Historical look at receiving stats for RBs (1 Viewer)

[dgreen]

When looking at old stats for fun, I've noticed many RBs had higher YDS/REC in the past. So, I ran the numbers since 1960 (haven't downloaded 2008 data).

YEAR RBs REC YDS TDs YDS/REC REC/TD1960 124 1383 15356 117 11.1 11.81961 123 1449 16048 108 11.1 13.41962 120 1587 18282 121 11.5 13.11963 126 1501 16540 106 11.0 14.21964 113 1513 15944 106 10.5 14.31965 124 1535 17530 114 11.4 13.51966 139 1814 19715 139 10.9 13.11967 147 1862 19454 129 10.4 14.41968 163 1817 18532 112 10.2 16.21969 155 1871 18389 103 9.8 18.21970 162 1914 16747 75 8.7 25.51971 156 1876 16586 74 8.8 25.41972 159 1951 18590 88 9.5 22.21973 163 1885 16498 71 8.8 26.51974 178 2087 17546 86 8.4 24.31975 159 2122 17908 95 8.4 22.31976 174 2242 19311 72 8.6 31.11977 168 2032 17971 80 8.8 25.41978 174 2456 21014 71 8.6 34.61979 169 2789 24312 104 8.7 26.81980 178 3187 27640 116 8.7 27.51981 173 3097 27199 124 8.8 25.01982 164 1594 13761 56 8.6 28.51983 153 2619 23837 115 9.1 22.81984 151 2519 21112 95 8.4 26.51985 144 2544 23228 102 9.1 24.91986 153 2835 25166 99 8.9 28.61987 170 2225 19937 84 9.0 26.51988 155 2542 23159 95 9.1 26.81989 155 2404 22100 101 9.2 23.81990 154 2145 19514 101 9.1 21.21991 151 2183 17911 72 8.2 30.31992 145 2289 19736 77 8.6 29.71993 142 2436 19885 58 8.2 42.01994 151 2600 21027 77 8.1 33.81995 153 2675 21007 77 7.9 34.71996 153 2515 20012 82 8.0 30.71997 161 2455 20044 78 8.2 31.51998 173 2373 18629 82 7.9 28.91999 165 2613 20962 88 8.0 29.72000 155 2653 21622 91 8.2 29.22001 162 2629 20778 88 7.9 29.92002 152 2845 22041 99 7.7 28.72003 159 2641 20102 78 7.6 33.92004 172 2441 18879 77 7.7 31.72005 184 2290 17188 68 7.5 33.72006 187 2522 19400 58 7.7 43.52007 127 2242 16903 48 7.5 46.7Looks like there's some leveling off 1970-1990 and then 1991-2007. Could it possible go even lower in the future?Shorter routes and quicker passes have clearly led to declines in WR yds/rec, but is that what's happening here? Do RBs now run shorter, quicker routes than in the past? Was the RB screen not used much in the past?

Another possible reason is that players didn't specialize as much in the past and someone labeled as a RB may have played some WR.

I also noticed a decline in REC/TD over the years. RBs used to score a TD every 15 receptions. Now it can be as high as one TD every 40 receptions.

Just something I found interesting. And, while looking at the data closely, I was surprised by the steadiness of the YDS/REC 1970-1990. Why the decline around 1970? Why the decline again in the 90s? I don't have time to run the numbers right now, but I think there was a WR decline around '93 or '94.

 

[Black]

When looking at old stats for fun, I've noticed many RBs had higher YDS/REC in the past. So, I ran the numbers since 1960 (haven't downloaded 2008 data).Shorter routes and quicker passes have clearly led to declines in WR yds/rec, but is that what's happening here? Do RBs now run shorter, quicker routes than in the past? Was the RB screen not used much in the past?Another possible reason is that players didn't specialize as much in the past and someone labeled as a RB may have played some WR.I also noticed a decline in REC/TD over the years. RBs used to score a TD every 15 receptions. Now it can be as high as one TD every 40 receptions.Just something I found interesting. And, while looking at the data closely, I was surprised by the steadiness of the YDS/REC 1970-1990. Why the decline around 1970? Why the decline again in the 90s? I don't have time to run the numbers right now, but I think there was a WR decline around '93 or '94.

This is a very cool discovery.1970 was the AFL/NFL merger, perhaps the pass-happy AFL teams merging with the NFL changed the way RBs were used as well in the passing game.To explain the 90s decline, I would assume that can be attributed to West Coast style offenses spreading greatly after the 49ers team success with it in the 80s.I think the decline in REC/TD (or fewer TDs per reception) might be attributed to the increase in total RB receptions (diluting that value). Statistically, if the Yards/Catch goes down, the TDs/Catch should also go down.

 

[gonzobill5]

Very interesting data set. Could it reflect a rule change? Or maybe just a trend toward smaller, faster LBs.

 

[tdmills]

I would think changes in defensive philosophy had something to do with it.

The Cover 2 for instance forces short passes over the middle and hurts swing passes in the flat. This could affect the average.

 

[DeCleater]

Look at the stats since 2000. Everything has gone down, TD catches from 91 to 48! Looks like defenses are winning this battle.

 

[dgreen]

1970 was the AFL/NFL merger, perhaps the pass-happy AFL teams merging with the NFL changed the way RBs were used as well in the passing game.

Possibly. Maybe the NFL defenses did a better job against the AFL RBs than the AFL defenses? I guess I could look at the 1960-1969 data split by AFL vs. NFL.

To explain the 90s decline, I would assume that can be attributed to West Coast style offenses spreading greatly after the 49ers team success with it in the 80s.

I think the WC philosophy spreading was definitely the reason for the WR decline in yds/rec, but would that also be true for the RB? I seem to remember Roger Craig and Wendel Tyler running longer patterns, for a RB. They seemed to run some patterns more along the lines of what Faulk would do; almost as if they were just another WR. In fact, Craig's and Tyler's yds/rec seem to match NFL averages in the 80s, so it doesn't appear that the WC RBs had a lower YPC than the rest of the league. Maybe it's just because they were so much better at it than anyone else? Maybe when bad teams with less talent start running a WC offense, the yds/rec go down?

I think the decline in REC/TD (or fewer TDs per reception) might be attributed to the increase in total RB receptions (diluting that value). Statistically, if the Yards/Catch goes down, the TDs/Catch should also go down.

Here are RB receptions per team per game for each year:

YEAR  REC/TM/GM1960	5.21961	4.71962	5.21963	4.91964	4.91965	5.01966	5.41967	5.31968	5.01969	5.11970	5.31971	5.21972	5.41973	5.21974	5.71975	5.81976	5.71977	5.21978	5.51979	6.21980	7.11981	6.91982	6.31983	5.81984	5.61985	5.71986	6.31987	5.31988	5.71989	5.41990	4.81991	4.91992	5.11993	5.41994	5.81995	5.61996	5.21997	5.11998	4.91999	5.32000	5.32001	5.32002	5.62003	5.22004	4.82005	4.52006	4.92007	4.4

 

[dgreen]

Very interesting data set. Could it reflect a rule change? Or maybe just a trend toward smaller, faster LBs.

I know there was a rule change in 1978 to keep DBs from mugging WRs. That doesn't appear to have any affect on RBs, though.Changes in defenses, and the type of guys playing defense, could have some impact here. I've heard teams used to put their best athletes on offense back in the day. I think that philosophy has changed some over the years.

 

[dgreen]

And what's with the number of RBs in 2007? That's a major outlier when it comes to RBs/Team. I'm using data downloaded from PFR last year.

 

[dgreen]

1970 was the AFL/NFL merger, perhaps the pass-happy AFL teams merging with the NFL changed the way RBs were used as well in the passing game.

Possibly. Maybe the NFL defenses did a better job against the AFL RBs than the AFL defenses? I guess I could look at the 1960-1969 data split by AFL vs. NFL.

Overall 1960-1969:YDS/REC

AFL - 11.0

NFL - 10.6

REC/TD

AFL - 13.7

NFL - 14.4

YDS/REC by year:

YEAR   AFL   NFL1960  11.2  11.01961  11.8  10.71962  11.0  11.91963  11.8  10.61964  10.6  10.51965  11.3  11.51966  12.2  10.11967  10.8  10.21968  10.4  10.11969   9.8   9.9

REC/TD by year:

YEAR   AFL   NFL1960  11.7  12.01961  12.2  14.31962  13.1  13.11963  13.2  14.71964  17.7  12.61965  14.3  13.01966  10.3  15.51967  11.1  17.41968  17.9  15.41969  22.8  16.1

While not strong correlations, they each seemed to trend in the same direction.

 

[PrimUomo]

I think it has a lot to do with the speed on defense. Linebackers have gotten a lot faster over the years. Also, I could see the popularity of the Cover 2 which prevents a receiving RB from breaking large gains. The fact that the running back became a receiver more and more also defeats it effectiveness. If you get burnt by a play long enough you will find a way to stop it.

 

[DeCleater]

I would say the West Coast Offense has had something to do with this. Back in the old days teams threw deep more often so defenses had to respect that and could not come up and stop the dump off pass as quick. Now everybody squats on the short routes and the RBs have less room. JMO

 

[Bri]

Nice job on research.

Rec per TD is last column right?

Can you do per game into the OP chart? (less games for some of those years)