The value of a WR1 has been relatively consistent over this time frame. I think most of the ups and downs are probably due to sample size issues rather than changes in league philosophy. However, I’d argue that we may be in a period where the value of a “true” WR1 who can dominate on the outside is declining; three good wide receivers are probably more valuable than the Larry Fitzgerald model the Cardinals have been trotting out the last two years. Arizona, in fact, decided to rectify the situation by drafting Notre Dame’s Michael Floyd in the first round of April’s draft. Consider that two of the three leading receivers in the NFL last season, Victor Cruz and Wes Welker, gained the lion’s share of their production come while lined up in the slot2.
A team’s second wide receiver can be expected to produce about 16-20% of the team’s total receiving yards, a mark that has been steady over the past four decades. But what’s been even more consistent is that the average WR2 and TE1 have combined for just over 30% of a team’s receiving yards. As the TE1 becomes a better target, it’s natural to expect the WR2 to be one of the sources to give up targets. It’s reasonable to conclude that the small spike in the WR2 line in the late ’90s is strongly related to the similar decline for TE1 production over those same years.
There were two key rules changes enacted in 1978. The first prohibited bumping, chucking, or otherwise making anything other than incidental contact with a receiver beyond five yards from the line of scrimmage. The second allowed offensive lineman to be able to extend their arms, and push with open hands, allowing for better blocking and fewer holding penalties. With those rules in place, quarterbacks needed fewer blockers and receivers needed to be less skilled to get open. As a result, three and four wide receiver sets become more common, and the fullback was phased out. You can see the huge spike in the value of the third, fourth, fifth and so on wide receivers in the chart above. From 1970 to 1977, non-starting wide receivers consistently produced just under 10% of the team’s total receiving yards; by 1990, that number had doubled, and has shown no signs of subsiding.
Whose slice of the pie did the third and fourth receivers take? The short answer is, the running backs. Running backs outside of the team’s top receiving back consistently gained about 15% of the team’s yards in the early ’70s; that number has been cut in half in today’s NFL. A team’s RB1 (again, measured by receiving yards only) has also lost a few percentage points since the 1970s. Fullbacks like the Jets’ Clark Gaines (17 receptions in a 1980 game) have been replaced by players like Wes Welker. Last year, over at smartfootball, I noted that the ’77 Colts had two running backs, Lydell Mitchell and Don McCauley, lead the team in receptions. Two running backs simply aren’t on the field at the same time very often in today’s game. Of course, that’s still a separate issue from why the RB1 production has been declining. I have some thoughts, but I’m curious to hear what you guys think on that one.
And what of the tight end? Putting aside a team’s top tight end, the other tight ends have seen a small spike, going from about three to four percent to six percent of a team’s total yards. That reflects the fact that now teams frequently have multiple tight ends that are legitimate receivers, with the Patriots obviously leading the way. The TE1 spot has obviously shot up in importance since the ’90s, when you typically saw the top tight end just getting north of ten percent of the team’s yards. But on a percentage basis, TE1s were slightly more productive in the early ’70s.
