Two-year extension for Jaylen Warren

Najee never hit home runs and he had a bad on base percentage. Especially in his last year.

His YPC is low (no home runs) and his succ% is low (also bad OB% in your baseball analogy). I know you said you don't think YPC is about how frequently a guy has big runs and you said that you don't like succ%. But these are the stats that we have. And they refute arguments like Wizards that Najee only had low YPC because he had a lot of "and short" type carries.

I'd love some evidence for your claim that Najee wore down defenses last year. And presumably that we were better at doing this last year vs. this year. I could see this being plausible as Najee is a bigger back than Warren (although Warren isn't some small scat back).

Do you have any evidence that (1) this happened and (2) it was better last season than this season?

It's an interesting idea. But I don't know how we'd test it.

Bettis used to talk about how he'd wear down defenses. That he'd pound them through the first three quarters (or whatever). But then he'd "get skinny" late in the game. My recollection of what he meant here was that defenders wouldn't really want contact by the end of the game. But they'd go in it. And Jerome would put some kind of move on them and then run by them for bigger gains because they were too worn down to catch him. Or maybe just that they were too beat down to fill the holes that "skinny" Jerome could get through.

 

No I picked Cmac and Henry because they both had alot of carries and yet their 20+ yard runs were on opposite sides of the spectrum. Both had over 300 carries but Henry had 17 and Cmac had 3. The point being even among the best backs, more carries dont result in more 20+ yard runs.

 

Success rate is a subjective statistic that measures circumstances beyond the player's control as much as it measures what they actually do, so no, it is not the same as on-base percentage.

It's not that I dislike success percentage. I see its flaws more clearly than you do.

One bit of evidence would be that the running game was better last year despite defenses being able to focus on it more because the passing game was weaker.

 

Warren contract extension playing for team SUCCESS

the other guy 1 yr show me deal closer to home. success

 

It seems to me like you don't like success rate because it clearly shows that your argument here is incorrect.

FWIW, I think people think more of people who admit they're wrong on the internet because it happens so rarely.

Notice how in this thread, I: (1) made a guess about something (Najee having a higher rate of carries for loss than Warren), (2) then looked for and found the data showed that they were about the same, then (3) I said "I was wrong". I could have argued about being "technically correct" because he (1) does have more carries for loss (because he got more carries) or that (2) he does have a higher rate (because it is higher by some insignificant amount). But doing either of those things would be silly.

I think that's a good process of what to do when you find out you were wrong. And while I'm sure I don't bat 1.00 here, I generally try to admit when I'm wrong when the data shows that I'm wrong (as I did up thread).

And it's OK that you're wrong about Najee being better at short yardage or being more consistent or whatever before we had easily accessible data that showed the opposite. It was a reasonably hypothesis. And data like succ% was mostly proprietary until recently. But now we know that it's not the case.

Re: the claim you made about Najee wearing down defenses.

In your previous post, you said: Like many here, you are too focused on the handful of home runs to understand the value of the steady stream of singles and doubles that can wear down a defense.

I asked if there was any support for that because I think it's at least plausible (even though Najee didn't seem to benefit from this himself).

The evidence you're offering for your claim is: One bit of evidence would be that the running game was better last year despite defenses being able to focus on it more because the passing game was weaker.

Can you walk me through the logic here? I assume you mean that the passing game was weaker last year? How does that show that Najee wore defenses down more? Or that it helped us more this year than last year?

Maybe the argument makes sense. But I don't understand what it is.

 

So you're argument seems to be: Guys with different rates of getting 20+ yard carries end up with a different number of 20+ yard carried even if they have the same number of carries.

Again, I think that's true. But it doesn't really have anything to do with the argument I was making.

My argument was: Najee and Warren have essentially the same rate of getting 20+ yard carries when they are in a similar role. So (1) if you gave them a similar number of carries, they'll likely end up with a similar number of 20+ yard carries AND (2) talking about how Najee had more 20+ yard carries doesn't really differentiate him from Warren because the different is almost entirely driven by the difference in the number of carries.

Note how that's different than talking about 40+ yard carries. This year, Warren literally delivered infinitely more 40+ yard carries than Najee did in 2024 (and across Najee's entire career). And since Najee has a very large sample size (he's something like 14th in career carries of active RBs IIRC...data is up thread), it's pretty reasonable to assume that Warren will always deliver more 40+ yard carries than Najee. Even though it's not something Warren is good at. This is like how when Mason outplayed Kenny, it wasn't a sign that Mason was good. It was a sign that Kenny was bad.

 

My friend, I hate this whole argument because Warren is here, and Najee isn't, and I don't like downing the guys we have, and praising the guys we don't. I don't know why, but it makes me feel funny, but I don't give a (how do I say this nice) crap about comparing one RB against another when one has never had to carry the load like the other. I don't care how many stats , charts, or averages people show its not the same for more reasons than I care to type out.
I said I wouldn't be drawn back to this debate, and I keep breaking my own promises to myself.
With all that said.
Go Warren, Gainwell, and KJ.

 

That's certainly fair.

FWIW, I think we kept the correct guy.

If it matters to you, this isn't me dumping on a guy because he left. I was saying most of these things re: Najee when he was here too (although it was harder to get succ%, so that part was speculation based on watching the games...that turned out to be supported by the data).

Strongly agree with the last sentence here. And it's really all that matters now.

I'd especially love to see KJ do something. I really wanted him to emerge as the RB1 for us this year. But on the bright side, we got way, way more than I though we'd get out of Gainwell (maybe the biggest thing I got wrong about this team in the preseason). ETA: Although I also thought that adding Ramsey as a CB would help us solve the issue of teams throwing on us so quickly and get our sack numbers up. So that's (at least) two things I got really wrong this year. I also thought the decline from Watt would be slower than it appears to be.

If Warren is really sick, maybe KJ gets a chance to come in an make a difference. But my guess is that Warren plays and Johnson doesn't get a helmet.

 

Thats also not true, last Season Warren had 120 carries and 1 run over 20 yards. There are too many factors that you cant compare 1 to 1 to make that case. Different o-lines, coordinators, opponents, roles.

 

Preachin it:

 

Please don't falsely claim I don't understand something simply because I see it more clearly than you do.

Success rate is subjective. It is based on circumstances beyond the individual player's control. That makes it a poor statistic that people like you rely on to prop up your flawed arguments.

Speaking of focusing too much on home runs, Warren's numbers this season are propped up by two of them. Sure, the two 45-yard touchdown runs against the Lions were impactful. They don't win that game without them, but they also came against a defense with horrendous safeties (because the starters were both injured). Without those two runs, Warren had 868 yards and averaged 4.15 yards per carry this season.

By the way, Warren was a non-factor when it mattered most last night. The Steelers gave up on using him. Throw out his five meaningless carries for 19 even more meaningless yards when the Steelers waved the white flag and ran out the clock on their final possession. Before that, Warren carried seven times for 24 yards, far less than four per carry, and caught one pass for four yards. But a few of his runs got first downs, so I'm sure you will start babbling about his success rate.

 

I agree with you that without the big runs his YPC goes down.

This is why I told you up thread that YPC was a proxy for how frequently a player gets big runs. This is something you didn't agree with then. But you do now. I'm glad that I helped you learn something about how YPC works in this thread!

YPC tells us how frequently a RB gets big carries. Succ% tells us how often they keep us on schedule.

Note also that Warren's YPC without the big carries that drive it up is still higher than Najee's YPC in his final year with us (4.0) and his career average (3.9). This supports the argument I've consistently been making in this thread: Warren isn't good RB1, but he's an improvement over Najee.

Knowing that it was better for the team to let Najee go doesn't mean his replacement was great. Just like how letting Kenny go was good for the team. Wilson/Fields were better. But still not that good and worth trying to improve.

 

Two runs is frequently? No, two plays is a fluke.

Average per carry measures what a back actually does. Success percentage is a subjective measure based on things beyond the control of the player.

The running game got worse without Harris, but you think that was the right call. Sure.

 

How frequently something happens == (number of times it happens) / (number of attempts)

For runs > 40 yards, the numerator (that's the number on top of the fraction) is 0 for Najee in ~ 1,100 carries in the NFL.

As I've said several times in this thread, this number is also not high enough for Warren IMO. But the number for Warren is greater than it is for Najee.

It's also interesting that even when you strip Warren of his two biggest runs, his YPC is still better than Najee's. Even though you've pointed out that Najee had a good number of 20 yard runs (essentially the same rate for both). Note: rates are when you divide the parameter of interest by the number of attempts.

I also love how your argument is that YPC is what a player actually does. Then you compare what Najee actually did to what Warren would have done in your hypothetical world where he didn't actually do the things he did. And even though Warren was still objectively better even in your subjectively adjusted stat* (only adjusted for Warren), you somehow think it was good for your argument.

* Aside: I think we should call your adjusted YPC stat for Warren: YPC x-"runs I wish Warren didn't make because it disproves my argument(s)"

The running game did not get worse. The only metric that shows that it total yards. Which wasn't much different despite having significantly more carries last year.

Also, why do you value total running yards more than total yards from scrimmage? Or total TDs?

 

I hadn't looked at this in a while. What I was pointing out was that you and others were basing a hell of a lot on two runs. yes, Warren had a better average per carry. He had a better passing game opening thing sup for him and wasn't asked to carry as much of a workload.

The new regime seems to have some of the same misgivings I do about Warren, signing the type of back I thought they should have added to replace Harris last year.

 

Two runs that Najee never had despite > 1000 caries in the NFL. Which is the reason he's not a starting NFL RB IMO. The NFL is moving more and more toward the importance of big plays. And Najee is the exact opposite of a guy who is going to give them to you. That was especially crippling for the Steelers who were in desperate need of explosive players when he was on the team (still a desperate need IMO).

As I have said multiple times (likely even in this thread...but I didn't go back to check): Warren being better than Najee doesn't make him a clear cut RB1 in the NFL. I think he's a really good RB2. And an OK RB1. The reason for this is because I don't think he gets enough big runs (even though he gets more than the 0 that Najee gets).

At this point in his career, I don't know what Najee even is. You'd look at him and think that he could be a good goal line back who can play a bigger role if your RB1 gets hurt. But his success rate sucked last time he got significant work. And I watched too many games where he'd get stuffed in those short yardage situations (so I believe the succ%). My guess is that he hangs around and tries to get a deal when some starter inevitably goes down with injury in the preseason.

I also agree that YPC is only part of the puzzle. It's a proxy for how frequently a RB gets really big runs (I'm glad you seem to have come around on this point...since you clearly understand the trust that that those 2 runs by Warren are the difference between him being just a bit better than Najee YPC wise and significantly better).

As I'm sure I've said above: Most RBs will have similar mode & median YPC. But the mean gets skewed by really big runs. This is the same reason talking about the median income in the US instead of the mean. Maybe one day when I retire, I'll make a bot that scrapes NFL carry data and presents (i) distributions, (ii) means, (iii) medians, and (iv) modes of carries.

This is why Najee always had low YPC numbers. I'm sure his mode and median carry is basically the same as Warren's (and every other back in the league). But the long tail in the distribution from those 2 runs dramatically changes their YPC.

It's also why Warren's YPC (while better than Najee's) isn't as high as we'd want it to. Although it was better in 2025 (4.5) than in 2024 (4.3) despite getting more carries and moving more to an early down back than a 3rd down back. Najee's career YPC is 3.4 and he never had a season > 4.1.

If there's good news here, it's that Dowdle has a pretty healthy YPC the last two years @ 4.6 (235 and 236 carries). His longs were > 50 both years.

The thing about Warren is that he is good at succ% too. 54.5% last year (50.0% the year before). Both of these numbers are good. And it's encouraging that his number went up when his workload went up.

Dowdle had a good success rate 2 years ago (53.6%), and was OK last year (47.9%). Hopefully, being back with McCarthy will help him system wise. And if an improvement in the system helps him, hopefully it will also help Warren. If it does, he JW might end up looking more like a RB1 than I think he is. Which would be nice.

Najee had a pretty bad success% in his last year with us after being OK in his first 3 years.

Re: Warren vs. Dowdle. I'm sure they have different builds / running styles. But I think they will be more similar results wise than different. I wanted someone who was more explosive. But Dowdle have this trait more than I thought he would based on his YPC data. But it's not dissimilar to where Warren was last year.

I think we really, really need guys who can deliver game breaking plays. I don't really think either of those guys fits that mold. But at least we have 2x NFL WRs on the team for the upcoming season.

 

Dowdle and Warren will / should be a GREAT 1/2 punch.

Enough about Najee, his career is over.

it is what it is, or WAS.....

 

I hope they will be a good 1/2 punch, but I don't expect them to be great....although maybe this is a semantic thing because I could see them combining for ~ 2k yards on the ground if they stay healthy and the defense doesn't suck at getting off the field again. That might even be low...

I just don't think we'll get those massive runs that great players get (although again...it's nice that Dowdle had >50s in both of his last two years).

I think the best thing about having them both is that the team will be resilient.

If one of them goes down (always a possibility with RBs), the other should be able to handle a significant load.

The main thing I dislike about the Dowdle signing is that it means we won't get to see anything from Johnson unless someone gets hurt. But maybe the team feels like they've seen enough...

Edited to add: When it happened, I was strongly against the McCarthy hiring. But I'm coming around to the idea that it will be nice to see what an offensive minded coach can do. Something we haven't had since I started following football.

 

I wouldn't say I have come to agree with you about yards per carry. I still think carrying the ball fewer times can help a back keep his average per carry higher. That is why those two somewhat fluky runs have a larger effect on Warren's average than it would for a back who handles a true lead back's workload, something Tomlin didn't trust him to do and McCarthy is unlikely to give him, either. The Steelers knew what both guys were, which is why Harris got the lion's share of the snaps and touches when they had both.

You keep pushing success rate as if it is a valid measure even though it is influenced by subjective choices and circumstances while total yards and yards per carry measure what the back actually did.

Harris had a lot of mileage on him for four years and now he is coming off a catastrophic injury, so those things will severely hamper his ability to get a new contract far more than his ability.

Dowdle does a lot of his best work inside and he is a more physical back than Warren. He can be explosive, but he seems to be a better fit as a lead back than Warren.

 

When this happens, it's often because the sample size is smaller so the large infrequent events skew the average more than they would if the sample was bigger.

The interesting thing re: Warren is that both his YPC and his succ% increased when his role did. That's likely a good sign. And it also suggests that anyone who was arguing that he only had a higher YPC than Najee because Najee got all the hard carries and Warren got all the easy ones (not saying this was you because I wasn't here at the time) was incorrect.

I'm not sure why you seem to think Warren's long runs are "somewhat fluky"...or at least any flukier than any other long runs. These very long runs happen at some frequency for all RBs (except maybe Najee). But that frequency is low for all of them (even a guy like Henry, who probably does it more frequently over a long period of time than anyone who plays now).

Maybe it's just that you're more aware of the day when Warren got those carries because you were arguing about how his YPC was the same as Najee's just a day or two before?

This is true for every back with a YPC that's more than 4-ish (so anyone better than Najee in YPC).

No one actually gets 4.8+ yards every carry they have. That's what the part about modes and medians above was about.

We'll see re: Dowdle. As I said, I agree they have different styles. But the results seem pretty similar to me. We'll see what happens on the field. Hopefully, they combine for > 2k yards. I think it's well within the realm of possibility if we can get off the field on D.

 

I have explained why I refer to Warren's two long runs as fluky before. I should have repeated my explanation of that. He was facing a team that had been devastated by injuries at safety. Watch both runs. Both times, one of those scrub replacement safeties took themselves out of the play with a terrible angle, turning what should have been a run of maybe 20 yards into a long touchdown. I am aware of that factor in those runs, something you either didn't know or chose to ignore. Without those two runs, Warren's yards per carry would have gone down from his previous seasons.

I'm not sure why you keep wasting keystrokes on an invalid statistic like success percentage. It certainly holds no sway with me for reasons I have already explained.

 

i saw LITTLE from Johnson last year that makes me want to see him get more carries.

 

Honestly, me either.

Because we didn't get to see anything from him.

Maybe this is because he sucks. But I don't think we have any info on how good he is / isn't.

I think this is because we hit it out of the park with Gainwell who gave us way more than we expected. And probably exactly what we needed last year with only 1 WR (and no WRs for 2 games).

I would have liked to see him get a chance.

But Dawdle is a good signing IMO. And probably something like the ceiling we'd hope for from Johnson.

I expect them combine for 2k total yards (assuming healthy) and get close to 2k rushing yards.

I think it means that the Johnson pick was wasted (again assuming Warren and Dowdle stay healthy) without us ever even seeing if he's an NFL player. So I don't like the asset management part of it.

But it's far from the end of the world.

I think we'll have a good RB tandem this year. And I think we'll still be OK if one of them goes down for a spell.

 

It will be interesting to see what they do with the RB position. Is Dowdle here to be a featured part of the offense? A rotational piece? Was he just signed because he is one of the new coaching staffs" guys? Some combination of all of those reasons?

 

I agree.

My guess is that they expect both Dowdle and Warren to get something like 200+ carries. But who knows?

Last year Warren had 211 carries and Gainwell had 114. I expect we'll run more than we did last year because (1) we ran so few plays and (2) we were 26th overall in run%.
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/rushing-play-pct

Maybe 400 carries between the two of them is overly ambitious. We had 407 total rushing plays (5th last). But the median number across the league was 465...and I doubt we'll get a lot of carries from the QB (I assume Rodgers again)

I think the two of them will get the vast majority of the work (fairly even split?). Dowdle is getting paid more, so maybe they expect him to be get 55-60% of the carries?

Seems like both can run and receive.

We know Warren is good at pass pro. Dowdle got ~ 50 targets in both of the last two years.

So teams don't seem to be shy about putting him out on passing downs anyway.