Ok........... 3.9 or 4.0

[DesertSteel]

I keep reading Dulac making the same repeated claim about Bell averaging 3.9 YPC.


Gerry Dulac: He had three runs over 20 yards last season, none longer than 27. So you are correct. And he averaged 3.9 yards a carry.

Now is Dulac just lazy or am I missing something? 321 carries for 1,291 yards = 4.0218 YPC. I realize that Bell was at 3.9 late in the season, but he pulled it up (if you want to call it that) at the end. I've even read Dulac correct readers in his chats who tried to say Bell averaged 4.0.

So............ what's the verdict? 3.9 or 4.0

(They both such, by the way. But I'm a stickler)

[teegre]

https://vimeo.com/65921206

[DesertSteel]

https://vimeo.com/65921206
So...... it's Jane Curtain's position that the YPC was indeed 3.9?

[Dwinsgames]

for the asking price of 17 mil a year is should be 8 ypc 2,500 yards and 25 rushing tds but thats just me

[teegre]

So...... it's Jane Curtain's position that the YPC was indeed 3.9?

“Jane, you ignorant slut...”

[Mojouw]

I don't know about this, but it needs coupled with this stat - since he has entered the league Bell leads the league in yards after contact and has been either 1st or 2nd in missed/broken tackles.

What does that mean - it means he got that 3.9 or 4.0 ypc the hard way.

[DesertSteel]

I'd still like to know what I'm missing, that Dulac persists that it was 3.9...

[Mojouw]

I'd still like to know what I'm missing, that Dulac persists that it was 3.9...

Well it could just be another in a long line of examples of guys like Dulac and Bouchette picking a random wrong fact and making it the hill they die on.

You have likely spent more time researching the issue than he has.

[DesertSteel]

Well it could just be another in a long line of examples of guys like Dulac and Bouchette picking a random wrong fact and making it the hill they die on.

You have likely spent more time researching the issue than he has.
Yeah it's not just that he's wrong, but in his chats he goes out of his way to "correct" the readers who say 4.0.

[Mojouw]

Yeah it's not just that he's wrong, but in his chats he goes out of his way to "correct" the readers who say 4.0.

Like I said, you have likely spent more time researching this and critically thinking about the situation than most of the "professional" Steelers reporters. Those guys, to different degrees, all have demonstrated a tendency to shoot from the hip and let their personal opinions color their commentary - especially in the "chat" feature items.

[steelreserve]

It's only 7 yards difference, so who rally cares. I think he literally went over the 4.0 mark on his second-to-last play of the regular season, a 10-yard run. But it should not be too difficult to look up for a professional sports reporter.

One thing that it does show beyond doubt is that being unprepared had about a -15% impact on his effectiveness for the overall season. I would make it known that if he pulls the same stunt again, he'll be deactivated for the final regular-season game without pay. See if a million bucks changes his mind about that.

[DesertSteel]

It's only 7 yards difference, so who rally cares. I think he literally went over the 4.0 mark on his second-to-last play of the regular season, a 10-yard run. But it should not be too difficult to look up for a professional sports reporter.

One thing that it does show beyond doubt is that being unprepared had about a -15% impact on his effectiveness for the overall season. I would make it known that if he pulls the same stunt again, he'll be deactivated for the final regular-season game without pay. See if a million bucks changes his mind about that.
Like I said previously, they both suck. I’m just a stickler for facts. I don’t like that he essentially puts people in their place with information that’s wrong.

[Mojouw]

OK. We can do the math a bit.

321 carries. 1291 yards. Works out to 4.02 yards per carry.

How effective or ineffective was that? Well we can use the mark of 4.7 YPC from Bell's 16 game Prow Bowl and All-Pro 2014 season. So that works out to the following:

321 carries x 4.7 YPC = 1508.7 -- so call it 1,509 yards rushing would be "effective".

Bell gained 1291 in 15 games. He averaged 86.1 per game. So we will give him one more game and get 1291+86=1377 yards rushing on a pro-rated 16 game 2017 slate.

So now let's look at the difference between 4.7 an 4.0 YPC over a 16 game schedule.

1509-1377 = 132 rushing yards. Or 8.25 yards per game.

Do the same thing for Bell's career high of 4.9 YPC (his 2015 and 2016 seasons) and you get 196 rushing yards or 12.25 yards per game.

So that means that somewhere between 8 and 13 yards per game is worth somewhere between 5-10 million dollars according to the arguments I have seen around here. Those are the...I would pay him X dollars over Y other RB contract BUT.....insert rate stat here statements I see floating around the roughly 96 threads on the topic.

Look I get it, Bell's mouth has written checks his ass is going to have a hard time cashing. But if we are going to pick the YPC stat to benchmark the conversation to, lets at least breakdown what is being talked about.

FWIW - I'm tired and may have screwed the math up...but I think I largely got around the right rates.

[teegre]

Most sites list it as 4.0 yards/attempt.

[steelreserve]

OK. We can do the math a bit.

321 carries. 1291 yards. Works out to 4.02 yards per carry.

How effective or ineffective was that? Well we can use the mark of 4.7 YPC from Bell's 16 game Prow Bowl and All-Pro 2014 season. So that works out to the following:

321 carries x 4.7 YPC = 1508.7 -- so call it 1,509 yards rushing would be "effective".

Bell gained 1291 in 15 games. He averaged 86.1 per game. So we will give him one more game and get 1291+86=1377 yards rushing on a pro-rated 16 game 2017 slate.

So now let's look at the difference between 4.7 an 4.0 YPC over a 16 game schedule.

1509-1377 = 132 rushing yards. Or 8.25 yards per game.

Do the same thing for Bell's career high of 4.9 YPC (his 2015 and 2016 seasons) and you get 196 rushing yards or 12.25 yards per game.

So that means that somewhere between 8 and 13 yards per game is worth somewhere between 5-10 million dollars according to the arguments I have seen around here. Those are the...I would pay him X dollars over Y other RB contract BUT.....insert rate stat here statements I see floating around the roughly 96 threads on the topic.

Look I get it, Bell's mouth has written checks his ass is going to have a hard time cashing. But if we are going to pick the YPC stat to benchmark the conversation to, lets at least breakdown what is being talked about.

FWIW - I'm tired and may have screwed the math up...but I think I largely got around the right rates.


Tragically, if he had only given full effort last season, he probably would've averaged closer to 4.7 YPC, and almost certainly would've broken 1,500 yards on the season and won the rushing title; then he'd be in a position to make all kinds of demands that he could back up.

Unfortunately, he chose not to, so these are the kinds of things that get debated.

Realistically, YPC is not really a great indicator of your production on any given play or in any given game. It's a better reflection of how many effective games versus ineffective games you had over the course of a season. The good ones, you're getting 9- and 10-yard runs, getting first downs and keeping the offense moving; the bad ones, you're not. Bell-Einstein had more games where he was ineffective last year than usual. At a million dollars per, even one or two games is significant.

It's also worth noting that YPC as a metric is itself going to favor the games where you're doing well. When you're ineffective in a certain game, the team figures it out and starts running the ball less often, unless your name is Willie Parker. In Bell-Einstein's most miserable games last year, he'd have like 10, 12, 15 carries. When he was on a roll, he'd get 25 or 30.

So, if you have one game at 5 yards a pop for 30 carries, and three games at 3 yards a pop for 10 carries ... that's a 4.0 average, but you sucked ass in three out of four games. Maybe the difference between 4.0 and 4.7 is only a dozen yards per game on paper, but that isn't really the story. Anyone can look at Bell-Einstein's season last year and tell it wasn't quite up to his usual standard for large stretches.

[Mojouw]

Tragically, if he had only given full effort last season, he probably would've averaged closer to 4.7 YPC, and almost certainly would've broken 1,500 yards on the season and won the rushing title; then he'd be in a position to make all kinds of demands that he could back up.

Unfortunately, he chose not to, so these are the kinds of things that get debated.

Realistically, YPC is not really a great indicator of your production on any given play or in any given game. It's a better reflection of how many effective games versus ineffective games you had over the course of a season. The good ones, you're getting 9- and 10-yard runs, getting first downs and keeping the offense moving; the bad ones, you're not. Bell-Einstein had more games where he was ineffective last year than usual. At a million dollars per, even one or two games is significant.

It's also worth noting that YPC as a metric is itself going to favor the games where you're doing well. When you're ineffective in a certain game, the team figures it out and starts running the ball less often, unless your name is Willie Parker. In Bell-Einstein's most miserable games last year, he'd have like 10, 12, 15 carries. When he was on a roll, he'd get 25 or 30.

So, if you have one game at 5 yards a pop for 30 carries, and three games at 3 yards a pop for 10 carries ... that's a 4.0 average, but you sucked ass in three out of four games. Maybe the difference between 4.0 and 4.7 is only a dozen yards per game on paper, but that isn't really the story. Anyone can look at Bell-Einstein's season last year and tell it wasn't quite up to his usual standard for large stretches.

Yeah, but again we are talking about 36 yards total between him and Hunt for the rushing title. Of course, Bell got his on roughly 50 more carries. So, by any measure it is clear that Bell was less effective in 2017 than his standout 3 year stretch from 14-16. However, the narrative that he took too long to get going is a bit less clear.

Meh game against Cleveland in the opener. An okay game against Vikings. One of his most effective and versatile games of the year against Chicago in Week 3. Just killed Ravens in Week 4. Disappeared in Week 5 against the Jags. Absolutely dominated in Week 6. Major part of gameplan in Week 7. Then a down stretch in Weeks 8-11 and a really nice stretch to close out the year in 12-15.

It wasn't as if all his bad games were clumped in the first 2-4 weeks. They weren't. They were sprinkled throughout the year. What does that mean? I don't know.

Kareem Hunt https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HuntKa00/gamelog/2017/
Leveon Bell https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BellLe00/gamelog/2017/

Both backs had variance in their "effectiveness" over the course of the season. Hunt's was far more extreme than Bell's. So again, what does that mean? I really don't know.

I do know that Bell's contract demands and negotiating "tactics" are starting to trend to the absurd, but the rebuttals to those on the internet and fan focused sites is starting to seriously lose a bit of contact with context and reality. By ANY definition Bell had a really good year in 2017. It is only by his own almost unbelievable 2014-2016 stretch that his season really starts to look bad. Gurley is a guy that gets mentioned as being "better" than Bell. But that is for one season after appearing on milk cartons in 2016. Which Gurley is the real one - 16 or 17? I strongly suspect the version we saw in 2017. But let us withhold judgement until Gurley can do it again on not a 4-12 team's schedule. Hunt also gets thrown out there as another comp for Bell. Hunter disappeared for several stretches of the 2017 season to a far greater degree than Bell. Rookie wall? Bad play calling in KC? Not sure, but I do know it happened. 5 times Hunt averaged less than 4.0 YPC and 3 times he managed less than 3.0 YPC. Does that mean Hunt is terrible? No, of course not -- but I think it could indicate that Bell may have been consistently more effective than Hunt.

The only way to really know would be to watch like a crazy amount of ALL-22 tape and do some sort of per snap breakdown/scoring of the 3 backs. I am certainly never going to do that, nor do I expect anyone else around here to. But I do think that the downgrading of Bell's 2017 season is beginning to outstrip the actual decline.

[DesertSteel]

Most sites list it as 4.0 yards/attempt.
I haven’t found one that says otherwise.

I really wasn’t trying to start another Bell thread. More of a math thread really...

[teegre]

I haven’t found one that says otherwise.

I really wasn’t trying to start another Bell thread. More of a math thread really...

As you said earlier, Dulac is just kind of being an ass...

...which is the impetus for this thread.

[steelreserve]

(all of that)

There are all kinds of ways to approach it, but here's what it boils down to: Bell-Einstein is definitely the best running back in the league, as long as he's a) healthy and b) not being an idiot. On average throughout his career, that means you get 11-12 games of best-RB-in-the-league production and a few games of some bullshit.

In those 12 games, he puts up the same stats as other top RBs do in 16 games, which is amazing considering that these are other Pro Bowlers and All-Pros.

BUT, at the same time, his production is the same as those guys. A full 16 games of non-injured, non-suspended, non-stupid Bell-Einstein would project to much higher production than the best RBs in the league. But you don't get 16 games of that, so his production is the same. He wants to be paid based on his projected 16 games of production at his non-injured, non-stupid level, but you don't get that, you get 12 games of that and 4 games of "yeah but if only this, if only that," and while impressive that he can fit a season's worth of yardage into 12 games, it ends up being the same as the other good backs.

Now, those guys make $8 million. He wants double that. So he has some convincing to do. I'm willing to give him a little more because he can do things that most other RBs can't and that makes him hard to directly replace. But he takes it beyond that and then some. Hard to see how it works out financially, and in any case he's not going to take our money regardless. He'll get paid a lot somewhere. The math and the logic behind it right now are kind of ridiculous.

[43Hitman]

Some damn good reading in this thread. I love this site, more than any other Steeler site I've ever been a member of.

[Mojouw]

There are all kinds of ways to approach it, but here's what it boils down to: Bell-Einstein is definitely the best running back in the league, as long as he's a) healthy and b) not being an idiot. On average throughout his career, that means you get 11-12 games of best-RB-in-the-league production and a few games of some bullshit.

In those 12 games, he puts up the same stats as other top RBs do in 16 games, which is amazing considering that these are other Pro Bowlers and All-Pros.

BUT, at the same time, his production is the same as those guys. A full 16 games of non-injured, non-suspended, non-stupid Bell-Einstein would project to much higher production than the best RBs in the league. But you don't get 16 games of that, so his production is the same. He wants to be paid based on his projected 16 games of production at his non-injured, non-stupid level, but you don't get that, you get 12 games of that and 4 games of "yeah but if only this, if only that," and while impressive that he can fit a season's worth of yardage into 12 games, it ends up being the same as the other good backs.

Now, those guys make $8 million. He wants double that. So he has some convincing to do. I'm willing to give him a little more because he can do things that most other RBs can't and that makes him hard to directly replace. But he takes it beyond that and then some. Hard to see how it works out financially, and in any case he's not going to take our money regardless. He'll get paid a lot somewhere. The math and the logic behind it right now are kind of ridiculous.

I'm not sure I buy into the "four missing games" idea other than the suspension, but like I said the only way to prove or disprove the theory is to do an exacting breakdown of each snap.

For me, I think we are now seeing the unintended bad side of the franchise tag. It can give a player no incentive to sign a deal. They play under an ever increasing tag - therefore providing a justification for increasing their demands. Meanwhile, the team has seen nothing to move them off their initial valuation a year or more previous. At least with FA, a player can gauge the market and then act on contract proposals. Remember when all the safeties this year were going to get $8-12 million and wouldn't settle for a penny less? Then Honey Badger signed for $7 on a one year deal and the market absolutely crated and Burnett lands in Pittsburgh for far under his projected valuation. On the other hand, the WR market went nucking futs and guys like Watkins and Moncrief got stupid money. Most players want that chance at one contract on the open market where they bet it all on themselves - that's why Honey Badger signed that one year down market deal - rehab his value and get back to $10-12 million per.

I am kinda hoping the Rams extend Gurley this off-season or very early the next. That will help to "Set" the market. While I have no faith that Bell will even make an honest attempt to negotiate between now and the start of the 2018 regular season, I can see several scenarios where he reaches a deal after the season - assuming the team still wants him.

The first step is Gurley taking under $12 million per. The next step is either the Steelers winning the SB or coming heartbreakingly close. Then we will see how Bell's relationships are with others on the team. If Ben tells Colbert to "get the band back together" and here is some money from the team friendly extension I just signed - do players like Bell and Bryant follow that example? I doubt it, but stranger things have happened.

First step will be if the team decides to spend a top 2 round pick on a RB. That'll tell us that nothing else matters and Bell is as good as gone. If they don't, there are a lot of months between now and the next league year.