Some stats about pass-catching RB's in 2006 (1 Viewer)

[Dirty Weasel]

- The top 8 teams, in terms of catches by RB's, are all from the NFC

- The only team with two 40+ catch RB's was MIN (Chester & Mewelde)

- The Saints led the NFL with 158 catches, the Cowboys were in last with 34 catches

- The NFC average was 92 catches... the AFC had no team with that many

Of the 32 teams, based on number of carries, here is who had the most RB catches:

RB1 - 19

RB2 - 6

RB3 - 5

RB4 - 2

 

[dgreen]

Of the 32 teams, based on number of carries, here is who had the most RB catches:RB1 - 19RB2 - 6RB3 - 5RB4 - 2

Interesting. How does this compare to the past? Is the 3rd-down RB fading away?

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Of the 32 teams, based on number of carries, here is who had the most RB catches:RB1 - 19RB2 - 6RB3 - 5RB4 - 2

Interesting. How does this compare to the past? Is the 3rd-down RB fading away?

I've only completed 1 year so far in the RB catches department. I'm already done with RB carries and RB TD's for the past 30 years. Both the carries and TD's indicate that RB1 is pulling away from RB2, and RB2 is pulling away from RB3. I'm now doing catches, because I have a feeling that the term "3rd-down RB" may be a myth too, along with "RBBC". 3rd-down RB's are usually brought in on 3rd and long, but if they are not getting passes, to me that just makes them a pass blocker. We'll see what the numbers say. So far, the numbers indicate that only Kevin Faulk, Mewelde Moore, and Michael Pittman are true 3rd-down RB's.

 

[Blackhawk 69]

Of the 32 teams, based on number of carries, here is who had the most RB catches:RB1 - 19RB2 - 6RB3 - 5RB4 - 2

Interesting. How does this compare to the past? Is the 3rd-down RB fading away?

Yes very interesting.I'll look forward to following this.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

- The top 8 teams, in terms of catches by RB's, are all from the NFC

- The only team with two 40+ catch RB's was MIN (Chester & Mewelde)

- The Saints led the NFL with 158 catches, the Cowboys were in last with 34 catches

- The NFC average was 92 catches... the AFC had no team with that many

Of the 32 teams, based on number of carries, here is who had the most RB catches:

RB1 - 19

RB2 - 6

RB3 - 5

RB4 - 2

West Coast Offense

 

[Dirty Weasel]

- The top 8 teams, in terms of catches by RB's, are all from the NFC

- The only team with two 40+ catch RB's was MIN (Chester with 46 & Mewelde with 42)

- The Saints led the NFL with 158 catches, the Cowboys were in last with 34 catches

- The NFC average was 92 catches... the AFC had no team with that many

Of the 32 teams, based on number of carries, here is who had the most RB catches:

RB1 - 19

RB2 - 6

RB3 - 5

RB4 - 2

I have just completed the stats for 1978. I'll put them in similar terms as above, so you can compare...- The top 10 teams, in terms of catches by RB's, are equally divided by AFC & NFC (no West Coast Offense yet, as MoP eluded to)

- The only team with two 40+ catch RB's was MIN (once again, but this time it was Rickey Young with 88 and Chuck Foreman with 61)

- The Vikings led the NFL with 176 catches, the Steelers/Buccaneers were in last with 45 catches each

- The NFL average was 88 catches (it was 79 catches in 2006)

Of the 28 teams, based on number of carries, here is who had the most RB catches:

RB1 - 16

RB2 - 8

RB3 - 0

RB4 - 3

RB5 - 0

RB6 - 1

Of all the categories I've been researching, this is the one that I truly expected to favor the RB1 from years ago versus current day. Here is the % breakdowns from 1978 and 2006:

1978

RB1 - 35.95%

RB2 - 30.18%

RB3 - 13.24%

RB4 - 11.54%

RB5 - 6.21%

RB6 - 2.36%

RB7 - 0.53%

2006

RB1 - 44.23%

RB2 - 24.06%

RB3 - 15.42%

RB4 - 9.87%

RB5 - 4.52

RB6 - 1.31%

RB7 - 0.59%

In comparing RB's from 1978 to 2006, even though carries, TD's, and catches have all decreased since 1978, RB1 has increased in all categories, while RB's 2-8 have decreased in all categories. Some people may still say that these numbers don't tell the whole truth, and that there is more RBBC now than there was in the past, so I'll put in in fantasy terms. Based on scoring rules of 1pt per 10yds rushing/receiving, 6pts per TD, and 1pt per catch, here are the top 24 from 1978 and 2006:

2006

LT - 473

SJax - 418

LJ - 374

Westy - 333

Gore - 332

Tiki - 300

FWP - 298

MJD - 273

Bush - 266

Betts - 242

Rudi - 237

KJ - 229

Addai - 228

Ahman - 224

Chester - 221

Deuce - 214

Edge - 204

MB3 - 203

TJ - 202

Jamal - 196

Fred - 191

Ronnie - 190

Dillon - 188

Travis - 188

1978

Walter Payton - 303

Tony Dorsett - 260

Terdell Middleton - 250

Earl Campbell - 239

Tony Galbreath - 237

Tony Reed - 237

Wilbert Montgomery - 235

Rickey Young - 235

Roland Harper - 224

Lydell Mitchell - 219

Mark VanEeghen - 218

Chuck Foreman - 216

David Sims - 214

Delvin Williams - 210

Kevin Long - 201

Terry Miller - 194

Greg Pruitt - 193

Franco Harris - 192

John Riggins - 191

Horace King - 189

Dexter Bussey - 186

Sherman Smith - 186

Sam Cunningham - 184

Joe Washington - 183

I think the misconception of RBBC nowadays has more to do with the fact that the current top 10 are way outperforming those top 10 from long ago. Take a look at Tony Dorsett. He was RB2 in 1978, with a fine season of 290 carries for 1325 yards and 7 TD's, to go along with 37 catches for 378 yards and another 2 TD's. But that would've made him RB10 in 2006. As you notice, after about RB10, the scores tend to even out. BTW - of the top 24 lists, there were 4 sets of teammates in 1978, but only 2 sets in 2006.

I know this was a long read, and for that, I am sorry.

 

[mlball77]

Just a question... and maybe you've covered this in one of your threads on this topic...

Have you ever calculated the percentage of FF points that the RB1 for each NFL team scores out of the total FF points scored at the RB position for his NFL team that year?

I think in doing this, and compiling time trend data for this calculation, you will get a strong indication of how heavily RB1's are being leaned un by their teams today vs. 20 years ago etc.

Just my thoughts.

 

[CalBear]

- The top 8 teams, in terms of catches by RB's, are all from the NFC- The only team with two 40+ catch RB's was MIN (Chester & Mewelde)- The Saints led the NFL with 158 catches, the Cowboys were in last with 34 catches- The NFC average was 92 catches... the AFC had no team with that manyOf the 32 teams, based on number of carries, here is who had the most RB catches:RB1 - 19RB2 - 6RB3 - 5RB4 - 2

Interesting that the AFC/NFC discrepancy occurs at a time when the AFC is dominating the NFC by most measures, including the last 4 Super Bowls in a row (and 8 of the last 10). Maybe throwing to the RB is no longer the winning strategy it was during the heyday of the West Coast offense.

 

[SuperJohn96]

I wonder if some of this has to do with the salary cap.

Before, you could probably get two high quality RBs, which would of course lend to allowing you to split the touches.

Now, with so much money invested in a quality starter, and probably with greater talent drop-offs in depth charts, you need to (a) give the touches to the guy making the big money so he can earn it and (b) give less carries to the even less talented backups.

Good thread BTW.

 

[lions327]

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Just a question... and maybe you've covered this in one of your threads on this topic...Have you ever calculated the percentage of FF points that the RB1 for each NFL team scores out of the total FF points scored at the RB position for his NFL team that year?I think in doing this, and compiling time trend data for this calculation, you will get a strong indication of how heavily RB1's are being leaned un by their teams today vs. 20 years ago etc.Just my thoughts.

Good question. The only FF points I gathered were the top 24 RB's from 1978 and 2006, so I could compare them. Those results are somewhere in this thread already. Having already completed carries and TD's for all RB's since 1978, I figured the next step would be to chart all the catches by RB's. I assumed the carries data would kinda show how much a change of pace RB was used, the TD data would show how much TD vultures are used, and the catches data would show how much the 3rd down RB was used. Combining all 3 sets of data would give a clear overall picture. If I have time after I complete the catches data, I will then chart the FF points data, based on 1pt per catch, 1pt per 10yds rush/receive, and 6pts per TD. I won't chart small things like throwing a TD pass or negative points for fumbles, because from what I've seen already, the extra time wouldn't really make a difference in the overall results anyway. Gathering rushing yards, receiving yards, catches, and overall TD's by each player should be an accurate assessment. From what I've seen so far, team rushes and catches have gone down, but TD's have gone up.

 

[dgreen]

How are you compiling your data?

Hopefully you are know about this.

 

[Despyzer]

Interesting that the AFC/NFC discrepancy occurs at a time when the AFC is dominating the NFC by most measures, including the last 4 Super Bowls in a row (and 8 of the last 10). Maybe throwing to the RB is no longer the winning strategy it was during the heyday of the West Coast offense.

Just one example: The only time that a RB caught 100 passes in a season his team finished with only four wins.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Interesting that the AFC/NFC discrepancy occurs at a time when the AFC is dominating the NFC by most measures, including the last 4 Super Bowls in a row (and 8 of the last 10). Maybe throwing to the RB is no longer the winning strategy it was during the heyday of the West Coast offense.

Just one example: The only time that a RB caught 100 passes in a season his team finished with only four wins.

I don't have any hard data to back this up yet, but at a glance it appears that many teams are trading in their pass catching RB for a pass catching TE. Stephen Jackson PPR owners beware.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

How are you compiling your data?

Hopefully you are know about this.

Yep. That's the main site I'm gathering data from. I downloaded some of those files to assist me, but I found that they didn't do what I wanted them to, so I made my own.

 

[bonesman]

I know this was a long read, and for that, I am sorry.

Didn't even notice here... good read... same with the RBBC: 30 year study thread. ( http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=319578&hl= )Although, you ought to apologize for not using paragraphs there

 

[Biabreakable]

Good study weasel.

It would be good to show more years than just 2. I wonder if the historical data dominator could not quickly do that?

I am pretty confident in the result however.

For one passing attempts are up now compared to decades past meaning less team rushes (I am assuming here maybe this is wrong?)

For two salary cap causes very good players to switch teams. You don't have teams hoarding 2 or top 10 type caliber players at a position anymore like teams had at times before plan B or free agency when they could keep thier players forever.

Also coaching has changed. Before the QB headset coaches would often send in the play with a new RB during substitutions keeping RBs more fresh this way, but the main reason was a communication tactic. This is no longer necessary.

There are probobly more reasons than that also. But I definitly think RBBC is in decline despite what some people think. Scoring and yardage are up as well.

People see RBBC now because of the past 2 drafts bringing in so many good rookie RBs. Those same RBs have to share the load for awhile until they earn full RB1 touches. That is what I noticed in looking at many years of RBs orginized by round taken and year of thier career. A definite upward trend for RBs in thier 3rd year in the league.. when most RB finaly stop sharing the ball with thier compitition.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Of the 32 teams, based on number of carries, here is who had the most RB catches:RB1 - 19RB2 - 6RB3 - 5RB4 - 2

Hmmm....

 

[Chase Stuart]

Interesting that the AFC/NFC discrepancy occurs at a time when the AFC is dominating the NFC by most measures, including the last 4 Super Bowls in a row (and 8 of the last 10). Maybe throwing to the RB is no longer the winning strategy it was during the heyday of the West Coast offense.

Just one example: The only time that a RB caught 100 passes in a season his team finished with only four wins.

Both

 

[Chase Stuart]

Taking Dirty Weasel's lead, take a look at the following table. For each year, I've listed how many of the RBs that ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th on their given team in carries, led all RBs on that team in receptions. So in 2005, 21 of the 32 RBs to lead their team in carries also led their team in rushes. Jerald Sowell ranked 5th among RBs in rushes for the '05 Jets (behind Curtis Martin, Cedric Houston, Derrick Blaylock and B.J. Askew), but led all Jets RBs in receptions.

1	 2	3	4	5	62006	19	 6	5	2	0	02005	21	 5	5	0	1	02004	22	 3	6	1	0	02003	20	 8	2	2	0	02002	27	 5	0	0	0	02001	19	 5	4	2	1	02000	20	 6	4	0	0	11999	17	 4	5	4	1	01998	19	 2	5	3	1	01997	16	 6	3	4	1	01996	13	 6	6	5	0	01995	16	 6	5	2	1	01994	16	 6	4	2	0	01993	 9	10	6	3	0	01992	11	 5	8	4	0	01991	15	 3	6	3	1	01990	11	 8	4	3	1	11989	 7	11	4	4	2	01988	14	 6	3	4	1	01987	15	10	2	1	0	01986	16	 7	0	3	1	11985	17	 6	4	1	0	01984	18	 5	1	2	1	11983	20	 7	1	0	0	01982	17	 8	3	0	0	01981	14	10	2	1	0	11980	15	 9	3	1	0	01979	18	 6	3	1	0	01978	16	 8	0	3	0	11977	14	10	3	1	0	01976	15	10	2	1	0	01975	17	 5	3	1	0	01974	16	 7	3	0	0	01973	18	 4	3	1	0	01972	16	 8	1	0	0	11971	14	11	0	1	0	01970	12	 9	5	0	0	0

 

[Chase Stuart]

This is the same as the above table, except instead if showing how many RBs at each carry rank led the team in receptions, it shows what percentage of the league fit in that category. So in 2004, 9% of all RBs to lead their team in carries (i.e., 3 RBs) ranked 2nd on the team in rushes.

1	 2	 3	 4	5	62006	59	19	16	 6	0	02005	66	16	16	 0	3	02004	69	 9	19	 3	0	02003	63	25	 6	 6	0	02002	84	16	 0	 0	0	02001	61	16	13	 6	3	02000	65	19	13	 0	0	31999	55	13	16	13	3	01998	63	 7	17	10	3	01997	53	20	10	13	3	01996	43	20	20	17	0	01995	53	20	17	 7	3	01994	57	21	14	 7	0	01993	32	36	21	11	0	01992	39	18	29	14	0	01991	54	11	21	11	4	01990	39	29	14	11	4	41989	25	39	14	14	7	01988	50	21	11	14	4	01987	54	36	 7	 4	0	01986	57	25	 0	11	4	41985	61	21	14	 4	0	01984	64	18	 4	 7	4	41983	71	25	 4	 0	0	01982	61	29	11	 0	0	01981	50	36	 7	 4	0	41980	54	32	11	 4	0	01979	64	21	11	 4	0	01978	57	29	 0	11	0	41977	50	36	11	 4	0	01976	54	36	 7	 4	0	01975	65	19	12	 4	0	01974	62	27	12	 0	0	01973	69	15	12	 4	0	01972	62	31	 4	 0	0	41971	54	42	 0	 4	0	01970	46	35	19	 0	0	0Avg.	56	24	12	 6	1	1

 

[Chase Stuart]

Cumulative percentages...

1	  2	  3	  4	  5	  62006	59	 78	 94	100	100	1002005	66	 81	 97	 97	100	1002004	69	 78	 97	100	100	1002003	63	 88	 94	100	100	1002002	84	100	100	100	100	1002001	61	 77	 90	 97	100	1002000	65	 84	 97	 97	 97	1001999	55	 68	 84	 97	100	1001998	63	 70	 87	 97	100	1001997	53	 73	 83	 97	100	1001996	43	 63	 83	100	100	1001995	53	 73	 90	 97	100	1001994	57	 79	 93	100	100	1001993	32	 68	 89	100	100	1001992	39	 57	 86	100	100	1001991	54	 64	 86	 96	100	1001990	39	 68	 82	 93	 96	1001989	25	 64	 79	 93	100	1001988	50	 71	 82	 96	100	1001987	54	 89	 96	100	100	1001986	57	 82	 82	 93	 96	1001985	61	 82	 96	100	100	1001984	64	 82	 86	 93	 96	1001983	71	 96	100	100	100	1001982	61	 89	100	100	100	1001981	50	 86	 93	 96	 96	1001980	54	 86	 96	100	100	1001979	64	 86	 96	100	100	1001978	57	 86	 86	 96	 96	1001977	50	 86	 96	100	100	1001976	54	 89	 96	100	100	1001975	65	 85	 96	100	100	1001974	62	 88	100	100	100	1001973	69	 85	 96	100	100	1001972	62	 92	 96	 96	 96	1001971	54	 96	 96	100	100	1001970	46	 81	100	100	100	100Avg.	56	 80	 92	 98	 99	100

 

[Chase Stuart]

Who were the 7 RBs to rank 6th on the team in carries but first in receptions (among RBs)?

 

[Dirty Weasel]

Who were the 7 RBs to rank 6th on the team in carries but first in receptions (among RBs)?

Thanx for jumping on board with all those stats, Chase. Catches seems to be the one stat that has the least predictability. When plotted on a timeline chart, it follows no definable pattern. When I finish all the different categories and do a FF points timeline, I am confident it will show RB1 pulling away from RB2, and RB2 pulling away from the rest of the pack.BTW - I'm not allowed to answer this question, because I already know the answers from my research. I can say that 1 of the 7 did it before 1978 though.

 

[Despyzer]

Interesting that the AFC/NFC discrepancy occurs at a time when the AFC is dominating the NFC by most measures, including the last 4 Super Bowls in a row (and 8 of the last 10). Maybe throwing to the RB is no longer the winning strategy it was during the heyday of the West Coast offense.

Just one example: The only time that a RB caught 100 passes in a season his team finished with only four wins.

Both

I think it would be interesting to see if there is a strong correlation between RBs catching a lot of passes and losses.

 

[Doug Drinen]

I think it would be interesting to see if there is a strong correlation between RBs catching a lot of passes and losses.

From 1978--2006, the correlation between percentage of receptions by RBs and team winning percentage is -.056. That's tiny, but the sample size is large enough that it's borderline statistically significant (depending, of course, on how you define statistically significant). Either way, the effect appears to be extremely small. For a typical team, taking 50 receptions away from the WRs and TEs and giving them to the RBs instead would be associated with an expected decrease of about 0.3 wins.And there are cause/effect questions here: do bad teams throw to RBs a lot in garbage time, or do teams throw to RBs because their WRs and TEs are crummy?My guess: high RB reception percentage correlates slightly better with having bad WRs and TEs than it does with having great pass-catching RBs. And having bad WRs and TEs correlates with losing.

 

[Despyzer]

I think it would be interesting to see if there is a strong correlation between RBs catching a lot of passes and losses.

From 1978--2006, the correlation between percentage of receptions by RBs and team winning percentage is -.056. That's tiny, but the sample size is large enough that it's borderline statistically significant (depending, of course, on how you define statistically significant). Either way, the effect appears to be extremely small. For a typical team, taking 50 receptions away from the WRs and TEs and giving them to the RBs instead would be associated with an expected decrease of about 0.3 wins.And there are cause/effect questions here: do bad teams throw to RBs a lot in garbage time, or do teams throw to RBs because their WRs and TEs are crummy?My guess: high RB reception percentage correlates slightly better with having bad WRs and TEs than it does with having great pass-catching RBs. And having bad WRs and TEs correlates with losing.