The division of labor at RB

I think our biggest problem at RB is how to divide the snaps, and who to keep.

Time will tell if the OC, DC, and position coaches are any good but it is pretty certain they will be better than their predecessors.

 

Historical results of our top 2 RBs seem very consistent when you dig down into it. Both of them seem to produce remarkably similar outcomes (when looking at production in a season anyway...I haven't looked at more granular break downs re: down and distance). So they should be pretty interchangeable.

My guess is that Dowdle will get more work in short yardage and Warren will get more work in passing situations.

I hope we're close to 50/50 with these guys.

Personally, I hope usage is more game to game based on matchups. And that we're open to leaning on the "hot hand" game to game.

Go with the guy that is doing better at the time / against that opponent. Don't get locked into "roles" for each guy.

But my guess is that MM will favor Dowdle something like 55-60% over Warren based on the previous relationship and the fact that we actively went out to get him. I don't think it will become a J Smith type thing because I think Dowdle is a good back. Personally, I like Warren better. But that could certainly be endowment bias.

I think it's hard to tell what will happen results wise on offense. If you look back at rankings in the last 4 seasons or so, I think most people would be shocked to see how the Steelers have finished relative to the Rams.

I think this shock will be especially high for people who think coaches are more important (or as important) as execution.

But it's not like we've had especially good players on offense either.

 

"Winning First Downs"

It's about the 'schedule.'
The schedule is to get into 2nd and manageable which you like to get 5 or 6 yards on first down.
Now you have the defense guessing: Run or Pass? because the playbook is wide open. You can afford to take a shot.
Mike McCarthy does like that first 15 play script also.

As far as RB's, Mike does like the change of pace guys.
Still, I think he is most comfortable when he can run the "Riggo Drill" the most. That is why he went and got Dowdle.
Warren just isn't a every down back. I love the guy's play and he is dangerous but he is at his best in a rotation.
Dowdle, unless he flops, will probably be the bell cow with Warren in the role he had when Harris was here.
I doubt it gets that simple. If we go up against a team that can't the pass, you're probably going to get a ton of Warren and the passing game.

All guesses on my part.
A memory from my heydays on the sideline with Washington.

Green Bay with McCarthy at the helm came to Washington for a game and me being very honest on my evaluations, expected a royal beatdown. Washington just wasn't any good at the time.
By the end of the 1st half, Washington had harassed Rogers mercilessly and even had a pick 6 enroute to Half-Time lead. It looked like a world class upset in the making.
Something happened to Rogers during that half-time.
He literally put that team on his back and killed every ounce of hope Washington had.
He called those quick snaps every time Washington substituted, he caught them a lot of times.
He hit the short passes until Washington moved up, then hit those deep ones.
He audibled into the correct play so many times and Washington's defense was so frustrated that D. Hall started screaming at the coaches....
At the end of the day, the stadium was nearly empty and Rogers had put on quite a show for a big win.
The take-a-way was that the team was well defined, they adjusted and executed plan B without flaw. I don't even think there was a 2nd half flag against GB.
That's what I am hoping for here.

 

Ideally
A good offense should not need
an every down back.

 

Or
Trying to find the
C.L.I.T. Organization

 

I would imagine that we are pretty close to 50/50. They are both plus runners that are generally unremarkable, but efficient. Warren is a much better back in the pass game (and more elusive in open space). I'd imagine they aren't splitting roles though, both are capable 3 down backs and would imagine that they would generally split drives for the most part. I HIGHLY doubt there is a role for a 3rd runner outside of injuries at the position. Personally, I think Warren is a better player than Dowdle and is a top 15 back in the league (at the back end of that distinction). Dowdle is a capable player

RB3 is going to come down to ST's IMO. If Homer or Heidenreich can show that they are good ST players and at least capable of being on the field in a 3rd down role and back up RB (5-7 carries), then I think they are front runners for the role. Johnson isn't a ST player, so he HAS to show the ability to be trusted to carry the ball in a plus capacity (and maybe prove that he is capable of being on the field on third down). He showed neither of these capacities last season, so it is imperative that he does in camp/preseason this year. Otherwise, I could easily see him being cut for a different back. There is always backs available on the market that are decent "edge of roster" type backs, and you really have to separate yourself from that pack if you aren't a receiving/ST capable back.

My personal bet is that one of Heidenreich or Homer makes the squad over Johnson. I hope I am wrong with the investment placed in him (3rd round selection), but I have a hard time imagining he makes the 53 at this point.

 

What is the support for the argument that Warren is better than Dowdle? Dowdle has run for over 1,000 yards twice. Warren has never done it. Dowdle had the higher average per carry last season. The actual production shows us that they are comparable backs, with Dowdle being the more consistently productive runner and Warren being the better receiver.

I don't see how Homer is a viable option as a No. 3 back. Homer has six carries and three receptions total over the last three seasons, and all but one of the carries came in 2024. He is an excellent special teams player, but that's all he is. The Bears had a couple of excellent backs ahead of him last year, but he wasn't even their No. 3.

Heidenreich is more of a wing than a true running back, so I don't see much sense in leaving themselves with him having to step into significant time at running back if something were to happen to Warren or Dowdle. Johnson is certainly going to have to earn his spot, but not keeping him or some other viable option would leave the Steelers dangerously thin at running back.

 

By the way, Dowdle was one of 17 running backs in the NFL who ran for over 1,000 yards this past season. Of those 17, 11 averaged more yards per carry than Warren. One matched him at 4.5. That was Tony Pollard, who did it in a Titans offense that was right there with the Raiders for worst in the NFL.

The ones who didn't average more yards per carry than Warren were Christian McCaffrey, Saquon Barkley, Travis Etienne, and Breese Hall. Does anybody really want to take the stance that Warren has proven himself to be better than all four of them?

Then there are guys a little behind Warren. Is he better than Treyvon Henderson, who ran for 911 yards while averaging 5.1 per carry? There are also guys such as Kyle Monangai and Blake Corum, who looked like emerging studs as rookies this past season.

Can you make an argument that Warren is among the top 15 backs in the NFL? I guess, but that's a really tough sell when you actually look at the numbers.

 

While it's obvious they need to be better. The way they need to be better isn't. When you look at the top teams in the post season almost all of them share the same characteristic on first downs; better downfield passing. The Steelers offense lacking this means the entire field is compressed around the line. It then becomes a numbers mismatch that they're gonna lose. If Rodgers won't hold the ball long enough for these deeper plays then I can't see how things are gonna improve that much.

 

You're still stuck in old school football. SIS had Warren ranked 6th for RBs in the NFL last season. And it wasn't because of his rushing. It was his receiving that put him there. Most of the top rated RBs have a significant edge because of their abilities in receiving. The passing game leads to more scoring, hence more value than rushing.

Can Dowdle be that guy in receiving? While they both have the same long speed, Warren's burst is better than Dowdle's. That is what makes him better in the passing game and where I suspect a chunk of his role will be in the offense.

 

This is why Matt Canada would make me want to throw stuff at my TV all the time.

Run on first because it was "safe". But since he did it all the time, the D knows and we get a short run.

Then on 2nd and long, run again. Which is basically giving up on the set of downs. Because you're not going to get back on schedule this way too often.

Then it's 3rd and medium to long and your QB isn't good. So you end up punting. And you all but called that punt on 2nd and long when you ran it.

 

Funny...I was just having a long conversation with someone on the board about this very topic.

If only there was a stat that would tell us whether a 1 yard run on 1st and 10 was different than 4th and goal from 1...

Because if you only look at YPC and total yardage, you can't differentiate between these two cases.

Even it's very obvious though one of these plays is a very obvious failure and the other is likely a very critical play that helps you win the game.

 

And they basically deliver the same results in the running game.

It also sounds like Warren is a (much?) better pass blocker. So he's improving the passing game when he's not catching the ball too.

 

I hated Matt Canada so much.. He's still jobless as far as I know..... This also speaks volumes as to my point about out front office. They should have had a sit down with Tomlin at the very begining. Matt Canada, when I had spoke to opposing teams, was a joke and apparently they were told as much before Randy Fichtner was retiring.

Matt caused us a lot of issues.

I thought Aurthur Smith was going to bring more to the table. Of course he was light years ahead of Canada but that is not saying much

 

Careful. When you talk about staying on 'schedule ' you are implicitly talking about success rate and there are a few posters that don't believe in that nonsense.