NFL Hypothetical

[djoyce003]

fairly simple. he'd be a very useful role-player. Even more useful if his coach "knows" he will get the yard every time. If it's a case of where he happens to get it every time, but there's some doubt, then the value goes down.

Example, 4th and 1 from your own 30, you aren't sure if he'll make it or not, but it just so happens that you would, you probably punt. If you KNOW he gets the yard, then you go for it.

Also, he'd never be listed as an mvp or anything because his average yards per carry will be 1, and he'll have only a couple of carries a game...sorry, not MVP caliber statistic or hall of fame.

[MacGuyV]

I'd be very interested in seeing the career short yardage success rate of a guy like Bettis. I think that would provide some good framework for this question.

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be very interested in seeing the career short yardage success rate of a guy like Bettis. I think that would provide some good framework for this question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly what you're looking for (includes other RB and QB), but it's not a bad place to start:

Pittsburgh Steelers Power Rushing (Rank)

2006: 63% (20) <-- No Bettis
2005: 68% (12)
2004: 69% (10)
2003: 62% (22)
2002: 64% (20)
2001: 62% (17)
2000: 68% (10)

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2006.php

[GBP04]

[ QUOTE ]
If he is capable of fumbling his value goes down a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since this back knows he is guaranteed one yard, every time he gets the ball he should secure it in the very best way possible and focus 100% of his thought on holding onto the ball (and avoiding potential ball-strippers).

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm interested in what a team would do though on 2nd and 3. Running him 3 times for 3 yards just to get another 1st and 10 seems less useful than handing it to another back who will probably gain yardage anyway, and have a chance to break something longer. 2nd and 3 is already such a favorable offensive down and distance that I think most coaches would be loathe to give it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

glad somebody pointed this out. for most field positions, being able to turn a 2nd and 3 into a first down by getting exactly 3 yards isn't all that valuable.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm interested in what a team would do though on 2nd and 3. Running him 3 times for 3 yards just to get another 1st and 10 seems less useful than handing it to another back who will probably gain yardage anyway, and have a chance to break something longer. 2nd and 3 is already such a favorable offensive down and distance that I think most coaches would be loathe to give it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

glad somebody pointed this out. for most field positions, being able to turn a 2nd and 3 into a first down by getting exactly 3 yards isn't all that valuable.

[/ QUOTE ]But if you could pick up 2 yards on 2nd down, then you'd have one of those "ultra powerful" 3rd and 1s which gives you a free play to go downfield. Basically with this guy on your team, you'd reformulate your strategy to get 2nd and 2s(or less) and 3rd and 1s and then take the free shots downfield.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm interested in what a team would do though on 2nd and 3. Running him 3 times for 3 yards just to get another 1st and 10 seems less useful than handing it to another back who will probably gain yardage anyway, and have a chance to break something longer. 2nd and 3 is already such a favorable offensive down and distance that I think most coaches would be loathe to give it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

glad somebody pointed this out. for most field positions, being able to turn a 2nd and 3 into a first down by getting exactly 3 yards isn't all that valuable.

[/ QUOTE ]But if you could pick up 2 yards on 2nd down, then you'd have one of those "ultra powerful" 3rd and 1s which gives you a free play to go downfield. Basically with this guy on your team, you'd reformulate your strategy to get 2nd and 2s(or less) and 3rd and 1s and then take the free shots downfield.

[/ QUOTE ]

just saying he isn't that useful on 2nd and 3.

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm interested in what a team would do though on 2nd and 3. Running him 3 times for 3 yards just to get another 1st and 10 seems less useful than handing it to another back who will probably gain yardage anyway, and have a chance to break something longer. 2nd and 3 is already such a favorable offensive down and distance that I think most coaches would be loathe to give it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

glad somebody pointed this out. for most field positions, being able to turn a 2nd and 3 into a first down by getting exactly 3 yards isn't all that valuable.

[/ QUOTE ]But if you could pick up 2 yards on 2nd down, then you'd have one of those "ultra powerful" 3rd and 1s which gives you a free play to go downfield. Basically with this guy on your team, you'd reformulate your strategy to get 2nd and 2s(or less) and 3rd and 1s and then take the free shots downfield.

[/ QUOTE ]
You greatly underestimate how conservative NFL coaches are. A lot of them would run him 3 times on 2 and 3.

[prohornblower]

This player would be really valuable.

I heard someone say that he knows he gets 2.5ypc, but do the other teams know this? If so, I'd guess they'd get more risky and just go for stipping the ball from him every carry. This would change things a lot.