What's More Impressive-200 yards Rec or Rush? (2 Viewers)

[lbouchard]

What's more impressive: a 200 yard receiving game or a 200 yard rushing game?

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Since 2000 a player has gotten 200+ receiving yards in a game 46 times (including the 2 times it happened this week), and a player has gotten 200+ rushing yards in a game 62 times (including the 1 time it happened this week). So even today where passing dominates, I'd still say the 200+ yard receiving game is more impressive.

 

[dgreen]

Since 2000 a player has gotten 200+ receiving yards in a game 46 times (including the 2 times it happened this week), and a player has gotten 200+ rushing yards in a game 62 times (including the 1 time it happened this week). So even today where passing dominates, I'd still say the 200+ yard receiving game is more impressive.

But 15-11 in favor of receiving since 2010.

 

[GregR]

Which happens most frequently and which is most impressive are different topics.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Which happens most frequently and which is most impressive are different topics.

Perhaps for some. But if one feat is significantly more difficult to accomplish than another, that seems like a legitimate reason to view that feat as more impressive to me.

 

[DropKick]

Rushing... typically involves much more physicality.

 

[FUBAR]

Rushing... typically involves much more physicality.

It may be a cop out but to me it depends how its done. If a guy can get 200 receiving despite being doubled all Game that's different than if the 2nd receiver gets a couple big plays. Most of the time i will aside with the rb

 

[Chazzhawk]

I say rushing with these rules in the NFL. Also all the garbage time yardage. Look at Calvin Johnson this week, very rarely do you see a garbage time 200 rushing yards because a team like the Ravens or whoever start bringing in the back ups.

 

[dickey moe]

Considering the amount of wear and tear during a game for a RB, and the relative difficulty in breaking through/evading a defensive line, rushing for 200 yds is more impressive IMO.

 

[mad sweeney]

Since 2000 a player has gotten 200+ receiving yards in a game 46 times (including the 2 times it happened this week), and a player has gotten 200+ rushing yards in a game 62 times (including the 1 time it happened this week). So even today where passing dominates, I'd still say the 200+ yard receiving game is more impressive.

I don't think happening more often equates to less impressive in this case. Having more passing targets I think reduces the frequency. Pretty much by definition it's harder to get it rushing because every touch starts behind the LoS so there's more defenders to deal with.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Since 2000 a player has gotten 200+ receiving yards in a game 46 times (including the 2 times it happened this week), and a player has gotten 200+ rushing yards in a game 62 times (including the 1 time it happened this week). So even today where passing dominates, I'd still say the 200+ yard receiving game is more impressive.

I don't think happening more often equates to less impressive in this case. Having more passing targets I think reduces the frequency. Pretty much by definition it's harder to get it rushing because every touch starts behind the LoS so there's more defenders to deal with.

Well considering RBs generally get to carry the ball 20-40 times whereas WRs get targeted <20 times, I think that WR advantage you're accounting for is more than cancelled out.

 

[GregR]

Which happens most frequently and which is most impressive are different topics.

Perhaps for some. But if one feat is significantly more difficult to accomplish than another, that seems like a legitimate reason to view that feat as more impressive to me.

That statement has the same exact problem. LESS FREQUENT also does not necessarily equal MORE DIFFICULT.200 yard receiving games don't even take a lot of receptions in general. 60% of 200 yard receiving games required 10 receptions or less to do it. 96% of them were accomplished in 15 catches or less. Half of 200 yard rushing games required 27 carries or more to get it. That's a huge amount of physical effort to give and hits to absorb over a 3 hour period (not even counting that the rusher probably has receptions too). You have to maintain an unusually high level of performance for a lot more plays, have to make a lot more yards after contact and deal with more defenders between you and your yards in general to hit 200 rushing yards. Receptions produce many more yards on average than do rushes, which is what makes getting to the same yardage by running more difficult. How frequent the two types are is as likely driven by teams backing off the pass in games when they have gawdy passing stats because they have big leads and want to bleed the clock so start running it... while gawdy rushing stats tend to mean you keep running the ball late in the game so have a little more time in which to accomplish it. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the frequency for 150 yards of either type through the first 3 quarters wasn't more even or with receiving being the more frequent.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Which happens most frequently and which is most impressive are different topics.

Perhaps for some. But if one feat is significantly more difficult to accomplish than another, that seems like a legitimate reason to view that feat as more impressive to me.

That statement has the same exact problem. LESS FREQUENT also does not necessarily equal MORE DIFFICULT.200 yard receiving games don't even take a lot of receptions in general. 60% of 200 yard receiving games required 10 receptions or less to do it. 96% of them were accomplished in 15 catches or less.

Half of 200 yard rushing games required 27 carries or more to get it. That's a huge amount of physical effort to give and hits to absorb over a 3 hour period (not even counting that the rusher probably has receptions too). You have to maintain an unusually high level of performance for a lot more plays, have to make a lot more yards after contact and deal with more defenders between you and your yards in general to hit 200 rushing yards.

Receptions produce many more yards on average than do rushes, which is what makes getting to the same yardage by running more difficult.

How frequent the two types are is as likely driven by teams backing off the pass in games when they have gawdy passing stats because they have big leads and want to bleed the clock so start running it... while gawdy rushing stats tend to mean you keep running the ball late in the game so have a little more time in which to accomplish it. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the frequency for 150 yards of either type through the first 3 quarters wasn't more even or with receiving being the more frequent.

Why is the bolded supposed to make getting 200 receiving yards unimpressive? Averaging 20+ yards per catch on ~10 catches is pretty damn impressive, and due to it's rarity it's obviously not easy to accomplish. Overall, I think you are vastly underrating how difficult it is to beat defenders to make several downfield receptions in the same game. And yes, receptions produce many more yards on average than do rushes, but WRs generally get way less targets than RBs get rushes, so I don't see why a lower yards per average touch of RBs automatically makes getting 200+ rushing yards more difficult.As for your frequency hypotheses, it's just as likely that the 200+ receiving yardage games are actually inflated as teams get down early and are forced to play catch up in the 4th as it is that there aren't more because teams back off passing once they have a big lead. And in regard to rushing, it's just as likely that the 200+ rushing yardage games are deflated due to teams abandoning the run once their behind early as it is that they're inflated due to teams rushing out the clock at the end of games.

 

[GregR]

Which happens most frequently and which is most impressive are different topics.

Perhaps for some. But if one feat is significantly more difficult to accomplish than another, that seems like a legitimate reason to view that feat as more impressive to me.

That statement has the same exact problem. LESS FREQUENT also does not necessarily equal MORE DIFFICULT.200 yard receiving games don't even take a lot of receptions in general. 60% of 200 yard receiving games required 10 receptions or less to do it. 96% of them were accomplished in 15 catches or less.

Half of 200 yard rushing games required 27 carries or more to get it. That's a huge amount of physical effort to give and hits to absorb over a 3 hour period (not even counting that the rusher probably has receptions too). You have to maintain an unusually high level of performance for a lot more plays, have to make a lot more yards after contact and deal with more defenders between you and your yards in general to hit 200 rushing yards.

Receptions produce many more yards on average than do rushes, which is what makes getting to the same yardage by running more difficult.

How frequent the two types are is as likely driven by teams backing off the pass in games when they have gawdy passing stats because they have big leads and want to bleed the clock so start running it... while gawdy rushing stats tend to mean you keep running the ball late in the game so have a little more time in which to accomplish it. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the frequency for 150 yards of either type through the first 3 quarters wasn't more even or with receiving being the more frequent.

Why is the bolded supposed to make getting 200 receiving yards unimpressive? Averaging 20+ yards per catch on ~10 catches is pretty damn impressive, and due to it's rarity it's obviously not easy to accomplish. Overall, I think you are vastly underrating how difficult it is to beat defenders to make several downfield receptions in the same game. And yes, receptions produce many more yards on average than do rushes, but WRs generally get way less targets than RBs get rushes, so I don't see why a lower yards per average touch of RBs automatically makes getting 200+ rushing yards more difficult.As for your frequency hypotheses, it's just as likely that the 200+ receiving yardage games are actually inflated as teams get down early and are forced to play catch up in the 4th as it is that there aren't more because teams back off passing once they have a big lead. And in regard to rushing, it's just as likely that the 200+ rushing yardage games are deflated due to teams abandoning the run once their behind early as it is that they're inflated due to teams rushing out the clock at the end of games.

97 players have had season averages of 20+ yards per catch (minimum of 40 catches or about half a decent WR season). It's quite good, but 20 ypc isn't exactly unheard of.Comparatively, 1 RB in NFL had a season average of 7.4 yards per carry (minimum 100 attempts, again, half a decent RB season). Beattie Feathers who played in 1934 and had an 8.4 ypc. The best RB ypc in modern history is CJ Spiller who had a 6.3 ypc.

So one is a very good level, but one that many players have sustained for entire seasons let alone just for 10 catches. The other would be a historic best by more than a yard to do for a season, and would have to be maintained for 27 carries.

 

[mad sweeney]

Since 2000 a player has gotten 200+ receiving yards in a game 46 times (including the 2 times it happened this week), and a player has gotten 200+ rushing yards in a game 62 times (including the 1 time it happened this week). So even today where passing dominates, I'd still say the 200+ yard receiving game is more impressive.

I don't think happening more often equates to less impressive in this case. Having more passing targets I think reduces the frequency. Pretty much by definition it's harder to get it rushing because every touch starts behind the LoS so there's more defenders to deal with.

Well considering RBs generally get to carry the ball 20-40 times whereas WRs get targeted <20 times, I think that WR advantage you're accounting for is more than cancelled out.

I covered that above a little bit with the reduced frequency. Should've said touches instead of frequency. I don't agree that "more than cancels out". Yards per touch is larger for receivers which, IMO, puts my theory back to what I stated.