JD_KaPow
jimnabby
- Messages
- 11,072
- Reaction score
- 10,836
A good balanced discussion.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-and-the-myth-of-the-replaceable-running-back
Ezekiel Elliott and the Myth of the Replaceable Running Back
There's a theory that bubbled forth from analytics circles years ago that running backs are "fungible." Fungible means easily and cheaply replaceable and essentially interchangeable. Your cellphone is not fungible, but its charger is. Tom Brady is not fungible, but the Patriots go through three or four running backs per year without worrying that none of them are Adrian Peterson.
I also bubbled forth from the analytics circles, and I always thought that the "running backs are fungible" concept took the results of the research way too far. (I secretly thought analysts just really loved writing the word fungible.)....
A quick reexamination of the evidence suggests teams were drafting too many running backs in the first round back when football analytics first became a thing. But draft strategies have changed, as have salary structures. And while many running backs are interchangeable, the truly special ones like Elliott often require a first-round investment.....
But there are still special running backs who can do things a committee cannot replicate, guys who can run like CJ2K at his peak or enter Beast Mode or just be Adrian Peterson. There may only be three or four of them in the draft every five years, but when they do arrive, they are now available at a fraction of the old Bush price. It makes no sense, analytically, economically or old-school football-wise, to pass on a player like that.
Ezekiel Elliott is one of those special players. His game film reminds me of LaDainian Tomlinson. His skill package, from power and speed and big-play ability to blocking, places him a thick notch above "interchangeable."
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-and-the-myth-of-the-replaceable-running-back
Ezekiel Elliott and the Myth of the Replaceable Running Back
There's a theory that bubbled forth from analytics circles years ago that running backs are "fungible." Fungible means easily and cheaply replaceable and essentially interchangeable. Your cellphone is not fungible, but its charger is. Tom Brady is not fungible, but the Patriots go through three or four running backs per year without worrying that none of them are Adrian Peterson.
I also bubbled forth from the analytics circles, and I always thought that the "running backs are fungible" concept took the results of the research way too far. (I secretly thought analysts just really loved writing the word fungible.)....
A quick reexamination of the evidence suggests teams were drafting too many running backs in the first round back when football analytics first became a thing. But draft strategies have changed, as have salary structures. And while many running backs are interchangeable, the truly special ones like Elliott often require a first-round investment.....
But there are still special running backs who can do things a committee cannot replicate, guys who can run like CJ2K at his peak or enter Beast Mode or just be Adrian Peterson. There may only be three or four of them in the draft every five years, but when they do arrive, they are now available at a fraction of the old Bush price. It makes no sense, analytically, economically or old-school football-wise, to pass on a player like that.
Ezekiel Elliott is one of those special players. His game film reminds me of LaDainian Tomlinson. His skill package, from power and speed and big-play ability to blocking, places him a thick notch above "interchangeable."
Last edited:
