offense around such a guy. You sign a guy like that as a backup or a stop-gap, not because he that's how you want to play every game.

10:

Yes, but you can pick up a couple of lower-round running backs and an undrafted guy or two for much less of an investment than a top-10 back who might not be all that much better than a 3rd-rounder.

Re #13: The same thing that happened to Shaun Alexander in 2006, 2007.

He went from 5.1 YPC to 3.6/3.5 YPC.

I think that having "rules" for the draft is the myth that needs to go away. There is nothing wrong with taking a running back in the first, if he's deserving of a first round pick. Every position has busts, every position has their inherent downsides. It's simply a matter of being able to evaluate talent. If you can't project players well, then you're going to have problems with whoever you draft.

Evaluate players, take the highest rated player you have that won't be around next time you pick, be it running back, linebacker or punter. Of course, it just sounds simple...

Re: #17

Exactly what I thought. I guess he was worth the contract.

I also agree that running backs are a dime a dozen, especially considering how much punishment they take. I don't think the myth is 'don't take a RB in the first round,' rather don't waste a top 10 pick on a RB. Salaries for top 10 draft picks have escalated to the point where it can be argued that spending a pick on a player who may only play 8 seasons, and 3-4 at a high level, is a poor investment. And Terrell Davis is a poor example to put out there as the reason for this trend. On talent alone Davis was considered a first day draft pick, probably a second rounder, if not for the fact that he was recovering from his second operation for a torn knee ligament. It's not that surprising that the rest of the NFL thought he would be an injury risk.

Re #19:
Judging strictly on YPC, he seems to be worth about 1.5 YPC.

Looking at FO's adjusted line yards, he looks to be worth about 1 YPC. Either way, yes, he seems to be worth the contract. I'm *still* trying to decide who I'm more mad at, though:

1) The Seahawks, for transitioning him
2) The Vikings, for the poison pill
3) Hutch, because he obviously wanted out, for some odd reason (even though all public accounts point to him getting along great with everyone)

I lean towards #3.

I thought FO’s thesis was that non-elite running backs are fungible, not that all running backs are essentially the same.

Yes, and even if all RBs were fungible, that wouldn't imply that they aren't worthy of a 1st round pick. Fungible just means that they can be replaced seamlessly with other RBs of equal talent. It doesn't mean that there are lots of RBs with that much talent that are easily available.

The big reason RBs are fungible is not that the talent separation between RBs isn't as wide as at other positions (which would make taking a RB in the 1st round a bad idea), it's because the job of RB is almost the same for virtually every team in the league. Whereas some QBs are ill-suited to particular offensive schemes, and certain WRs are better for the WCO, or some CBs are great in Tampa-2 schemes, but suck in man-coverage, etc, RBs have more or less the same job requirements regardless of what team they are on. Still, some RBs satisfy those requirements much better than others.

Basically, the point is that you can switch Addai with Maroney, and the Colts and Patriots won't miss a beat. You can't do the same with their HOF QBs, though. But that doesn't mean that Addai and Maroney weren't worth 1st round picks.

I should have said 'worth about X more than your average "guard I'd like to replace".'

"98 had Taylor, but also had Robert Edwards and John Avery"

You forgot Curtis Enis. As a Bears fan, I wish I could forget him.

As for Kirwan's higly flawed analysis, maybe this helps explain why he no longer works for an NFL team.

Re:18 "I think that having “rules” for the draft is the myth that needs to go away."

What about the rule that you don't pick a punter in the first round, even if he could put the ball on the one yard line every time ...

No, I think we determined that punter is worth a top-5 pick in the draft.

How do we factor in what I'll call the Benson factor?

Here's a high draft pick, expected to be a franchise back, who so far has failed. His high salary and the commitment the Bears gave him basically ran Thomas Jones out of town (and yes I realize thats an over simplification of the entire situation) (and Jones had been productive in Chicago up to that point.)

Now the Bears are stuck with Benson and are rumored to be looking at picking a back in the first two rounds.

Taking a back in a later round who doesn't have the salary commitment maybe a better idea.

(And yes I know the Bears had the fourth pick, and Benson was considered one of the elite backs in the draft that year, and worthy of the 4th pick, and yes I know that hindsight is 20-20)

How do we factor in the cost of a failed high first round pick against what I would consider the lower cost of a failed later round pick?

As jarring as it is to see hacks like Judge and Chadiha cited to help take down an argument by Pat Kirwan (who I have considerable respect for), this is some nice work, Bill.

And #5 is right on in that
"average" is not necessarily a bad thing to have at certain positions on one's team. No team can have stars everywhere-- if your weakest point is a unit that is merely "average", you've got a championship-caliber team.

" It doesn’t really work that way. Of those 124 total backs, a significant portion of them don’t get a chance to play, nor are they really expected to"

Not only that, how many times have we seen a talented player rotting behind a less talented higher pick, because the team won't cut the expensive high round pick?

We see this pretty often with RBs.

...you can parlay a questionable holding call (I’ll always be bitter) into a Super Bowl.

That Superbowl was nowhere near that close. The Giants were slaughtered in that game. Final score 34-7, or something? You could have given them ten free holding calls and it wouldn't have made the difference in the game.

How come when I try to print a blog post from this site, the printing gets laid out in center-justify mode?

On the articles with "Print View" options, it prints fine.

But this post for instance center-justifies.

#14: The fallacy is worse than that. The game barely changes from year to year, but when the Giants win the SB, suddenly the efficacy of a great pass rush becomes much more visible - and highly rated. That makes it that much more expensive, both in cash and draft picks, to put one together, which makes it a worse investment than other areas of the team. Basic Moneyball...

I think the fungibility question, for any position, comes down to one thing. I imagine that every position has a "value-versus-talent" curve associated with it. In other words, as a player's talent increases, so does his value, but the relationship is certainly not linear. Different positions probably have different relationships.

Most positions probably drop pretty sharply at the left end of the curve, because replacing an "average starter" with a street free agent hurts you pretty bad. It's probably worse for defensive positions and line positions than for offensive skill positions, since the offense chooses where in the defense to attack, and which skill players to emphasize.

I would imagine RB probably is pretty flat in the middle--increasing from an average to an above average running back (see, Edgerrin James in Arizona) has far less an effect on the running game than upgrading your O-line. But the curve probably turns up at the end, because, going from an above average to an elite RB has a dramatic effect even if you have a bad line (see Ronnie Brown in Miami).

For comparison, I would imagine that the curve probably never flattens out, and even asymptotes, for positions like corners and O-lineman, where the other side can choose where to attack. Going from an average player to a very good player has a strong effect, because it starts to shut down one side of the field, but going from a very good player to an elite player probably has almost no effect because teams simply attack the other side, which they were mostly doing already. In other words, upgrading a pro-bowl RG to the greatest RG ever won't do much, because teams were already attacking the left side of the line more, and will continue to do so.

#17
Hutchinson was on the Vikings in 2006, as was Chester Taylor...I think a more settled right side may have helped more.

Oops, correction...the last paragraph should start

"I would imagine the curve never turns up, and even flattens out asymptotically, for postions like corner and O-line..."

I don't know about that, MJK. I mean, a corner like Champ Bailey gives a great advantage to your defense. Also, as far as the OL, when you run the ball, it's the offense that decides where to attack. When passing, an elite LT would allow other players to get help, while a pro-bowler might do the same thing while allowing more hurries ans sacks.

All in all, it seems to me that at RB just like at any other position, you need talented players. Anyone can run through a 10-foot wide hole, but a faster, more elusive back will still get more yards out of it. Same with a small hole, or even a non-hole. So I don't know what to make of all this RB thing. It's not like AP wouldn't have been an out-of-this-world steal in the 2nd round...

Re: 33 ... Why else did the Giants win the Super Bowl? They did what no other team had done all season. They stopped the Patriots by hassling Brady.

Theoretically you could say that Manning QBing and MVPing the team to victory shows the efficacy of taking a QB #1 overall (we know he came from a trade with the Chargers) but he just wasn't that important.

Quite simply the defensive line were the key to the game (as well as to playoff success given they beat two of the best o-lines in the Packers and Cowboys).

It's a copycat league but nothing else about their team is worth copying so it accentuates the value of the d-line.

I would imagine RB probably is pretty flat in the middle–increasing from an average to an above average running back (see, Edgerrin James in Arizona) has far less an effect on the running game than upgrading your O-line.

But there are 5 players on the O-line, so upgrading all of them from average to above average had better have more of an effect than upgrading 1 RB. Subjectively, I'd say the spread in talent at RB is probably less than that at QB, WR, LT, or CB, but probably greater than that of interior linemen (on offense and defense), and similar to that at LB. I'd say a very good RB, just like a very good LB, would be a perfectly reasonable way of spending a 1st round pick.

Good point, Alex.

Timing of the holding call.

No offense, Bill, but you really need to let it go. Sorry, but even if it had come at exactly the right moment, the Giants weren't likely to win that game. When you lose by 27 points, I find it very hard to believe that changing one play, at any point in the game, could have made you likely to win. If you're referring to Jessie Armstead's pick-6 that was called back, then I'd point out that even with that, the game only would've been tied, and the Giants would've had to score some points on offense to win, which they hadn't done in the 7 possessions they'd had before that point (or on any of their subsequent possessions). Let's review what happened on those 7 possessions:

-The Giants gained 28 yards in 22 plays and got 1 first down, never advancing past the 50 yard line.

-Kerry Collins went 3-13, for 17 yards, with 1 sack and 1 interception. 2 of his completions were for 2 yards on 1st-10 or 2nd-10.

-The Giants had one successful play, a 13 yard pass that got them their only first down, and moved the ball to their 14 yard line.

You're telling me that the Giants were likely to get any points on offense, given that performance? Not to mention that Baltimore had already shown that its offense could score on the Giants defense, so the Giants offense would have likely had to score multiple times. I seriously doubt that would have happened if only 1 penalty had been erased.

Sorry, but the Ravens won that game because they were the better team and they thoroughly outplayed the Giants. Let it go, Bill.

Rich,

don't you think you are stretching the definition of "manage the game" QB to include one who sets numerous NFL records and is named the MVP of the league by the AP?

I agree with you about his accuracy on the long pass, but puh-lease, this is ridiculous. Brady is a superb QB and you of all people shouldn't saddle him with the "manage the game" label.

The label "game manager" implies a QB who lives off the running game and only throws the occasional pass to keep the defense honest. Think Bob Griese. There are lots of grades between "game manager" and "best QB ever", and while Brady isn't the latter, he's a lot closer to it than to deserve the former label.

As for the easy replaceability of RBs: that's what the Pats' ownership thought when they let Curtis Martin walk away and sign with a division rival. Big, stupid mistake. There are lots of RBs but very few great RBs, and it's important that management know the difference between a Tomlinson or Peterson and a Reggie Bush or Ron Dayne.

As for the point about CBs, it seems weird in a game where the last two TD passes were thrown when CBs fell down that anybody would doubt the importance of good CB play. Of course it helps to have a good pass rush, but the Giants had the same pass rush on Week 17 when Brady and Moss showed just how easy it is to beat weak corner play.

So I guess I'm saying I find it odd that so many people buy into the flavor-of-the-week analysis when it comes to looking at the recent Super Bowl. The Giants played extremely well during the playoffs, but I wouldn't want to start modeling my franchise after them quite yet. At least not to the exclusion of other models, such as those of the Colts and Pats.

I would add to 42 that there's a difference between being a good game manager -like Brady- and being a game manager, period. And also that, apart from throwing little, a game manager's defining characteristic is avoiding turnovers.

I haven’t seen a superbowl replay but my recollection is that Webster broke up a late game Brady-to-Moss pass that could have won it for the Pats. I appreciate Eli-Tyree, but Webster’s play also was crucial to victory. Brady/Moss in 2007-2008 was record-setting…Webster did a helluva job and we Giants fans are appreciative!

re 31, 41: I can't help but think of a comment attributed to Sammy Baugh after the Bears beat the Redskins 73-0 in the 1940 championship game.

Apparently, on Washington's first possession Baugh's pass from the endzone unluckily hit the goalposts, when his receiver was wide open for a long TD.

Asked after the game how a big TD there might have changed the outcome of the game, Baugh replied "it would have made the score 73-7"!

I suspect the impact of Armstead's INT in that Superbowl would have been similar.

PS There was nothing questionable about the call. Dilfer was trying to dump a short pass to his RB who was held by a D-lineman. Pretty easy call. I'm a Bengals fan who hates the Ravens, so I have no ulterior motive for this opinion.

PPS I absolutely hate this stupid, meaningless phrase "manage the game" which has become so popular in recent years. Every QB has the same job: make throws.

I nominate this entire comment thread for deletion or relocation to the irrational Brady vs. Manning forum, based on the inflamed passions of partisans here arguing about which QB is a better "game manager."