Two-year extension for Jaylen Warren

They were bad at running the ball last season too...They were good for 3 games in a row against 3 weak teams(raiders,jets,giants) but outside of that they were anemic.They were 11th in rushing yards because they were 4th in rushing attempts.This year they are 27th in rushing attempts

 

And let me guess, you are one of those few people who still believe that Jaylen Warren is worth that $17 million contract the Steelers gave him.

 

Najee had 9 runs of over 20+ yards in 2024. Tied for 5th among RB’s. 0 runs over 40+ yards.

Warren has 3 runs of 20+ yards in 2025. 0 runs over 40+ yards.

In 2024 Warren had 1 run over 20+ yards and 0 runs over 40+ yards.

I think you are relying too much on that one long run vs CLE a few years back vs the reality of Warren not having nearly as many big plays in the running game. Maybe you are thinking pass plays?

 

Look at the average per carry. They are worse than last year, among the worst in the league at running the ball. It isn't just opportunities. It is how little they produce with those opportunities.

 

The narrative works when you look at the Steelers. That's the part you are choosing to ignore.

 

Success rate is subjective nonsense that measures things outside the players' control as much as those they can control. Folks here are using it to try to cover for the fact that when it comes to the real numbers, Warren has been worse this year than Harris was last year. He is on pace for significantly fewer yards with the same average per carry. He is also on pace to come up with fewer runs of over 20 yards than Harris had last year.

There is a good argument to be made that Warren hasn't even been among the top 20 backs in the league. He certainly isn't in the top 15.

 

SIS has Warren ranked 4th among all RBs for a combination of both rushing and receiving.

By themselves, rush yards and success rate are not predictors of wins. But success rate has a slightly better correlation.

Here's the chart for all RBs with at least 75 rush attempts:

 

I think success rate is the only stat that is better than last year.

This link shows rushing stats by team and you can compare years. We are worse in most of these categories.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/rushing-yards-per-game

 

And the success rate is much higher.

Suggests they are being more efficient, but still aren't getting the big plays that drive YPC up.

This year: YPC 3.9 offense succ% 43.59% Rush EPA 0
Last year: YPPC 4.0 offense succ% 40.06% Rush EPA -0.09

So, you're basing your argument on a 0.1 YPC difference. There's essentially a 0% chance that the differences in these two means is statistically significant. Meaning that the difference in the mean YPC here isn't meaningful. It was bad last year (a good reason to not extend Najee). It's bad again this year (a good reason to not have Warren be the RB1). I think this is especially true for a team like ours that doesn't have difference makers on offense. We need guys that can make big game changing plays. Because we mostly don't have any. Maybe DK, but hasn't happened often this year.

Success rates for our rushing plays are significantly higher as shown earlier in the thread. This means we aren't getting as many runs for no gain as last year. I don't have the stats on hand, but how many times did I yell at the ****ing TV last season after we'd get the Najee 1-2 yard run on 1st...and then we'd still run again on 2nd, basically conceding that we were just going to punt. I really hate how often we run on 2nd and long!

I can't quickly find a team succ% for run plays. The total team success% I referenced earlier is the number used above. The success rate is appreciably higher (~ 3.5%). But Rodger's success rate (43.7%) is essentially the same as Wilson's from last year (43.6%). That strongly suggests that the run success rate is higher. And we see that the succ% for the individual runners this year (Warren + Gainwell) is higher than for last year (Najee+Warren). So it's the RBs that are driving the increase in success rate. So while we still suck at getting the big run plays that drive YPC, we

Bubba mentioned EPA. This is an attempt to try to estimate how many "expected points added" you get from a particular play, series of plays, etc. This is another case of "we're still not good, but we're better than we were last season". EPA per running play this year is 0. I get that this sounds bad, and it's certainly not great. But it puts us tied for 9th in the league (with 6 teams). [Felt, this is another reason that RBs are being devalued]. What was it last year you ask? -0.09. Not much lower you say? Well, EPA values are always small. But this put us 28th in the league. Again...we're not great at this, but here were actually much better than we were last year.

TLDR: Our running game was bad last year (despite us trying to build an identity as a run team). Our running game is still bad this year (despite us trying to build an identity as a run team). Last year we (1) sucked at generating big running plays, (2) usually bot off-schedule by running, and (3) essentially lost points ever time we ran. This year we (1) still suck at generating big running plays, (2) stay on schedule more often than not when we run and (3) break even points wise when we run. Our running game is still not good. Mostly because we suck at getting big plays out of the run game. But it's better than last year.



YPC stats: https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/yards-per-rush-attempt
Team Succ% and EPA stats: https://sumersports.com/teams/offensive/?season=2024
Individual succ% stats: PFR.

 

See the post I just made above. EPA per play is also better. And YPC is essentially the same (4.0 vs 3.9).

Which is what I said. The per-play stats are better or the same because we're (slightly IMO) better at running. But the total stats are worse because we don't run enough plays on offense (mostly because the D is bad at getting off the field). ETA: Imagine having to play Najee in an offense like this where he'd get 50 to 100 less carries than he got before? There's no way he's getting the 1000 yards you like about him so much without that volume.

The running game isn't good IMO. But it is (slightly) better than it was last year.

We need a back that can break the game open. Warren is bad at this. He's better than Najee was, but that's a very low bar because Najee is very bad at getting the big plays that drive up YPC (and probably EPA/play).

 

I don't know why you keep trying to pretend that saying Najee is bad at something is the same as saying Warren is good at something.

I agree that Warren isn't good at getting big plays. It's why I think he shouldn't be a RB1.

 

And yet, the Steelers offense is doing more scoring this season with far fewer plays than in the past five years.

 

I understand individual stats aren’t W/L stats.

Miles Garrett is about to break the sack record.
Taylor is the leading rusher.
Pickens is a top 3 WR.

Its always been odd how certain positions get big bucks regardless of W/L stats.

Chase is the most expensive WR.
Garrett/Watt and Parsons are the highest paid defenders.

Dak is the highest paid QB.

My point about W/L in this debate is because there is literally no stat outside of success rate where our rushing attack is better than last year. I think winning more games or winning a playoff game would help your argument about being “slightly better”

I think we are worse on the ground because all we have is success rate. Everything else is worse and some stats are much worse than last year.

 

I was talking about Najee

Try to focus

 

you literally just said Warren isn’t good at getting big plays but Najee was even worse.

I think that stat of 20+ runs shows Najee wasn’t worse than Warren at big plays. Keep in mind 20+ yard runs is a better barometer than 40+ yard runs in this offense.

 

correct.. but this is because of Aaron Rodgers, not because of our rushing attack.

 

Yes. They are both bad at it.

 

Individual RBs rarely drive team success.

That's why there's not a correlation between RB succ% or total yards and winning.

It's also why I think teams should churn RBs and run with RB by committee unless they have elite backs.

Najee wasn't an elite back. I would have been OK to have him back on a contract like Warren's that's not expensive and easy to walk away from, but he went somewhere else on the cheap.

Warren isn't an elite back. I was OK with him signing a not very expensive contract that's easy to walk away from.

Gainwell isn't an elite back. I didn't particularly like the signing because I wanted to see if Johnson could be something. But he's been among the best cap values in the league, so it was a good call. This offseason, I will say "We shouldn't extend him to a big money contract or one that's hard to walk away from because of guarantees". It's great that Rodgers wants to get him paid. Hopefully it's another team that bites that hook.

 

And FWIW, it's because of the QB and how good he is in the red zone.

Old-man Rodgers is the anti-Pickett. At least in terms of throwing TDs.

Because QB is the important position. Not RB.

Which is why it's not a good idea to pay RBs lots of money and guarantees (even though you really like RBs).

 

Man, oh man. I was and am a giant Harris defender and fan. I believe that if he was on a better offense, he would've developed into a borderline star. Like not a gamebreaking RB but one that was viewed much better than he is. But he wasn't so he didn't and now his career is kinda toast.

But to get to the point that this thread has....we are off the map. Math is now subjective nonsense and up is now down!