When Does a Pattern Become a Trend . . . (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Since 2002, # of RBs each year that have scored 200 points each season:

2002: 17

2003: 12

2004: 11

2005: 10

2006: 9

2007: 6

Top scoring WRs (200+ points) have not been a huge beneficiary though . . .

2002: 3

2003: 2

2004: 5

2005: 4

2006: 1

2007: 5

Can we conclude anything from this? Or at least come up with potential explanations?

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

Since 2002, # of RBs each year that have scored 200 points each season:2002: 172003: 122004: 112005: 102006: 92007: 6Top scoring WRs (200+ points) have not been a huge beneficiary though . . .2002: 32003: 22004: 52005: 42006: 12007: 5Can we conclude anything from this? Or at least come up with potential explanations?

The thing I conclude is RBs are even more a premium. Football is becomming an even more viloent sport, guys are too big, too fast now, too many guys get hurt. They need to make the field wider.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Since 2002, # of RBs each year that have scored 200 points each season:2002: 172003: 122004: 112005: 102006: 92007: 6Top scoring WRs (200+ points) have not been a huge beneficiary though . . .2002: 32003: 22004: 52005: 42006: 12007: 5Can we conclude anything from this? Or at least come up with potential explanations?

If you added TEs (100+ points) what would this list look like? TE's have played a much larger role of late.

 

[TheFanatic]

Since 2002, # of RBs each year that have scored 200 points each season:2002: 172003: 122004: 112005: 102006: 92007: 6Top scoring WRs (200+ points) have not been a huge beneficiary though . . .2002: 32003: 22004: 52005: 42006: 12007: 5Can we conclude anything from this? Or at least come up with potential explanations?

If you added TEs (100+ points) what would this list look like? TE's have played a much larger role of late.

I don't have 2002 data, but from 03 on:2003: 22004: 4 (2 with 97)2005: 6 (1 with 97)2006: 5 (2 sith 97 or above)2007: 6

 

[TheFanatic]

I think what is happening is with the enforcement of the obstruction rules of DB's on WR's that teams can spread the field more often. USe more 3 WR sets. Or 2 WR's and a TE. These formations create more mismatches than just running up the gut. I think this is partly due to Mike Martz and all the mismatches he created with the Rams and then recently with the Lions. How many balls did Furrey get last year?

There are a few teams with dominant O-Lines that can do with the Dallas model of the 80's and 90's - Great Line, Great RB, 1 Great WR, a rock solid TE and a solid QB that doesn't make mistakes. The Chiefs had the O line, the RB and the TE for a while. The Steelers one a SB with this model recently.

But if you don't have that dominant run blocking line then a spread offense is much more effective than trying to stuff the ball down opponents throats. We're seeing this in college more and more as well. How does Missouri come from no where last year? A spread offense...

 

[jurrassic]

Since 2002, # of RBs each year that have scored 200 points each season:2002: 172003: 122004: 112005: 102006: 92007: 6Top scoring WRs (200+ points) have not been a huge beneficiary though . . .2002: 32003: 22004: 52005: 42006: 12007: 5Can we conclude anything from this? Or at least come up with potential explanations?

If you added TEs (100+ points) what would this list look like? TE's have played a much larger role of late.

I agree the role of tight ends have changed which contributes to this, however I think the obvious answer is the RBBC. More and more teams are utilizing specialty backs/packages/etc. I would be interested in seeing the growth of backs who are scoring 100-150 points in the last 5 years.

 

[aburt19]

Several things come to mind.

1. The value of really "stud" running backs goes up.

2. The old rule of taking two RB in the first two rounds doesn't work as well. Due to RBBC in the NFL, the RB that you get in the second round are not any

more likely to be a higher scorer than a WR and many time can't be counted on to be better than a RB in the 3rd round.

3. Teams must be spreading the ball around to the WR because they haven't had a huge increase. I agree that part of that is the number of tight ends who

are athletic and are becoming a bigger part of the offense.

This year it looks like RB/WR or WR/WR is the way to go in the first two rounds after the first 8 or 9 RB go off the board (assuming that you don't decide to go

QB with the first round pick).

 

[TheFanatic]

Several things come to mind.

1. The value of really "stud" running backs goes up.

2. The old rule of taking two RB in the first two rounds doesn't work as well. Due to RBBC in the NFL, the RB that you get in the second round are not any

more likely to be a higher scorer than a WR and many time can't be counted on to be better than a RB in the 3rd round.

3. Teams must be spreading the ball around to the WR because they haven't had a huge increase. I agree that part of that is the number of tight ends who

are athletic and are becoming a bigger part of the offense.

This year it looks like RB/WR or WR/WR is the way to go in the first two rounds after the first 8 or 9 RB go off the board (assuming that you don't decide to go

QB with the first round pick).

That's why I talked about teams spreading the ball out more to a WR3 because RB numbers are dropping but WR numbers are sort of static.

 

[David Yudkin]

For the record, I do not believe that the league really has gove way overboard on the RBBC thing. I suspect that the decrease in the # of RB scoring 200 points may be due to more long term or even short term injuries to the top scoring backs.

In recent years . . .

2004 200+ points . . . 2005:

Domanick Williams 11 Games Played

Brian Westbrook 12

Curtis Martin 12

Corey Dillon 12

2005 200+ points . . . 2006:

Clinton Portis 8

LaMont Jordan 9

Shaun Alexander 10

2006 200+ points . . . 2007:

Rudi Johnson 11

Larry Johnson 8

Steven Jackson 12

Frank Gore 15 (barely missed 200 points)

Most of those guys would have been locks for 200 points if they played all 16 games. That may not have accounted for all the dropoff but would explain some of it.

 

[jurrassic]

This type of analysis gives me the idea of possibly bumping LJ up a little higher. Yes, he may have a suspect supporting cast, but he is one of only a few workhorse backs left.

 

[Kevin Ashcraft]

What it tells me is that now more than ever, leagues are not won in draft rounds 1-3ish, you really have to have a complete team because you can't ride two stud RBs to success.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Since 2002, # of RBs each year that have scored 200 points each season:2002: 172003: 122004: 112005: 102006: 92007: 6Top scoring WRs (200+ points) have not been a huge beneficiary though . . .2002: 32003: 22004: 52005: 42006: 12007: 5Can we conclude anything from this? Or at least come up with potential explanations?

What about the # of WRs who scores 150+ or 100+ points?Maybe its the secondary and tertiary options that have risen.Then again, maybe its the back-up RBs that had a raise.

 

[David Yudkin]

What about the # of WRs who scores 150+ or 100+ points?

WR scoring 100-150 points:2002 312003 192004 192005 232006 242007 25

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What about the # of WRs who scores 150+ or 100+ points?

WR scoring 100-150 points:2002 312003 192004 192005 232006 242007 25

sorry for the confuson How about total WRs scoring 100+?

 

[Tigerbot Hesh]

The one thing about RBBC that I've never seen anyone mention is that it seems to be cheaper (in real life) for teams to operate with that mindset. LT's deal seems to have been the high water mark for what teams are willing to spend on a RB, and teams just don't seem to be interested in paying the high prices that dominant No. 1 RBs used to command. It seems like teams are happy to spend less on lesser players and swap them out as needed (injury, ineffectiveness, etc.) instead of tying up a huge amount of cash with a single guy.

 

[baconisgood]

What about the # of WRs who scores 150+ or 100+ points?

WR scoring 100-150 points:2002 312003 192004 192005 232006 242007 25

Sounds like 2002 was an anomaly in total pts scored, was it?

 

[FavreCo]

RBBC obviously.

 

[David Yudkin]

sorry for the confuson How about total WRs scoring 100+?

100 points:2002 472003 342004 422005 362006 382007 40150 points:2002 162003 152004 232005 132006 142007 15

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Thanks Dave. So an increased serviceable-WR-pool was not the case.

 

[David Yudkin]

RBBC obviously.

I still am not buying it. IMO, most teams are using similar strategies in terms of RB usage but someone gets dinged and it makes the stats misleading.For example, if RB A was the starter and got hurt, he may have had 110 carries . . . then RB B took over and had 100 carries and got hurt and RB C took over and lasted the rest of the year with 102 carries. But people will (wrongly) say that is a RBBC.Teams have forever and a day had a RB2 that would spell the starter, yet for some reason we know want to call that a RBBC. I'm not sure there is statistical evidence will show that teams are doing a whole lot different, but that is the perception. I do think teams are looking to carry more RB depth, but I am not sure that automatically translates to the league is now all jumping on a RBBC bandwagon.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

RBBC obviously.

I still am not buying it.

I just looked at RBs scoring 100+ and 150+...Because if RBBC is making a hit on the top end numbers, the pool of lower-end and moderate RBs (rbbc) should increase.Nope.There was no increasing trend to the pool of serviceable-RBs (and as DY showed, not to WRs either.).

 

[David Yudkin]

RBBC obviously.

I still am not buying it.

I just looked at RBs scoring 100+ and 150+...Because if RBBC is making a hit on the top end numbers, the pool of lower-end and moderate RBs (rbbc) should increase.Nope.There was no increasing trend to the pool of serviceable-RBs (and as DY showed, not to WRs either.).

Even low end is hovering mostly the same . . .RB 50+ points 2002 572003 602004 652005 632006 592007 64

 

[greggorymac]

RBBC obviously.

I still am not buying it.

I just looked at RBs scoring 100+ and 150+...Because if RBBC is making a hit on the top end numbers, the pool of lower-end and moderate RBs (rbbc) should increase.Nope.There was no increasing trend to the pool of serviceable-RBs (and as DY showed, not to WRs either.).

Even low end is hovering mostly the same . . .RB 50+ points 2002 572003 602004 652005 632006 592007 64

Can you run the analysis on QBs?

 

[David Yudkin]

RBBC obviously.

I still am not buying it.

I just looked at RBs scoring 100+ and 150+...Because if RBBC is making a hit on the top end numbers, the pool of lower-end and moderate RBs (rbbc) should increase.Nope.There was no increasing trend to the pool of serviceable-RBs (and as DY showed, not to WRs either.).

Even low end is hovering mostly the same . . .RB 50+ points 2002 572003 602004 652005 632006 592007 64

Can you run the analysis on QBs?

Nor right now, but QB scoring has been up for several years . . . but it's not really reflected in WR numbers (although TE scoring has been up).

 

[FavreCo]

RBBC obviously.

I still am not buying it. IMO, most teams are using similar strategies in terms of RB usage but someone gets dinged and it makes the stats misleading.For example, if RB A was the starter and got hurt, he may have had 110 carries . . . then RB B took over and had 100 carries and got hurt and RB C took over and lasted the rest of the year with 102 carries. But people will (wrongly) say that is a RBBC.Teams have forever and a day had a RB2 that would spell the starter, yet for some reason we know want to call that a RBBC. I'm not sure there is statistical evidence will show that teams are doing a whole lot different, but that is the perception. I do think teams are looking to carry more RB depth, but I am not sure that automatically translates to the league is now all jumping on a RBBC bandwagon.

Your stats show a decrese in # of RB's that bust 200 points and we know over the same time frame more and more teams are going with multiple backs. Every year now you hear the phrase in TC of 'we plan on lining up both guys in the backfield' Of course that never happens but the fact is that more and more teams move away from a single back carrying the full load.Who are the current 1 RB teams?SDRamsSFPhilly for the most part but even they have had Buckhalter among others stealing carries and GL touches.Gone from the list in the past few years are Seattle among others.

 

[meanjoegreen]

What it tells me is that now more than ever, leagues are not won in draft rounds 1-3ish, you really have to have a complete team because you can't ride two stud RBs to success.

I agree.

 

[baconisgood]

RBBC obviously.

I still am not buying it. IMO, most teams are using similar strategies in terms of RB usage but someone gets dinged and it makes the stats misleading.For example, if RB A was the starter and got hurt, he may have had 110 carries . . . then RB B took over and had 100 carries and got hurt and RB C took over and lasted the rest of the year with 102 carries. But people will (wrongly) say that is a RBBC.Teams have forever and a day had a RB2 that would spell the starter, yet for some reason we know want to call that a RBBC. I'm not sure there is statistical evidence will show that teams are doing a whole lot different, but that is the perception. I do think teams are looking to carry more RB depth, but I am not sure that automatically translates to the league is now all jumping on a RBBC bandwagon.

Your stats show a decrese in # of RB's that bust 200 points and we know over the same time frame more and more teams are going with multiple backs. Every year now you hear the phrase in TC of 'we plan on lining up both guys in the backfield' Of course that never happens but the fact is that more and more teams move away from a single back carrying the full load.Who are the current 1 RB teams?SDRamsSFPhilly for the most part but even they have had Buckhalter among others stealing carries and GL touches.Gone from the list in the past few years are Seattle among others.

CleWas

 

[David Yudkin]

RBBC obviously.

I still am not buying it. IMO, most teams are using similar strategies in terms of RB usage but someone gets dinged and it makes the stats misleading.For example, if RB A was the starter and got hurt, he may have had 110 carries . . . then RB B took over and had 100 carries and got hurt and RB C took over and lasted the rest of the year with 102 carries. But people will (wrongly) say that is a RBBC.Teams have forever and a day had a RB2 that would spell the starter, yet for some reason we know want to call that a RBBC. I'm not sure there is statistical evidence will show that teams are doing a whole lot different, but that is the perception. I do think teams are looking to carry more RB depth, but I am not sure that automatically translates to the league is now all jumping on a RBBC bandwagon.

Your stats show a decrese in # of RB's that bust 200 points and we know over the same time frame more and more teams are going with multiple backs. Every year now you hear the phrase in TC of 'we plan on lining up both guys in the backfield' Of course that never happens but the fact is that more and more teams move away from a single back carrying the full load.Who are the current 1 RB teams?SDRamsSFPhilly for the most part but even they have had Buckhalter among others stealing carries and GL touches.Gone from the list in the past few years are Seattle among others.

Other than the top tier, the other tiers of RBs have essentially the same number of people hitting those levels. If there were so many RBBC situations, wouldn't there be more players in the other tiers if there was a carry down effect to teams using more RBs? But that hasn't happened.

 

[baconisgood]

RBBC obviously.

I still am not buying it. IMO, most teams are using similar strategies in terms of RB usage but someone gets dinged and it makes the stats misleading.For example, if RB A was the starter and got hurt, he may have had 110 carries . . . then RB B took over and had 100 carries and got hurt and RB C took over and lasted the rest of the year with 102 carries. But people will (wrongly) say that is a RBBC.Teams have forever and a day had a RB2 that would spell the starter, yet for some reason we know want to call that a RBBC. I'm not sure there is statistical evidence will show that teams are doing a whole lot different, but that is the perception. I do think teams are looking to carry more RB depth, but I am not sure that automatically translates to the league is now all jumping on a RBBC bandwagon.

Your stats show a decrese in # of RB's that bust 200 points and we know over the same time frame more and more teams are going with multiple backs. Every year now you hear the phrase in TC of 'we plan on lining up both guys in the backfield' Of course that never happens but the fact is that more and more teams move away from a single back carrying the full load.Who are the current 1 RB teams?SDRamsSFPhilly for the most part but even they have had Buckhalter among others stealing carries and GL touches.Gone from the list in the past few years are Seattle among others.

CleWas

NYJ

 

[FavreCo]

What it tells me is that now more than ever, leagues are not won in draft rounds 1-3ish, you really have to have a complete team because you can't ride two stud RBs to success.

I agree.

Which means your better coaches (owners, evaluators of talent) will fare better now. What are the numbers as far as carries/touches over the last 1/2 dozen years for NFL team's #1 RB's? Is there a drop off in # of RB's who touch the ball 350+ times? I would say that there is. RBBC being a reason. It isn't the only reason but I say it's the main reason.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Other than the top tier, the other tiers of RBs have essentially the same number of people hitting those levels. If there were so many RBBC situations, wouldn't there be more players in the other tiers if there was a carry down effect to teams using more RBs? But that hasn't happened.

I almost said the same thing... but...I think FavreCo is meaning to say is that teams are using OTHER OPTIONS. Not really a RBBC, but that the main guys stats are being subverted by other players, not just 1 or 2 other RBs. RBBC is thought of as 2 RBs (and rarely 3). And the stats show that these scrub RBBC rb's are not giving any beneficial increase in stats to fantasy football owners -- at least not because of the decreasing 200+ pool.

 

[FavreCo]

NYJ

I'll take care of that one personally.So we are down to about 6 teams that have a 3 down, # 1 back capable of running the ball 350 times?Maybe Herminator will try it again in KC this year but if he does, LJ won't last the season behind that OL.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

being a reason. It isn't the only reason...

As I suspected. :( But my concern is... where did the points go?They went *POOF* ???

 

[Buckeyedawgs]

This type of analysis gives me the idea of possibly bumping LJ up a little higher. Yes, he may have a suspect supporting cast, but he is one of only a few workhorse backs left.

I already did. In fact I just traded Barber/Felix Hester/Penningham for LJ/Charles Sweed/FavreI really think I got best of it. Think about... Who's going to be scoreing tds in dallas vs whos going to be scoreing tds in KC? And got a boost at WR and QB to boot!

 

[Tanner9919]

This type of analysis gives me the idea of possibly bumping LJ up a little higher. Yes, he may have a suspect supporting cast, but he is one of only a few workhorse backs left.

:( thats my belief in LJ, he's one of about 4-5 RBs who are guaranteed to get 300+ carries, and nearly ALL of their teams rushing TDs.. 5 of the top of my head are : LJ, Portis, LT2, ADP, Lewis...the vast mojority of the rest of the NFL's RB's are involved in RBBC..that,to me, makes these 5 guys worth a lot in the first rounds...and I think this who pattern of RB decline is actually more attributable to injuries , rather than across the board changes in offensive philosophies

 

[FavreCo]

This type of analysis gives me the idea of possibly bumping LJ up a little higher. Yes, he may have a suspect supporting cast, but he is one of only a few workhorse backs left.

thats my belief in LJ, he's one of about 4-5 RBs who are guaranteed to get 300+ carries, and nearly ALL of their teams rushing TDs.. 5 of the top of my head are : LJ, Portis, LT2, ADP, Lewis...the vast mojority of the rest of the NFL's RB's are involved in RBBC..that,to me, makes these 5 guys worth a lot in the first rounds...

I don't think he will last behind that OL for 16 games and 350 carries. Come FF playofftime, he may be watching. The OL is a shell of the Priest Holmes days.

 

[David Yudkin]

# of RB with 100/200/300 carries

2002 44/28/9

2003 45/23/13

2004 43/24/9

2005 45/24/10

2006 47/27/10

2007 49/22/6

There is almost no difference from year to year. People can point to differnet teams and use whatever qualifiers they want, but the numbers aren't changing.

People can say what they want . . . RBBC, use of specialists, third down backs, short yardage backs, goal line backs, etc. but the numbers are running almost constant from year to year.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

# of RB with 100/200/300 carries2002 44/28/92003 45/23/132004 43/24/92005 45/24/102006 47/27/102007 49/22/6There is almost no difference from year to year. People can point to differnet teams and use whatever qualifiers they want, but the numbers aren't changing.People can say what they want . . . RBBC, use of specialists, third down backs, short yardage backs, goal line backs, etc. but the numbers are running almost constant from year to year.

I wonder if the biggest reason for the fantasy drop-off... is because of a loss of TDs.

 

[benm3218]

Could it be as simple as defenses getting better? Better defensive talent in coaches and players?

Can we look at the total number of points per game per year to see if total points are going down?

 

[TheFanatic]

RBBC obviously.

I still am not buying it. IMO, most teams are using similar strategies in terms of RB usage but someone gets dinged and it makes the stats misleading.For example, if RB A was the starter and got hurt, he may have had 110 carries . . . then RB B took over and had 100 carries and got hurt and RB C took over and lasted the rest of the year with 102 carries. But people will (wrongly) say that is a RBBC.Teams have forever and a day had a RB2 that would spell the starter, yet for some reason we know want to call that a RBBC. I'm not sure there is statistical evidence will show that teams are doing a whole lot different, but that is the perception. I do think teams are looking to carry more RB depth, but I am not sure that automatically translates to the league is now all jumping on a RBBC bandwagon.

Your stats show a decrese in # of RB's that bust 200 points and we know over the same time frame more and more teams are going with multiple backs. Every year now you hear the phrase in TC of 'we plan on lining up both guys in the backfield' Of course that never happens but the fact is that more and more teams move away from a single back carrying the full load.Who are the current 1 RB teams?SDRamsSFPhilly for the most part but even they have had Buckhalter among others stealing carries and GL touches.Gone from the list in the past few years are Seattle among others.

CleWas

NYJ

KCIndy (for the most part)BuffaloRavensRaiders - probablyFalcons - I don't care about the talk of Norwood getting more carries, they don't spend that much for a part of a RBBCArizonaDet - probablyI would say TB too, because I don't see Caddy coming backMIA was before the injury. I'm guessing they will be again after the injury is fully healedSome could also argue Cinci, that when they have a healthy back they stick with just one guy. That's more than half the league here.

 

[daddymag]

Could it be as simple as defenses getting better? Better defensive talent in coaches and players?Can we look at the total number of points per game per year to see if total points are going down?

Whether points are going down or not, they're definitely being spread out among the number of guys playing point-scoring positions.It would seem to me that's why the top point scorers are the QBs now. They're the guys who aren't coming off the field.

 

[Banger]

I think it has to do with a number of defenses switching to 3-4 which seems to be much harder to run against.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

# of RB with 100/200/300 carries2002 44/28/92003 45/23/132004 43/24/92005 45/24/102006 47/27/102007 49/22/6There is almost no difference from year to year. People can point to differnet teams and use whatever qualifiers they want, but the numbers aren't changing.People can say what they want . . . RBBC, use of specialists, third down backs, short yardage backs, goal line backs, etc. but the numbers are running almost constant from year to year.

I wonder if the biggest reason for the fantasy drop-off... is because of a loss of TDs.

Bingo! There is your answer!!!! TD's scored by the top RB's are way down compared to the years earlier in the decade when Holmes, Larry J, LT, Alexander's had all those record breaking TD seasons. ADP, Lynch, Jackson, Gore, Parker, Bush, LT last year just aren't scoring the TD's but they were the workhorse "stud" RB's in the NFL last season. Parker was leading the NFL in rushing yds and carries thru week 14 last year but only had 2 TD's to boot.