Well along in the RBBC myth research (1 Viewer)

For those that say RBBC is on the rise, I have been crunching stats for the last month. I can say, with statistical certainty, RBBC is on the decline over the last 30 years. RB1 carries, TD's, catches, and FF points are up. I will post my findings at a later date, but as of now, just let me say that RBBC is a myth created by FF'ers. RB2-8 carries, TD's, catches, and FF points are down. The only person to rise in the last 30 years is RB1. This is due, in large part, to the number of touches by RB's over the years.

Dirty Weasel said:

For those that say RBBC is on the rise, I have been crunching stats for the last month. I can say, with statistical certainty, RBBC is on the decline over the last 30 years. RB1 carries, TD's, catches, and FF points are up. I will post my findings at a later date, but as of now, just let me say that RBBC is a myth created by FF'ers. RB2-8 carries, TD's, catches, and FF points are down. The only person to rise in the last 30 years is RB1. This is due, in large part, to the number of touches by RB's over the years.

Click to expand...

"RB1 carries, TD's, catches, and FF points are up." Careful. You're on a slippery slope which has been discussed ad nauseum on this site and elsewhere. The bolded portion of your post has absolutely ZILCH to do with RBBC. You'll need to compare RB1 production as a ratio to ALL other RB production on that team annually. Personally, I believe you're correct by the way. Just be careful with how you toss it out there. I'm very interested to hear of your findings.

FantasyFootballTrader.

FantasyTrader said:

Dirty Weasel said:

For those that say RBBC is on the rise, I have been crunching stats for the last month. I can say, with statistical certainty, RBBC is on the decline over the last 30 years. RB1 carries, TD's, catches, and FF points are up. I will post my findings at a later date, but as of now, just let me say that RBBC is a myth created by FF'ers. RB2-8 carries, TD's, catches, and FF points are down. The only person to rise in the last 30 years is RB1. This is due, in large part, to the number of touches by RB's over the years.

Click to expand...

"RB1 carries, TD's, catches, and FF points are up." Careful. You're on a slippery slope which has been discussed ad nauseum on this site and elsewhere. The bolded portion of your post has absolutely ZILCH to do with RBBC. You'll need to compare RB1 production as a ratio to ALL other RB production on that team annually. Personally, I believe you're correct by the way. Just be careful with how you toss it out there. I'm very interested to hear of your findings.

FantasyFootballTrader.

Click to expand...

Ummm... he says that RB1 carries are up, and RB2-RB8 carries are down. How, exactly, does this not qualify as comparing RB1 production to ALL other RB production on that team annually? If factor A increases, and factor B decreases, then regardless of the amounts of increase/decrease, the ratio between factor A and factor B has increased- which means RB1 is now getting a proportionally larger share of the carries, on average, than he has at any point in history.My big question revolves around that "on average" phrase, though. To use a dramatically oversimplified example... let's say that in 1977 there were 10 teams, and all 10 teams gave RB1 300 carries and RB2 100 carries. Now, let's say that in 2007 there are still 10 teams, and 9 of the 10 teams give RB1 290 carries and RB2 110 carries, while the 10th team gives RB1 400 carries. On average, carries for RB1 are up and carries for RB2 are down... but at the same time, the league as a whole has definitely shifted more towards an "RBBC philosophy" because the average (median) team is giving fewer carries to RB1 and more carries to RB2. Which, for the purpose of fantasy football discussions on the death of the workhorse RB, is what is important (since league averages do nothing to address the possibility of a dwindling NUMBER of workhorse RBs).

I guess what I'm saying is that I very much hope whatever comparisons you make will be based off of league medians rather than league means. I'm not interested in how much special cases are skewing the data, I'm more interested in whether there are truly fewer workhorse backs today than in the past.

Frankly, I'm not too interested in what has happened over the last 30 years. I'd like to see a trend that may go back no later than five years ago, but normally I only look at the last three years.

I'll see what you're selling when you post the rest of it. Thanks for crunching the numbers.

I'll be interested to see your stats, but don't think the conclusion of RB1 production/workload increasing and RBBC being prominent as it relates to fantasy football are mutually exclusive. THe value of a stud RB1 has never been higher, and the value of getting the most production possible out of part timers has never been higher.

I look forward to seeing your analysis.

I would be interested in a sub study, or perhaps "oddities" finding pointing out organizations/ current coaching staffs known to buck the RB1 trend and truly use a RBBC set up over the course of the season.

Dirty Weasel said:

For those that say RBBC is on the rise, I have been crunching stats for the last month. I can say, with statistical certainty, RBBC is on the decline over the last 30 years. RB1 carries, TD's, catches, and FF points are up. I will post my findings at a later date, but as of now, just let me say that RBBC is a myth created by FF'ers. RB2-8 carries, TD's, catches, and FF points are down. The only person to rise in the last 30 years is RB1. This is due, in large part, to the number of touches by RB's over the years.

Click to expand...

Since you are dealing with "averages" for RB1's this can be deceiving. We all know there are about 2 or 3 RB1's that make up the majority of that pool of TD's for RB1's (LT and LJ specifically).After those 2, you're pretty lucky to find another RB1 that can get you double digit TD's.Nowadays, I think the big stinker is that a RB1 may get more touches overall for the season, but those RB2's and RB3's are getting more goalline touches/opps/recs.I wonder how the numbers would look if you threw out LT and LJ's numbers, then re-average them?

Dirty Weasel said:

For those that say RBBC is on the rise, I have been crunching stats for the last month. I can say, with statistical certainty, RBBC is on the decline over the last 30 years. RB1 carries, TD's, catches, and FF points are up. I will post my findings at a later date, but as of now, just let me say that RBBC is a myth created by FF'ers. RB2-8 carries, TD's, catches, and FF points are down. The only person to rise in the last 30 years is RB1. This is due, in large part, to the number of touches by RB's over the years.

Click to expand...

Hi DW,Good stuff. Let us know what you come up with. J

Warpig said:

Since you are dealing with "averages" for RB1's this can be deceiving. We all know there are about 2 or 3 RB1's that make up the majority of that pool of TD's for RB1's (LT and LJ specifically).

After those 2, you're pretty lucky to find another RB1 that can get you double digit TD's.

Nowadays, I think the big stinker is that a RB1 may get more touches overall for the season, but those RB2's and RB3's are getting more goalline touches/opps/recs.

I wonder how the numbers would look if you threw out LT and LJ's numbers, then re-average them?

Click to expand...

This is why LJ's value will always be high to me. He is really the only RB other than LT who is capable of racking up 15-20 TD seasons year after year. Even if he slows down, the TD numbers may still be very high.

I also am interested in seeing the findings of the original poster.

Just curious how you're classifying guys like Addai, Henry, MJD, Betts & M Barber when analyzing 2006 numbers. These were all top 20 guys who eventually became the #1 back however they were clearly #2's or lower at draft time. To include their numbers with the #1's would be flawed IMHO.

Pipes said:

Just curious how you're classifying guys like Addai, Henry, MJD, Betts & M Barber when analyzing 2006 numbers. These were all top 20 guys who eventually became the #1 back however they were clearly #2's or lower at draft time. To include their numbers with the #1's would be flawed IMHO.

Click to expand...

Good question. I define RB1 in my study as the RB who had the most carries on the team. RB2 had the second most, and so on. I will post the stats later on tonight, after I get back from taking my son to see The Fantastic Four.

Just for comparison, here are some stats from 1978 and 2006...

- In 1978, there were 14856 RB rushes and 2462 RB catches (total 17318 RB touches)

- In 2006, there were 12733 RB rushes and 2523 RB catches (total 15256 RB touches)

- In 1978, there were only 28 teams (average 619 RB touches per team)

- In 2006, there were 32 teams (average 477 RB touches per team)

I wanted to start off with those stats, because they show how the RB use has evolved over time. The average RB touches per team has dropped by 142. Now, we have to decide a number of touches needed for a RB to be considered a "workhorse" RB. I'll set the bar at 300. In 2006, there were 14 RB's to get 300+ touches. Based on 32 teams, that means 44% of the teams had a workhorse. Now, knowing that in 1978 there were 142 more RB touches per team (but only 28 teams), can you guess how many RB's had 300+ touches? The answer will shock you, as it shocked me. A grand total of 5 RB's eclipsed 300 touches in 1978! And yes, they also played a 16-game schedule back then. Based on 28 teams, that means 18% of the teams had a workhorse.

Just for those that are curious, here are the workhorses (with # of touches)...

1978

Walter Payton - 383

Franco Harris - 332

Tony Dorsett - 327

Terdell Middleton - 318

Earl Campbell - 314

2006

Larry Johnson - 457

Steven Jackson - 436

LaDainian Tomlinson - 404

Tiki Barber - 385

Edgerrin James - 375

Frank Gore - 373

Willie Parker - 368

Rudi Johnson - 364

Chester Taylor - 345

Thomas Jones - 332

Jamal Lewis - 332

Brian Westbrook - 317

Ahman Green - 312

Warrick Dunn - 308

Warrick Dunn had only 6 less touches than the great Earl Campbell. That is amazing, especially given the fact that Michael Vick had 123 carries last year. The #2 workhorse in 1978 (Franco Harris) would've been tied with Thomas Jones and Jamal Lewis at #10 workhorse in 2006. And 1978 was Franco's most touches in a season. On another note, look at Edge. He is being severely underrated for 2007. In redrafts, I'll gladly be scooping him up in the late 2nd/early 3rd round as my RB2. With no competition in ARI, there is little reason to think Edge won't get 350+ touches once again.

Have you thought about calculating the % of touches these RB1's received out of their respective team's total offensive plays for the given year?

Offenses have changed so much that converting raw touches to a ratio may tell an interesting story.

This would give you some sort of usage ratio that you could compare across eras. That said, it doesn't really address your basic study of RBBC though... just thought it might be interesting.

Great work here! Really enjoy it.

mlball77 said:

Have you thought about calculating the % of touches these RB1's received out of their respective team's total offensive plays for the given year?Offenses have changed so much that converting raw touches to a ratio may tell an interesting story.This would give you some sort of usage ratio that you could compare across eras. That said, it doesn't really address your basic study of RBBC though... just thought it might be interesting.Great work here! Really enjoy it.

Click to expand...

No, I haven't done that yet, but good idea. Just for fun, here are the stats for Walter Payton (1978's top workhorse) and Larry Johnson (2006's top workhorse)...Walter Payton (39%) - 383 touches, CHI (352 passes, 634 rushes = 986 plays)Larry Johnson (47%) - 457 touches, KC (450 passes, 513 rushes = 963 plays)And here are the stats for the #10 workhorses...1978 - Joe Washington (31%) - 285 touches, BAL (383 passes, 532 rushes = 915 plays)2006 - Thomas Jones (33%) - 332 touches, CHI (514 passes, 503 rushes = 1017 plays)2006 - Jamal Lewis (33%) - 332 touches, BAL (525 passes, 476 rushes = 1001 plays)Lastly, here are the stats for the #20 workhorses...1978 - Bubba Bean (23%) - 224 touches, ATL (449 passes, 533 rushes = 982 plays)2006 - Ronnie Brown (28%) - 274 touches, MIA (590 passes, 402 rushes = 992 plays)

Over the last 5 years...

300+ touches

2002 - 16 RB's

2003 - 15 RB's

2004 - 11 RB's

2005 - 14 RB's

2006 - 14 RB's

250+ touches

2002 - 26 RB's

2003 - 22 RB's

2004 - 22 RB's

2005 - 20 RB's

2006 - 26 RB's

200+ touches

2002 - 33 RB's

2003 - 29 RB's

2004 - 28 RB's

2005 - 28 RB's

2006 - 32 RB's

I don't buy it..

not sure comparing a modern day RB to Earl Campbell makes any sense..Campbell played less games, it was a different era back then. Its like comparing Men's tennis champs of the 60's-70's-80's with their wooden rackets, to the players of today, with the big headed graphite rocket launchers.

same with golf. Tiger uses an alloy metal , graphite shaft driver with a head on it as big as a catcher's mit, while Jack used real WOODEN clubs with steel shafts...can't compare the two..

in the past 3 seasons, how many teams have moved towards a RBBC? Jax, Dallas, NE, Cleveland, Oakland, Houston, Minnesota, Carolina, Jets, Miami ( ricky W. and ronnie brown ), Tennessee, Denver, Philly , New Orleans, Atlanta, etc..

now Washington might be fully embroiled in a RBBC, and the same is true for the NY Giants.

just looking at it from that perspective, you do see a rise in the RBBC philosophy..

without using math, you can just see that the talent level of RB2 on each team,has risen. Many RB2's are highly skilled situational players, like Bush, MJD, Mike Turner , et al.

teams are finding new, more creative ways to use BOTH RB's at the same time ( ala N.O.)

Going forward, the RB position is going to change ( or evolve I should say), much like the WR3 position has evolved, or the TE position ( to the point where a TE is now the #1 passing weapon on many teams), or the way the hybrid DE's have evolved ( just 10-15 years ago, DE's were 300+ lb linemen.now everyone is scrambling, trying to find the next light,fast Dwight Freeney-type).

nygiants56 said:

I don't buy it..

not sure comparing a modern day RB to Earl Campbell makes any sense..Campbell played less games, it was a different era back then. Its like comparing Men's tennis champs of the 60's-70's-80's with their wooden rackets, to the players of today, with the big headed graphite rocket launchers.

same with golf. Tiger uses an alloy metal , graphite shaft driver with a head on it as big as a catcher's mit, while Jack used real WOODEN clubs with steel shafts...can't compare the two..

in the past 3 seasons, how many teams have moved towards a RBBC? Jax, Dallas, NE, Cleveland, Oakland, Houston, Minnesota, Carolina, Jets, Miami ( ricky W. and ronnie brown ), Tennessee, Denver, Philly , New Orleans, Atlanta, etc..

now Washington might be fully embroiled in a RBBC, and the same is true for the NY Giants.

just looking at it from that perspective, you do see a rise in the RBBC philosophy..

without using math, you can just see that the talent level of RB2 on each team,has risen. Many RB2's are highly skilled situational players, like Bush, MJD, Mike Turner , et al.

teams are finding new, more creative ways to use BOTH RB's at the same time ( ala N.O.)

Going forward, the RB position is going to change ( or evolve I should say), much like the WR3 position has evolved, or the TE position ( to the point where a TE is now the #1 passing weapon on many teams), or the way the hybrid DE's have evolved ( just 10-15 years ago, DE's were 300+ lb linemen.now everyone is scrambling, trying to find the next light,fast Dwight Freeney-type).

Click to expand...

Seems like most are missing the point he was attempting to make. RBBC is a myth by it's assummed and genaric definition as we've seen so often referred to here on the MB. If we're talking about a guy you can draft as your stud RB (which is the point he seems to be making) then he's demonstrated that there are more today then in the past. It seems clear that there are more options for fantasy teams than in years past for fulfilling that need.

For those who say RBBC is alive and well by example of MJD and Rhodes last year, well there are always a few out there and they can fill a void at RB2, not RB1, at least not in most leagues. But it's not like you're going to find more than 3-4 options in that category.

Looking back it's clear that teams pass more than used to, the rules have evolved to encourage it. It's a more exciting brand of football because of the evolution of the passing offense. Thanks Air Coryell!

But it was just a few short years ago some were thinking that rushing attempts were on the decline and a shortage of RB1 types was in season. But it too was just a myth. In fact rushing attempts went up when many thought they went down.

The bottom line is that we are not in a RBBC era. It fluxuates from team to team more out of need than design. Andy Reid is a guy who uses a multiple back system by design but I think even he realized he had to feed his stud. So if a team has a true stud RB then he will likely see 300 or ore touches. If not then you expect what appears to be a RBBC, although usually temporary.

Warpig said:

nygiants56 said:

I don't buy it..

not sure comparing a modern day RB to Earl Campbell makes any sense..Campbell played less games, it was a different era back then. Its like comparing Men's tennis champs of the 60's-70's-80's with their wooden rackets, to the players of today, with the big headed graphite rocket launchers.

same with golf. Tiger uses an alloy metal , graphite shaft driver with a head on it as big as a catcher's mit, while Jack used real WOODEN clubs with steel shafts...can't compare the two..

in the past 3 seasons, how many teams have moved towards a RBBC? Jax, Dallas, NE, Cleveland, Oakland, Houston, Minnesota, Carolina, Jets, Miami ( ricky W. and ronnie brown ), Tennessee, Denver, Philly , New Orleans, Atlanta, etc..

now Washington might be fully embroiled in a RBBC, and the same is true for the NY Giants.

just looking at it from that perspective, you do see a rise in the RBBC philosophy..

without using math, you can just see that the talent level of RB2 on each team,has risen. Many RB2's are highly skilled situational players, like Bush, MJD, Mike Turner , et al.

teams are finding new, more creative ways to use BOTH RB's at the same time ( ala N.O.)

Going forward, the RB position is going to change ( or evolve I should say), much like the WR3 position has evolved, or the TE position ( to the point where a TE is now the #1 passing weapon on many teams), or the way the hybrid DE's have evolved ( just 10-15 years ago, DE's were 300+ lb linemen.now everyone is scrambling, trying to find the next light,fast Dwight Freeney-type).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

nygiants56 said:

I don't buy it..

not sure comparing a modern day RB to Earl Campbell makes any sense..Campbell played less games, it was a different era back then. Its like comparing Men's tennis champs of the 60's-70's-80's with their wooden rackets, to the players of today, with the big headed graphite rocket launchers.

same with golf. Tiger uses an alloy metal , graphite shaft driver with a head on it as big as a catcher's mit, while Jack used real WOODEN clubs with steel shafts...can't compare the two..

in the past 3 seasons, how many teams have moved towards a RBBC? Jax, Dallas, NE, Cleveland, Oakland, Houston, Minnesota, Carolina, Jets, Miami ( ricky W. and ronnie brown ), Tennessee, Denver, Philly , New Orleans, Atlanta, etc..

now Washington might be fully embroiled in a RBBC, and the same is true for the NY Giants.

just looking at it from that perspective, you do see a rise in the RBBC philosophy..

without using math, you can just see that the talent level of RB2 on each team,has risen. Many RB2's are highly skilled situational players, like Bush, MJD, Mike Turner , et al.

teams are finding new, more creative ways to use BOTH RB's at the same time ( ala N.O.)

Going forward, the RB position is going to change ( or evolve I should say), much like the WR3 position has evolved, or the TE position ( to the point where a TE is now the #1 passing weapon on many teams), or the way the hybrid DE's have evolved ( just 10-15 years ago, DE's were 300+ lb linemen.now everyone is scrambling, trying to find the next light,fast Dwight Freeney-type).

Click to expand...

Some just do not want to see that 12 to 15 teams will use RBBC every year

Here's another article that is along the same lines.

http://www.fftoday.com/articles/waldman/07...s_revisited.htm

nygiants56 said:

I don't buy it.. not sure comparing a modern day RB to Earl Campbell makes any sense..Campbell played less games, it was a different era back then. Its like comparing Men's tennis champs of the 60's-70's-80's with their wooden rackets, to the players of today, with the big headed graphite rocket launchers.same with golf. Tiger uses an alloy metal , graphite shaft driver with a head on it as big as a catcher's mit, while Jack used real WOODEN clubs with steel shafts...can't compare the two..

Click to expand...

From post #12:

And yes, they also played a 16-game schedule back then

Click to expand...

Actually you can compare the two for this very analysis. The question posed was whether or not RBBC has declined "OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS". Pretty tough to do that without looking at data FROM 30 YEARS AGO. Also, how exactly does the changes in golf & tennis equipment actually compare to running back carries over time?LOL at all of the smilies this post got. Try to actually read what the guy writes before trying to refute it.

Jayrod said:

nygiants56 said:

I don't buy it.. not sure comparing a modern day RB to Earl Campbell makes any sense..Campbell played less games, it was a different era back then. Its like comparing Men's tennis champs of the 60's-70's-80's with their wooden rackets, to the players of today, with the big headed graphite rocket launchers.same with golf. Tiger uses an alloy metal , graphite shaft driver with a head on it as big as a catcher's mit, while Jack used real WOODEN clubs with steel shafts...can't compare the two..

Click to expand...

From post #12:

And yes, they also played a 16-game schedule back then

Click to expand...

Actually you can compare the two for this very analysis. The question posed was whether or not RBBC has declined "OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS". Pretty tough to do that without looking at data FROM 30 YEARS AGO. Also, how exactly does the changes in golf & tennis equipment actually compare to running back carries over time?LOL at all of the smilies this post got. Try to actually read what the guy writes before trying to refute it.

Click to expand...

thanks for calling them out.

I do think there is some useful information to come out of these studies, but I think they also paint a misleading picture if we don't couch the results in the true context of our fantasy football decision making.

Let's say there are 10 situations in which you think there is a good possibility it will either be RBBC, or that one or the other of the RBs will be a workhorse but you can't say which with much certainty.

Now I come along with my crystal ball or this kind of statistical study based on the true results of the coming season, and tell you that 5 of those 10 situations you perceive as RBBC, will result in a workhorse back. But I don't tell you which situations, or which of the two specific RBs ends up the workhorse. Does that change your decision making at draft time?

Not much, not when dealing with taking just a single specific RB from those situations. It would raise the expected value of taking BOTH RBs from a single RBBC tandem. But your expectation for "Vernand Morency" or for "Brandon Jackson" as individuals would not change as much because you still don't know which of the two may end up the workhorse if either will. And you still need to account for that uncertainty in the value you place on them in the draft, so it still has to be treated as a RBBC even if this study finds after the fact that it wasn't one.

So I think we need to couch this kind of study in it's proper context. Knowing that there are fewer RBBCs than we think is useful. But it also doesn't do much to change our decision-making, or to allow us to draft as if there are as many workhorse backs as the study says. Our decisions still have to be based on the perceived number of RBBC situations, not the hindsight number.

So I'd be slow to say the RBBC is a myth or that we think it's worse than it is. Another poster mentioned backup RBs are better than before and closer in ability to the starter. If this increases our uncertainty about who will get the touches, for our decision making that did make the number of RBBC we had to deal with increase, even if one guy or the other eventually ended up the workhorse in hindsight.

GregR said:

I do think there is some useful information to come out of these studies, but I think they also paint a misleading picture if we don't couch the results in the true context of our fantasy football decision making. Let's say there are 10 situations in which you think there is a good possibility it will either be RBBC, or that one or the other of the RBs will be a workhorse but you can't say which with much certainty.Now I come along with my crystal ball or this kind of statistical study based on the true results of the coming season, and tell you that 5 of those 10 situations you perceive as RBBC, will result in a workhorse back. But I don't tell you which situations, or which of the two specific RBs ends up the workhorse. Does that change your decision making at draft time? Not much, not when dealing with taking just a single specific RB from those situations. It would raise the expected value of taking BOTH RBs from a single RBBC tandem. But your expectation for "Vernand Morency" or for "Brandon Jackson" as individuals would not change as much because you still don't know which of the two may end up the workhorse if either will. And you still need to account for that uncertainty in the value you place on them in the draft, so it still has to be treated as a RBBC even if this study finds after the fact that it wasn't one.So I think we need to couch this kind of study in it's proper context. Knowing that there are fewer RBBCs than we think is useful. But it also doesn't do much to change our decision-making, or to allow us to draft as if there are as many workhorse backs as the study says. Our decisions still have to be based on the perceived number of RBBC situations, not the hindsight number.So I'd be slow to say the RBBC is a myth or that we think it's worse than it is. Another poster mentioned backup RBs are better than before and closer in ability to the starter. If this increases our uncertainty about who will get the touches, for our decision making that did make the number of RBBC we had to deal with increase, even if one guy or the other eventually ended up the workhorse in hindsight.

Click to expand...

er I don't know why everyone is getting all wrapped up in it, but FYI in case this hasn't already been said: # of touches is totally irrelevent re. this topic. It's the total % of touches the RB1 gets related to total RB touches on the team.

I tracked this for a few weeks a couple of years ago. A typical RB1 will see about 75% of their team's RB touches.

Edgerrin and LT were the only two glaring exceptions.

I'd say the most important thing is to look at a team's total RB touches to identify the good possibilities.

nygiants56 said:

I don't buy it..

not sure comparing a modern day RB to Earl Campbell makes any sense..Campbell played less games, it was a different era back then. Its like comparing Men's tennis champs of the 60's-70's-80's with their wooden rackets, to the players of today, with the big headed graphite rocket launchers.

same with golf. Tiger uses an alloy metal , graphite shaft driver with a head on it as big as a catcher's mit, while Jack used real WOODEN clubs with steel shafts...can't compare the two..

in the past 3 seasons, how many teams have moved towards a RBBC? Jax, Dallas, NE, Cleveland, Oakland, Houston, Minnesota, Carolina, Jets, Miami ( ricky W. and ronnie brown ), Tennessee, Denver, Philly , New Orleans, Atlanta, etc..

now Washington might be fully embroiled in a RBBC, and the same is true for the NY Giants.

just looking at it from that perspective, you do see a rise in the RBBC philosophy..

without using math, you can just see that the talent level of RB2 on each team,has risen. Many RB2's are highly skilled situational players, like Bush, MJD, Mike Turner , et al.

teams are finding new, more creative ways to use BOTH RB's at the same time ( ala N.O.)

Going forward, the RB position is going to change ( or evolve I should say), much like the WR3 position has evolved, or the TE position ( to the point where a TE is now the #1 passing weapon on many teams), or the way the hybrid DE's have evolved ( just 10-15 years ago, DE's were 300+ lb linemen.now everyone is scrambling, trying to find the next light,fast Dwight Freeney-type).

Click to expand...

As far as comparing, I started my research in 1978, when the NFL went to a 16-game schedule. The fact is that Earl Campbell, or any other RB from 1978-present, can be compared. The only difference is that the league has went from 28 to 32 teams.Teams used to rush more, and pass to RB's more. These two facts are undisputed. I can provide the data if anyone disagrees, but I think everyone will agree to this. With more carries and catches to go around, why is it that there are more 300-touch RB's now than there were in the past? Wouldn't more 300-touch RB's now mean that RBBC is on the decline?

I have a theory as to why. In the past, players tended to stay on one team alot longer. This being the case, the coaching staff wanted to take precautions to minimize the risk of "overusing" a RB. Teams thought more long-term about their players than they do now.

In 1978, there were 16 out of 28 teams (57%) where the RB1 had at least 50 more carries than RB2.

In 2006, there were 28 out of 32 teams (88%) where the RB1 had at least 50 more carries than RB2.

Now, on to that list of teams you claimed were "moving towards RBBC" over the last 3 years.

JAX - Fred had 260 carries in 2004, with Greg Jones the next highest at only 62. In 2005, Fred got injured and only played in 11 games. Greg Jones got the bulk of the carries in Fred's absence. Fred ended with 194 carries, and Jones had 151. The next highest RB was Alvin Peraman with only 39. JAX was forced to go RBBC in 2006 because they had a healthy rookie stud and an aging injury-prone one. But this team doesn't qualify for "moving towards RBBC". If anything, they will now be moving away from RBBC.

DAL - JJ was the new kid on the block in 2004. Eddie George took the bulk of the carries for the first half of the season, and JJ took over in the second half. They were hardly RBBC, even though the EOY stats may suggest. In 2005, JJ had nearly double the carries than Marion Barber (257 to 138). In 2006, the carries were split almost identical to 2005 (JJ with 267, MB3 with 135). The only reason DAL seemed to be RBBC in 2006 was MB3's 14 rushing TD's. Had he gotten 5 TD's (like he did in 2005), there wouldn't be talk of RBBC.

NE - In 2004, Corey had 345 carries, nuff said. In 2005, Corey missed 4 games due to injury, but still had 209 carries. The next highest was Patrick Pass with 54. In 2006, NE was in the same boat as JAX (aging stud and rookie stud). Again, they will be moving away from RBBC.

CLE - In 2004 they were RBBC with Green/Suggs. In 2005 it was all Droughns (309 carries). In 2006 Droughns had 220 carries, but he missed 2 games. Jason Wright was RB2 with only 62 carries, but 33 of those carries came in the 2 games that Droughns was out. CLE now has Jamal, so I see no reason to think they are a RBBC team.

OAK - In 2004 they were RBBC (top rusher was Amos Zereoue with only 112 carries). In 2005, Lamont Jordan was a workhorse. In 2006, they went back to RBBC. OAK does qualify to be on the RBBC list.

HOU - In 2004, Domanick was a workhorse. In 2005, he had 230 carries in only 11 games. In 2006 they were clearly RBBC. I don't think they qualify as a team moving towards RBBC, because they just picked up Ahman, who should see the lion's share in 2007.

MIN - In 2004 they were RBBC (top rusher was Onterrio Smith with 124 carries). In 2005 they were once again RBBC (top rusher was Mewelde Moore with 155 carries). But in 2006, Chester Taylor was a workhorse with 303 carries. I know AP is in town now, so 2007 may be RBBC. But we all know that by the end of 2007/beginning of 2008 that AP will be a workhorse.

CAR - Nick Goings led the team with 217 carries in 2004, but only because all the other RB's were getting injured. He was the only one to play in all 16 games. The next highest total was Brad Hoover with 68 carries. In 2005 they were RBBC with Davis/Foster. In 2006 they were RBBC with Foster/DeAngelo (but Foster did nearly double DeAngelo in carries). CAR does qualify to be on the RBBC list.

NYJ - Curtis Martin was a workhorse in both 2004 and 2005. He got injured in 2005 and only played 12 games. Cedric Houston became the workhorse during that time. In 2006 they were RBBC. Will they be RBBC in 2007, now that they have Thomas Jones? I doubt it, but time will tell.

MIA - RBBC in 2004 (Sammy Morris top dog with 132 carries). RBBC in 2005 with Ronnie/Ricky. Not a RBBC in 2006 (Ronnie had 241 carries). They were RBBC for two years, but they are certainly moving away from RBBC, not towards it.

TEN - Chris Brown had 220 carries in only 11 games in 2004. Antowain Smith picked up the slack in the 5 games Brown missed. Brown gets 224 carries in 2005, but manages to play in 15 games. Travis Henry picks up the slack and finishes with 88 carries. Travis Henry emerges and carries 270 times in 2006. They certainly weren't RBBC (Brown and LenDale combined only had 102 carries). Will Brown, White, or Henry emerge this year, or will it be RBBC? Since we don't know yet, and since they weren't RBBC in 2006, I don't think they qualify.

DEN - Reuben had 275 carries in 2004. Anderson/Bell were RBBC in 2005. Bell/Bell were RBBC in 2006. Until I see Travis Henry getting the lion's share in 2007, I say they qualify as a RBBC team.

PHI - Westy has been a stud the since 2004. He may not have the number of carries for a workhorse, but that's because he is a pass catcher too. No way is PHI a RBBC team.

NO - Deuce was a workhorse in 2004. They went to RBBC when Deuce got injured in 2005. In 2006 Reggie came to town. I foresee another RBBC year in 2007, but then it will be all Reggie in 2008.

ATL - Dunn has been ATL's workhorse for the last 3 years (265, 280, and 286 carries).

From your list of 15 teams, I think only 4 qualify. RBBC isn't really a philosphy. It's more like what happens when injuries occur, or a team's best RB underperforms.

I have finished the carries, catches, and TD portions of the stats. Obviously, carries + catches = touches, so that is done too, but I just haven't charted it for all RB's. I have only charted it for all RB's who have had 200+ touches since 1978. Here are some down and dirty findings:

The most touches in a season was 492, by James Wilder, in 1984. He had 407 carries and 85 catches! LJ holds second place with 457 (416 carries/41 catches). The 400-touch plateau has been reached 40 times since 1978. There have been 15 RB's that reached it once, 4 RB's to reach it twice (Terrell Davis, Walter Payton, James Wilder, Ricky Williams), 3 RB's to reach it 3 times (Edgerrin James, Curtis Martin, LaDainian Tomlinson), and 2 RB's to reach it 4 times (Eric Dickerson and Emmitt Smith).

For those that say RBBC is alive and well, there have only been 2 seasons in the past 30 years where 80% of the NFL teams had a RB with 250+ touches (I have used percentage because the NFL has evolved from 28 to 32 teams since 1978, and did not want anyone saying there were fewer teams in the past). Those two years were 2002 and 2006. Shocking, huh? Yes, 26 out of 32 teams had a 250+ touch RB last year.

I am a firm believer that RBBC was just a myth created by FF'ers. I was sure there were more 250+ touch RB's long ago than there really were, but it's not the case. During the generation of the 28-team NFL (1978 thru 1994), not once was there even 70% of the teams with a 250+ touch RB (and we all know there were more carries and catches to go around). In fact, during that span, the average number of teams with a 250+ RB was only 14 out of 28 (50%). Since 1978, the 7 highest % seasons have been 2006 (81%), 2002 (81%), 2000 (77%), 1998 (70%), 1995 (70%), 2004 (69%), and 2003 (69%). As you can see, 4 of the top seasons have come in the last 5 years.

I have seen nothing in all my data collecting that makes me think RBBC is alive and well. Since 1978, RB1 has increased in every single category known to FF. In contrast, RB's 2-8 have all decreased in every single category known to FF. It only seems that there is RBBC, because each year there are a few RB's that come in and get lots of carries, catches, or GL touches. People didn't really consider DAL a true RBBC in 2005 when JJ had 292 touches to MBIII's 156, because they each scored 5 TD's. But in 2006, JJ had 276 touches to MBIII's 158, and everyone screams RBBC, because MBIII runs in 14 TD's. If you look, the touches were pretty much the same from 2005 to 2006. MBIII was getting GL carries in 2005 too; he just wasn't converting them at the pace he did in 2006. Make no mistake... those guys are the exceptions, not the rule.