Analysis: Comparing the Rush Frequency of the 3 top NFL RBs 2018

Crown Royal

Insulin Beware
Messages
14,229
Reaction score
6,383
I'd always felt that comparing E. Smith to B. Sanders was a matter of taste - do you want a consistent 4 yard gain and move the chains on each carry, or are you willing to sacrifice losses and no gains to get a few home run hits. I feel after the Giants game in week 17 that we may be gearing up to see the second iteration of this discussion between Barkley and Elliott. Barkley is a quality RB - he has great vision, elite speed, strength, and is dangerous out of the backfield. He also has a terrible OL - HOWEVER, despite reputation, Elliott did not have great blocking this season either. I feel like Barkley has the potential to break off a 50+ yard run at any given time, whereas I trust Elliot to find me the 3-4 "dirty yards" on virtually any play.

Fortunately, our friends at Pro-Football-Reference make slicing this data relatively simple. I decided to take three RBs and break down their rush attempts into buckets to see how often they lose yards, gain nothing, gain a little and gain a lot. The chart and table are available for your reference below:

Ne21IRV.jpg


5HLvN2t.jpg


In order to flatten for the number of attempts, I repeated the table for % of carries. For instance, Barkley had 4 carries that resulted in a loss of 4-5 yards, whereas Gurley had only 1, BUT, Barkley also carried the ball 5 more times, so while he lost those yards 2% of the time, Gurley did less than 1%.

tJAYmcw.jpg


mt8QHny.jpg


Analysis:
More surprising to me than anything is not the comparison between Barkley and Zeke, rather, the comparison between Gurley and the others. Gurley doesn't have NEARLY the dirty yards Zeke and Barkley have (0-3 yards) - he just has a whole lot of 5 yard runs. Not the homerun hitter either of them are, just a good consistent 5 yard guy.

Zeke definitely seems to get the dirty yards like no other, and really nails it on the 5-10 yard range. I see a lot of consistency from Zeke - seldom loses yards, gets dirty yards and gets some good positives. Barkley is really similar though on less carries, but man cna he hit a home run.

Crazy to me that Zeke has that many more runs than either of them, but especially Saquon. I suppose they pass to Saquon more in NY, thus is total scrimmage yards, and the Rams are clearly a passing team. But wow, 40-50 more carries is about 2 games worth. Definitely tells you what a workhorse Zeke is and what the Cowboys are going to try to do, even with a few steps back on the OL.

Conclusion:

Not a ton to be honest. Basically, there aren't any glaring items of note. These are three similar running backs that all three of their teams are incredibly happy to have. Statistics don't tell you a ton other than more often than not, these guys are going to get you 3+ yards and break a few good ones. Who you would prefer is no more than a matter of taste and how your team is built. Arguing about who is "better" is probably a silly discussion overall. Maybe if there was a statistical way to discuss "intangibles" it would matter, but then they wouldn't really be intangible.

You have to wonder what the effect of carries has overall on these. Certainly the fact that the % for Zeke is higher on dirty runs and 15-20 yard runs, despite more carries, matters, but we're talking the different of about 5-10 rushes here (which Saquon makes up on 50+ yard runs).

What do you guys think?
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,908
Reaction score
64,316
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I'd always felt that comparing E. Smith to B. Sanders was a matter of taste - do you want a consistent 4 yard gain and move the chains on each carry, or are you willing to sacrifice losses and no gains to get a few home run hits. I feel after the Giants game in week 17 that we may be gearing up to see the second iteration of this discussion between Barkley and Elliott. Barkley is a quality RB - he has great vision, elite speed, strength, and is dangerous out of the backfield. He also has a terrible OL - HOWEVER, despite reputation, Elliott did not have great blocking this season either. I feel like Barkley has the potential to break off a 50+ yard run at any given time, whereas I trust Elliot to find me the 3-4 "dirty yards" on virtually any play.

Fortunately, our friends at Pro-Football-Reference make slicing this data relatively simple. I decided to take three RBs and break down their rush attempts into buckets to see how often they lose yards, gain nothing, gain a little and gain a lot. The chart and table are available for your reference below:

Ne21IRV.jpg


5HLvN2t.jpg


In order to flatten for the number of attempts, I repeated the table for % of carries. For instance, Barkley had 4 carries that resulted in a loss of 4-5 yards, whereas Gurley had only 1, BUT, Barkley also carried the ball 5 more times, so while he lost those yards 2% of the time, Gurley did less than 1%.

tJAYmcw.jpg


mt8QHny.jpg


Analysis:
More surprising to me than anything is not the comparison between Barkley and Zeke, rather, the comparison between Gurley and the others. Gurley doesn't have NEARLY the dirty yards Zeke and Barkley have (0-3 yards) - he just has a whole lot of 5 yard runs. Not the homerun hitter either of them are, just a good consistent 5 yard guy.

Zeke definitely seems to get the dirty yards like no other, and really nails it on the 5-10 yard range. I see a lot of consistency from Zeke - seldom loses yards, gets dirty yards and gets some good positives. Barkley is really similar though on less carries, but man cna he hit a home run.

Crazy to me that Zeke has that many more runs than either of them, but especially Saquon. I suppose they pass to Saquon more in NY, thus is total scrimmage yards, and the Rams are clearly a passing team. But wow, 40-50 more carries is about 2 games worth. Definitely tells you what a workhorse Zeke is and what the Cowboys are going to try to do, even with a few steps back on the OL.

Conclusion:

Not a ton to be honest. Basically, there aren't any glaring items of note. These are three similar running backs that all three of their teams are incredibly happy to have. Statistics don't tell you a ton other than more often than not, these guys are going to get you 3+ yards and break a few good ones. Who you would prefer is no more than a matter of taste and how your team is built. Arguing about who is "better" is probably a silly discussion overall. Maybe if there was a statistical way to discuss "intangibles" it would matter, but then they wouldn't really be intangible.

You have to wonder what the effect of carries has overall on these. Certainly the fact that the % for Zeke is higher on dirty runs and 15-20 yard runs, despite more carries, matters, but we're talking the different of about 5-10 rushes here (which Saquon makes up on 50+ yard runs).

What do you guys think?

I've made the same comparison of Emmitt/Zeke vs Sanders/Barkley.

In retrospect with today's knowledge of history if Jimmy had the choice between Emmitt and Sanders he would pick Emmitt every time.

Emmitt was a great blocker and great in short yardage. Sanders was often out of the game on short yardage.

Many studies have concluded that 1 loss of a few yards by a RB offsets at least 1 big gain in regards to the probability of winning. That's even more significant with the conservative ball control offenses used by the Aikman and Dak offenses.

Barry Sanders was one of the most exciting players to watch that I've seen; however, if winning Super Bowls is the goal, then Emmitt is one of if not the best ever from that perspective

Saquon Barkley is a terrific player and fun to watch. His acceleration is as good as it gets for active NFL players, IMO; however, Zeke is a terrific blocker and rarely has lost yards. Zeke has run over some LBs which I don't recall seeing from Barkley.

On a side note, the Giants OL is terrible.

I thinks the decline of Eli is due to the OLine. Eli looks about the same as always to me...not great, but good enough to win Super Bowls.

If I were a Giants fan, I would want them to invest in OLinemen in the draft and free agency while keeping Dumb-Face at QB.

Second side note:
The Cowboys should continue drafting OLinemen with premium picks regardless of their current investment.

I prefer an OT over TE in the 2nd round of 2019...
 

Crown Royal

Insulin Beware
Messages
14,229
Reaction score
6,383
I've made the same comparison of Emmitt/Zeke vs Sanders/Barkley.

In retrospect with today's knowledge of history if Jimmy had the choice between Emmitt and Sanders he would pick Emmitt every time.

Emmitt was a great blocker and great in short yardage. Sanders was often out of the game on short yardage.

Many studies have concluded that 1 loss of a few yards by a RB offsets at least 1 big gain in regards to the probability of winning. That's even more significant with the conservative ball control offenses used by the Aikman and Dak offenses.

Barry Sanders was one of the most exciting players to watch that I've seen; however, if winning Super Bowls is the goal, then Emmitt is one of if not the best ever from that perspective

Saquon Barkley is a terrific player and fun to watch. His acceleration is as good as it gets for active NFL players, IMO; however, Zeke is a terrific blocker and rarely has lost yards. Zeke has run over some LBs which I don't recall seeing from Barkley.

On a side note, the Giants OL is terrible.

I thinks the decline of Eli is due to the OLine. Eli looks about the same as always to me...not great, but good enough to win Super Bowls.

If I were a Giants fan, I would want them to invest in OLinemen in the draft and free agency while keeping Dumb-Face at QB.

Second side note:
The Cowboys should continue drafting OLinemen with premium picks regardless of their current investment.

I prefer an OT over TE in the 2nd round of 2019...

Agree on drafting OL. DL as well - I'm always for getting trench players over skill players if it comes down to it.

Interesting to note, I did a different slice of the analysis above to account for negative, no gain and positive plays. Here it is by player and percentage of their attempts. Sorry about the way it will come up, I don't know how to get it to justify appropriately, but basically, only 77% of Barkley's rushes are positive, whereas Elliott and Gurley were 83 and 84% respectively. Some of that is OL, but some of that is sheer will, strength and vision.

Player Negative No Gain Positive Grand Total
Barkley 13% 10% 77% 100%
Elliott 10% 7% 83% 100%
Gurley 9% 7% 84% 100%
Grand Total 10% 8% 81% 100%
 

Aerolithe_Lion

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,783
Reaction score
11,692
They’re all kind of similar, I’m having a hard time really picking one thing any of them are way better at Than the others. Barkley over 30 yards? Obviously Barkley gets stuffed a lot, but would he in Dallas? Would he in St. Louis?
 

Crown Royal

Insulin Beware
Messages
14,229
Reaction score
6,383
Huh...for the fun of it, here is a comparison of Barry Sanders' best years by total rushing yards (1997 for 2,053 yards on 335 attempts) and Smith's best year (1995, 1,773 yards on 377 attempts). Check out the comparison of positive yards vs. negative/no gain.

Give me 80%+ of positive yardage every. Single. Time.

Player Negative No Gain Positive
Sanders 14.33% 8.36% 77.31%
Smith 9.07% 7.73% 83.20%
Grand Total 11.55% 8.03% 80.42%
 

Crown Royal

Insulin Beware
Messages
14,229
Reaction score
6,383
They’re all kind of similar, I’m having a hard time really picking one thing any of them are way better at Than the others. Barkley over 30 yards? Obviously Barkley gets stuffed a lot, but would he in Dallas? Would he in St. Louis?

Nothing to do with this analysis, but I'd say Barkley as a receiver is more dangerous than the other two for the same reason as a guy like Tyreek Hill or Darren Sproles. He clicks turbo button faster than either of them and is terrifying.
 

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,232
Reaction score
43,941
I've made the same comparison of Emmitt/Zeke vs Sanders/Barkley.

In retrospect with today's knowledge of history if Jimmy had the choice between Emmitt and Sanders he would pick Emmitt every time.

Emmitt was a great blocker and great in short yardage. Sanders was often out of the game on short yardage.

Many studies have concluded that 1 loss of a few yards by a RB offsets at least 1 big gain in regards to the probability of winning. That's even more significant with the conservative ball control offenses used by the Aikman and Dak offenses.

Barry Sanders was one of the most exciting players to watch that I've seen; however, if winning Super Bowls is the goal, then Emmitt is one of if not the best ever from that perspective

Saquon Barkley is a terrific player and fun to watch. His acceleration is as good as it gets for active NFL players, IMO; however, Zeke is a terrific blocker and rarely has lost yards. Zeke has run over some LBs which I don't recall seeing from Barkley.

On a side note, the Giants OL is terrible.

I thinks the decline of Eli is due to the OLine. Eli looks about the same as always to me...not great, but good enough to win Super Bowls.

If I were a Giants fan, I would want them to invest in OLinemen in the draft and free agency while keeping Dumb-Face at QB.

Second side note:
The Cowboys should continue drafting OLinemen with premium picks regardless of their current investment.

I prefer an OT over TE in the 2nd round of 2019...

“Many studies have concluded that 1 loss of a few yards offsets [...]”

Really?

Name one study.
 

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,232
Reaction score
43,941
I'd always felt that comparing E. Smith to B. Sanders was a matter of taste - do you want a consistent 4 yard gain and move the chains on each carry, or are you willing to sacrifice losses and no gains to get a few home run hits. I feel after the Giants game in week 17 that we may be gearing up to see the second iteration of this discussion between Barkley and Elliott. Barkley is a quality RB - he has great vision, elite speed, strength, and is dangerous out of the backfield. He also has a terrible OL - HOWEVER, despite reputation, Elliott did not have great blocking this season either. I feel like Barkley has the potential to break off a 50+ yard run at any given time, whereas I trust Elliot to find me the 3-4 "dirty yards" on virtually any play.

Fortunately, our friends at Pro-Football-Reference make slicing this data relatively simple. I decided to take three RBs and break down their rush attempts into buckets to see how often they lose yards, gain nothing, gain a little and gain a lot. The chart and table are available for your reference below:

Ne21IRV.jpg


5HLvN2t.jpg


In order to flatten for the number of attempts, I repeated the table for % of carries. For instance, Barkley had 4 carries that resulted in a loss of 4-5 yards, whereas Gurley had only 1, BUT, Barkley also carried the ball 5 more times, so while he lost those yards 2% of the time, Gurley did less than 1%.

tJAYmcw.jpg


mt8QHny.jpg


Analysis:
More surprising to me than anything is not the comparison between Barkley and Zeke, rather, the comparison between Gurley and the others. Gurley doesn't have NEARLY the dirty yards Zeke and Barkley have (0-3 yards) - he just has a whole lot of 5 yard runs. Not the homerun hitter either of them are, just a good consistent 5 yard guy.

Zeke definitely seems to get the dirty yards like no other, and really nails it on the 5-10 yard range. I see a lot of consistency from Zeke - seldom loses yards, gets dirty yards and gets some good positives. Barkley is really similar though on less carries, but man cna he hit a home run.

Crazy to me that Zeke has that many more runs than either of them, but especially Saquon. I suppose they pass to Saquon more in NY, thus is total scrimmage yards, and the Rams are clearly a passing team. But wow, 40-50 more carries is about 2 games worth. Definitely tells you what a workhorse Zeke is and what the Cowboys are going to try to do, even with a few steps back on the OL.

Conclusion:

Not a ton to be honest. Basically, there aren't any glaring items of note. These are three similar running backs that all three of their teams are incredibly happy to have. Statistics don't tell you a ton other than more often than not, these guys are going to get you 3+ yards and break a few good ones. Who you would prefer is no more than a matter of taste and how your team is built. Arguing about who is "better" is probably a silly discussion overall. Maybe if there was a statistical way to discuss "intangibles" it would matter, but then they wouldn't really be intangible.

You have to wonder what the effect of carries has overall on these. Certainly the fact that the % for Zeke is higher on dirty runs and 15-20 yard runs, despite more carries, matters, but we're talking the different of about 5-10 rushes here (which Saquon makes up on 50+ yard runs).

What do you guys think?

Good stuff by the way OP.
 

Crown Royal

Insulin Beware
Messages
14,229
Reaction score
6,383
“Many studies have concluded that 1 loss of a few yards offsets [...]”

Really?

Name one study.

Yeah I struggle with that. Losing 1 yard on first down isn't great, but not sure it's bad enough to offset a 60 yard run which puts me into scoring position.
 

Super_Kazuya

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,074
Reaction score
9,113
Huh...for the fun of it, here is a comparison of Barry Sanders' best years by total rushing yards (1997 for 2,053 yards on 335 attempts) and Smith's best year (1995, 1,773 yards on 377 attempts). Check out the comparison of positive yards vs. negative/no gain.

Give me 80%+ of positive yardage every. Single. Time.

Player Negative No Gain Positive
Sanders 14.33% 8.36% 77.31%
Smith 9.07% 7.73% 83.20%
Grand Total 11.55% 8.03% 80.42%
It’s a few percent better... basically nothing. Meanwhile the ability to break off a 70 yard touchdown when you’re not even in scoring position is infinitely better than falling forward for a few yards a couple of more times a season.
Most of these kind of stats are concocted by homers who have a hard time dealing with the general sentiment that Barry > Emmitt.
 

Crown Royal

Insulin Beware
Messages
14,229
Reaction score
6,383
It’s a few percent better... basically nothing. Meanwhile the ability to break off a 70 yard touchdown when you’re not even in scoring position is infinitely better than falling forward for a few yards a couple of more times a season.
Most of these kind of stats are concocted by homers who have a hard time dealing with the general sentiment that Barry > Emmitt.

Maybe. Comparing those two year, Smith had 10 attempts that went more than 20 yards, and sanders had 19. So 9 more times, Sanders had a big run play, but 20 more times, Smith gained positive yardage as opposed to nothing or a loss. Net difference of 11 drives affected, so while the loss of yards may have stalled 11 drives differentiated between the two.

You are right though that at these numbers, it's generally meaningless because while Sanders danced around, some of those may have been a 1 yard loss thanks to his OL not being the same caliber.
 

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,232
Reaction score
43,941
Yeah I struggle with that. Losing 1 yard on first down isn't great, but not sure it's bad enough to offset a 60 yard run which puts me into scoring position.

Especially when you consider the likely probability most 60+ yard runs end up as TDs.
 

Super_Kazuya

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,074
Reaction score
9,113
Maybe. Comparing those two year, Smith had 10 attempts that went more than 20 yards, and sanders had 19. So 9 more times, Sanders had a big run play, but 20 more times, Smith gained positive yardage as opposed to nothing or a loss. Net difference of 11 drives affected, so while the loss of yards may have stalled 11 drives differentiated between the two.

You are right though that at these numbers, it's generally meaningless because while Sanders danced around, some of those may have been a 1 yard loss thanks to his OL not being the same caliber.
Right. A 2 yard gain on 3rd and 5 isn't usually any better than a 2 yard loss (excluding four down territory situations)... nor is a "no gain" really all that much better than a loss of one in most situations.
I always thought the idea of the boom and bust back was pretty stupid, usually these backs are trying to make something happen behind a crummy line. I truly believe there are Cowboy fans who believe Sanders (and now Barkley) is incapable of running in a straight line and that he has to spin around in the backfield like a top three times for every one positive yard he makes.
 

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,330
Reaction score
48,172
Don't see the Barkley and Barry Sanders comps.
I get that they both are home-run hitters--with sanders being one the best ever--But Barkley is an incredibly powerful back who does not dance behind the line of scrimmage as much.
I bet Barkley is as strong as Zeke.
 

Crown Royal

Insulin Beware
Messages
14,229
Reaction score
6,383
Don't see the Barkley and Barry Sanders comps.
I get that they both are home-run hitters--with sanders being one the best ever--But Barkley is an incredibly powerful back who does not dance behind the line of scrimmage as much.
I bet Barkley is as strong as Zeke.

I agree with you after thinking about it a longer time. Not that Sanders was weak, but Barkley will definitely carry some guys. I dunno if he will run over them the same as Zeke, but it isn't a weakness in his game by any means.
 

Aerolithe_Lion

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,783
Reaction score
11,692
Nothing to do with this analysis, but I'd say Barkley as a receiver is more dangerous than the other two for the same reason as a guy like Tyreek Hill or Darren Sproles. He clicks turbo button faster than either of them and is terrifying.

I might argue Gurley could match his speed. So maybe instead Barkley’s secret sauce is that he can turn in the burners WHILE running over linebackers
 

Nova

Ntegrase96
Messages
10,261
Reaction score
12,039
Don't see the Barkley and Barry Sanders comps.
I get that they both are home-run hitters--with sanders being one the best ever--But Barkley is an incredibly powerful back who does not dance behind the line of scrimmage as much.
I bet Barkley is as strong as Zeke.

There should be little doubt that Barkley is as strong as Zeke, but he isn't as willing to be physical and dole out punishment as Zeke is. Zeke is a violent player, even when the ball isn't in his hands.

To be fair, I'm not saying this is a weakness of Barkley's, but that's probably why people compare him to Sanders.

They're trying to fit him into an archetype of a 'dancing RB' because he doesn't run people over.
 

AsthmaField

Outta bounds
Messages
26,326
Reaction score
43,954
Looking at their negative yards, it’s easy to see that people are correct in saying that Barkley dances more looking for the big play and ends up with more lost yards:

*Barkley had 17 carries for 66 yards in losses
*Gurley had 7 carries for 23 yards in losses
*Elliott had 7 carries for 21 yards in losses

Barkley had well over double the amount of runs for a loss than the other two, and he had over triple the amount of lost yards. Both Ezekiel and Todd tend to head upfield as soon as they take the handoff, which is more desirable IMO, even with fewer big plays as a result of going for the home ruin on each carry.

It also appears that Elliott has more long runs than Gurley, which is a little counterintuitive because of the offense both play in. Less than Barkley though, which is expected.

Barkley has phenomenal ability. He’s simply amazing with some of the things he can do... but as a RB for my team, I’d take Elliott. He has way fewer negative runs as well as more runs in the 10-20 yard area, even though he won’t have as many huge plays.

Throw in Ezekiel’s penchant for causing blunt force trauma to the defense and his league best pass protection and it seals the deal for me. Zeke makes fourth quarter cowards out of many DB’s and is the alpha dog of the physical Dallas offense. He loves the game, is tough as hell, and does everything I want my RB to do.

I’ll gladly sacrifice flash for his menace and chunk yardage.

To be clear though, I think Barkley is very, VERY good. I’d take him over Gurley 10 out of 10 times.
 

AsthmaField

Outta bounds
Messages
26,326
Reaction score
43,954
I might argue Gurley could match his speed. So maybe instead Barkley’s secret sauce is that he can turn in the burners WHILE running over linebackers
Barkley’s change of direction is way better than Gurley’s. Throw in his superior acceleration and it is easy to see why he leaves so many defenders grasping thin air. Their long speed may be similar but Saquan can cut on a dime and be back to top speed in a flash.
 
Top