RADIO
Does being part of a running back by committee (RBBC) impact fantasy football performance? Ellis Johnson explains the detailed reality of how an RBBC truly impacts a player’s fantasy value for the 2020 draft season.
Some of the scariest words a fantasy owner can hear is that their running back is now part of a committee (RBBC). However, people rarely look beyond this - failing to examine what this truly means, and how it impacts a player’s value.
In simple terms, an RBBC is defined as having multiple running backs sharing a workload that could, ideally, be given to a single player. This could be a result of varying skill sets, performance deficits in a given area, an attempt to decrease injury risk, or even a Head Coach just wanting to watch the fantasy world burn.
Regardless of your definition and understanding of why they occur, one thing is certain: RBBCs are not ideal for fantasy production.
Be sure to check all of our fantasy football rankings for 2025:- 2025 fantasy football rankings
- Running back (RB) rankings
- Wide receiver (WR) rankings
- Quarterback (QB) rankings
- Tight end (TE) rankings
- Defense (D/ST) rankings
- Kicker (K) rankings
- FLEX rankings
- Dynasty rankings
What exactly constitutes an RBBC?
Every year, there are talented backs that have their ceilings capped through the distribution of a given workload. An article by Antonio Losada discussing RBBCs that fantasy players should consider avoiding for the 2020 season reflects this beautifully. Moreover, the highly praised 2020 NFL Draft class failed to create any workhorse opportunities in the immediate future for the incoming rookie class. Justin Carter recently published an article that broke down the potential rookie usage for next season and it’s not particularly promising.
In this article, I intend to clearly outline a detailed and broad scope reality of how an RBBC impacts a player’s fantasy value, and to provide you with the information needed when deciding which players to invest in this off-season. All values and rankings are based on half-point per reception (PPR) scoring throughout this article.
Earlier, we defined RBBC to be when a team uses multiple running backs for a workload that could, ideally, be given to one player. But what does this look like in today’s NFL? Since RBBCs can be a result of skill set deficit, does Derrick Henry, who only caught 24 passes and averaged 13.7 receiving yards per game but led the league in rushing attempts, considered part of an RBBC? Obviously not. The most common measure on whether a back is in a committee or not is snap percentage.
On Twitter (@YoItsEllis_FF), I posted a poll to identify the community's perspective on what percentage of snaps marks the threshold for an RBBC.
Interesting Poll for my latest article in progress. Please share, the data would be very helpful.
?In your opinion, what is the difference between a Committee and a Workhorse Running Back??
If the lead back has __% or less average snaps per game, it is a committee↘⬇↙
— Ellis Bryn Johnson (@YoitsEllis_FF) April 27, 2020
Nearly half (46%) of voters said it is an RBBC if a player is receiving anything less than 65-70% snaps, while the remaining voted for anything less than 55-60%. Ultimately, this reveals that if a back receives less than 60-65% of snaps, they will most likely be perceived to be in a RBBC. With this threshold in mind, let's address the important question - how does it correlate to fantasy production?
Does Snap Percentage Limit Fantasy Performance?
Now that we have a threshold for what gives certain backs the daunting title of RBBC, can we relate this to potential fantasy production? The easy answer is: yes. Theoretically, more snaps played, equals more opportunities for fantasy points. Using this thought process, you can infer that the upside of a back is limited if they have a lower snap percentage. However, this isn’t always the case.
In 2019, five backs averaged 80% or more snaps per game. These backs were: Christian McCaffrey (93%), Leonard Fournette (88%), Saquon Barkley (83%), Le'Veon Bell (83%) and Ezekiel Elliott (83%). However, only McCaffrey and Elliott finished in the top five for fantasy. The other three highest-scoring backs were: Dalvin Cook (66%), Derrick Henry (63%) and Aaron Jones (61%). If you were to only look at the snap percentages for these backs, in order of fantasy finish, you would get: 93%, 61%, 63%, 83% and 66%. Therefore, it would not appear that snap percentage has a large effect on a top-five running back finish.
What if we look at the top 12 running back finishes? In 2019, 10 of the top 12 backs had a 60% or greater snap share. The outliers being RB six Austin Ekeler (57%) and RB eight Mark Ingram (48%). These results were mirrored in the 2018 season with only RB nine Joe Mixon (56%) and RB 12 Philip Lindsey (44%) finishing in the top 12. Based on the last two seasons, it would insinuate that although the percentage may not be related to the upside, it is highly unlikely to finish in the top 12 playing less than 60% of snaps.
Being on the Field
The next step in validating the theory that snaps are positively correlated to opportunity (and therefore fantasy finish), is to look at the number of snaps played. Last season, nine of the top 12 running backs averaged more than 40 snaps per game. This showcases a clear correlation between the number of snaps played and fantasy value. To further outline how this, I would like to use some comparisons from last season.
Comparison 1: Aaron Jones and Dalvin Cook
Both of these backs were elite fantasy assets last season. However, regardless of production, due to the involvement of Jamaal Williams, many viewed Aaron Jones to be very close, if not in, an RBBC. Dalvin Cook on the other hand was crowned the title of a workhorse back. If we look at average snap percentages for these backs, a similar picture is depicted, as Cook finished with 66% to Jones’ 61%.
But what does this 5% difference look like in terms of the number snaps played? Aaron Jones averaged 42.3 snaps per game, while Cook was on the field for 43.9 snaps. Therefore, this 5% difference in snap percentage meant that Cook was on the field for 1-2 snaps more than Jones per game. Is that really enough to determine which is a workhorse and which is in a RBBC? What made the fantasy impact was the team’s usage: Cook averaged 21.6 touches per game to Jones’ 17.8. As a result, snap percentage and number of snaps played were not what had the greatest impact for fantasy owners.
Comparison 2: Chris Carson and Devonta Freeman
In the previous comparison, both backs were elite assets, finishing the year in the top five for their position. However, does the number of snaps theory hold when describing two polar opposite fantasy producers? Last season Chris Carson had an RB11 campaign, averaging 70% of snaps. Devonta Freeman, on the other hand, had a nightmare campaign that resulted in RB21 and a 65% snap average.
The reality of this 5% difference, you guessed it, was not significant in affecting the number of snaps each back received. Freeman averaged 48.2 snaps per game to Carson’s 49.1. A 10 spot difference in fantasy finish occurred as a result of Carson being on the field for one more snap per game than Freeman. Once again what impacted fantasy the most was aided by the coaching staff giving Carson an average of 21 touches per game, to Freeman’s 17.4.
Which Statistics Matter for RBBCs?
As crazy as it sounds, field time and snap percentage were not the main contributors to fantasy performance and running back usage. Using the above examples, we have determined that team utilization and touches per game are better predictors for fantasy production. In order to display this, using a player’s total snaps, I calculated the percentage of plays a running back received a target or rush attempt when on the field for the top-24 Half PPR running backs from last season (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Percent of total snaps a player received a target or rush attempt
This statistic was not particularly relevant to the backs that rarely leave the field. For example, the three backs that finished with 900+ snaps on the season (CMC, Fournette, and Zeke), received the ball on ~40% of their offensive snaps. Logically, this makes sense. If these percentages were up in the 50s they would be seeing 450-500+ looks (which are unrealistic numbers).
In comparison, the top five backs that averaged less than 80% of snaps (Jones, Henry, and Cook), received a target or rush on 46%, 56%, and 52% of snaps played respectively. From this, we can extrapolate that although these backs saw the field less than workhorse backs, they received the ball at a higher rate of their snaps. To correlate this to RBBCs, we can relate back to the previous comparison of Cook and Jones.
Previously, I mentioned that these backs averaged within one snap per game of each other. What gives Cook a large increase in value is that on these snaps he received the ball on 52% of plays to Jones’ 46%. This five percent difference resulted in an average of 21.6 touches per game compared to Jones’ 17.8. Therefore, the most fantasy-relevant statistic for RBBCs, is the rate of which backs receive an opportunity with the ball.
Putting It All Together
Based on the analysis, if you have a running back that is averaging >60% of the teams snaps, playing >40 snaps a game and receiving the ball on 40% or more of those plays, that back has a good chance of landing in the top 12 at the end of the season. Of these, the greatest determinants of fantasy production were a result of the team’s scheme and the ability of the back (outlined in Figure 1).
Putting this forward, in the perspective of this year’s rookies potentially participating in RBBCs, I would not to be too worried for fantasy purposes. Yes, ideally all RBs would be Christian McCaffrey and average 93% of snaps, however for fantasy purposes what really matters is the team's scheme and talent. If you truly believe in the landing spot, scheme involvement, and talent of one of the rookie backs, he will be fantasy relevant (especially if the team invested high draft capital in them).
More Fantasy Football Analysis
