Some Clarification is in Order: The Running Game and NFL Trends

by Topher Doll on Jun 29, 2011 2:00 PM MDT in Some Clarification is in Order

DENVER - SEPTEMBER 19: Quarterback Kyle Orton #8 of the Denver Broncos hands the ball off to running back Knowshon Moreno #27 during an NFL game against the Seattle Seahawks at INVESCO Field at Mile High on September 19 2010 in Denver Colorado. (Photo by Justin Edmonds/Getty Images)

In this part of Some Clarification is in Order: NFL Trends, we continue looking at the offense, moving from the passing game and onto the running game. Now there have been a number of theories about the running game and how it has changed in the modern passing game, ranging from the disappearance of the one back system, to the value of running backs in the draft. We will be looking at a number of trends in the NFL that relate to the running game, it's role in the modern offense, and the changes in how running backs are used.

The usual warning, this isn't meant to be all inclusive, if you have questions concerning my findings, or something you think I may have left out, feel free to ask in the comments section and I will do my best to help either answer your question or refer you to a place that can. So ladies and gentlemen, let's get to this.

Preview and Methods:

Lets begin with this, I am sticking with the same timeline, starting my research at 1978, the year of rapid changes to a more pass friendly rules, up till 2010. So like I said last time, a few key years to note would be 1982, which was shortened to nine games. In 1995 the NFL went from 28 teams to 30 teams by adding the Carolina Panthers and the Jacksonville Jaguars. In 1999 the Cleveland Browns returned, and in 2002 the Houston Texans joined the league, leaving us at our current 32 teams.

Also like I said last time, there are obviously too many metrics and angles to look at, so this isn't a sweeping, all encompassing study, rather an overlook at the running game and what has happened since 1978. So let's take a look at what I wanted to look at indepth in this article.

The first thing I wanted to look at was yards per attempt (YPA), which is a telling indicator of the average success of a run during each year. Now remember, with all these stats, they are a composition of all the active running backs and full backs during each year. Secondly, I wanted to look at were the number of 1,000 yard rushers, which will look to see if there is a trend towards multiple back running systems. Next we have number of 1,500 yard rushers, which will allow us to look to see if the NFL is trending away from the single back system. These two metrics will compliment each other in allowing us to view that trend. The last two things I wanted to study were average rushing yards per team and average rushing touchdowns per team in a season. This will help us understand the trending of how offenses use the running game. So with those metrics in mind, lets get to work.

The Data:

The Table

Year	YPA	1,000 Yard Rushers	1,500 Yard Rushers	Avg Yards/Team	Avg TD/Team
1978	4	11	0	2269	16.2
1979	4	12	4	2169	17.4
1980	4	8	1	2040	15.4
1981	4	15	2	2082	15.8
1982	3.8	0	0	1060	7.2
1983	4.1	16	2	2076	15.6
1984	4	13	3	1982	14.6
1985	4.1	17	3	1999	15.8
1986	3.9	8	2	1899	14.3
1987	3.9	3	0	1859	12.9
1988	4	12	3	1942	15.1
1989	4	11	0	1845	13.9
1990	4.1	8	0	1821	13.5
1991	3.9	7	2	1608	12.8
1992	4	13	2	1650	11.9
1993	3.9	11	2	1643	10.9
1994	3.7	10	2	1557	12.1
1995	3.9	16	2	1729	12.8
1996	3.8	13	2	1695	12.1
1997	4	16	3	1736	12.8
1998	4	20	3	1732	12.6
1999	3.9	15	1	1691	11.7
2000	4.1	23	3	1766	13.3
2001	4.1	15	2	1773	11.8
2002	4.2	17	4	1858	14.4
2003	4.2	18	6	1886	13.3
2004	4.1	18	5	1866	13
2005	4	16	4	1799	13.5
2006	4.2	22	5	1876	13.3
2007	4.1	17	0	1774	12.1
2008	4.2	16	3	1855	14.9
2009	4.2	15	1	1866	13.4
2010	4.2	17	1	1831	12.5

Like last time, this data table may be a bit too heavy for most, so I will include graphs and reviews of each category as well to help those who are visual learners.

The Graphs

Average Yards per Team in a Season

We begin with what many consider the most important part of this trend, the decrease in rushing yards over time. But looking at this table, after the massive downturn of the late 1970's and 1980's, the NFL has trended upward in terms of rushing yards per team in a season. The idea that the NFL is becoming more and more passing centric is off base, it reached that point in the 1990's and has actually leveled out rather than continuing to trend towards passing.

Average Rushing Touchdowns per Team in a Season

This graph shows an almost exact copy of the trends that follow rushing yards per season. We see the massive downturn in the first half of the graph and in the 2nd half, we see a leveling out. So this finding further supports the idea that the running game isn't being phased out, it's actually stabilized in the past two decades.

Average Yards per Attempt

Now we start looking at some other factors that look at the running game from an angle most don't, to see if the running game is just changing, rather than just disappearing or losing importance. So by looking at rushing yards per attempt, we can see how the NFL is using the running game, as well as when it is used. As we can see from the chart, that even with the changes that have taken place with rules being passed to help the passing game, the running game has become more effective, something few take into account. By have a more effective passing game, when you do run, you are much more likely to succeed. A draw play from a prolific passer like Peyton Manning is going to be very successful because everyone is worried about Manning, so they may drop a linebacker into coverage, or play some prevent, giving the running game a chance to succeed. The running game has become more successful because of the newer rules rather then becoming weaker.

1,000 and 1,500 Yard Rushers

Now we get to a factor I wasn't expecting to look at, but the idea was there, and I went with it. I wanted to look at how the change in the other areas were affecting how teams used the running game and how they use backs in general. So to get a view of this, I looked at the number of 1,000 yard rushers there were each season, and also looked at how many 1,500 yard rushers there were. Now this trend was startling obvious to me when I saw the data, there has been a steady rise of 1,000 yard rushers since the late 1980's, which lends itself to the idea that more and more backs are succeeding. Now many may just think there are more 1,000 yard rushers because more teams are breaking up their carries, that's partly true, but also, while the trend has been slight, there has been a trend that in the 2nd half period of the study, there have been more 1,500 yard rushers than in the 1st half. So there are still premier backs in the league, possibly some Hall of Famers in guys like Chris Johnson and Adrian Peterson, and up and comers like Arian Foster and Jamaal Charles. So there are no lack of premier backs, but teams are just have success with both systems. So with the average running back finding more success, it only makes sense that there would be more 1,000 yard backs.

Review:

As the topics I looked at showed, the running game isn't losing importance in the NFL, rather little has changed but running backs are becoming more effective, and are being used differently than they have been used in the past. The running game, to me, has transformed into something different. So while I have no predictions on how it will change in the future, but as the passing game continues to become more effective, the idea and premise that you pass to set up a big run is gaining traction.

So just a review of some other trends I looked at but would be too much for a single post to handle, lets review them. The first trend I looked at was success of early draft picks (rounds 1-2), mid (3-4) and late (5-7) and how success correlated to draft positions. So a quick review of that, there has been a huge drop off in value of a 1st round draft pick. Now that's not to say they are less productive now then they were, just mid round backs are able to put up comparable numbers, just at a better value. So while it is true that a good running back can be found in the mid rounds, taking a running back in the 1st or 2nd round is still the best way to find a quality back.

The next trend I studied was how running backs were factoring into the passing game. Now this was to look to see if the running backs and full backs were being used to move out of the backfield and catch the ball more, and the trend was huge, especially for full backs, which surprised me. While the numbers have dropped the past two years, players like Brian Westbrook, Marshall Faulk, LT and Ricky Williams really boosted the early 2000's numbers. But there is a serious trend of running backs and full backs being used in the passing game, running backs more so in the open field and full backs used in the red zone.

Lastly, I looked at running backs in relation to a teams overall offense, something that has been discussed before, but I wanted to do a bit of research myself. It is true that the running game is declining in percentage of total offense, the decrease is often overly exaggerated, with the drop much smaller then most expect.

There you have it, hope these trends help us as fans try and understand the direction the NFL is headed.

Next time on Some Clarification is in Order: Offensive Trends Review and Summery

Tweet Comment 32 comments | 5 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Good stuff Max.

Using the fullback as an outlet receiver out of the backfield was a hallmark of the Walsh West Coast offense. It is not surprising to see a big uptick in receptions by fullbacks during the years where this offense was dominant. More recently, the fullback position has fallen out of favor and we are seeing halfbacks used in more creative ways (beyond the more “traditional” screen game or 3rd down dump-off passes) like shifting into a 5-wide package pre-snap, or in the wildcat formation.

I lack the expertise to write it, but I would love to see a follow up article with a look at how the use of the RB in the passing game has changed over time and where it may go in the future.

by DoubleJay on Jun 29, 2011 2:22 PM MDT reply actions

I might do an appendage piece about that

But there just wasn’t the room or else the post would have been too long. I can tell you that YAC has gone up for RB’s in the passing game, and while RB’s and FB’s are used more now than they were in the 1980’s, they have leveled off since the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jun 29, 2011 3:32 PM MDT up reply actions

That would be great to see.

I miss seeing the traditional bruiser FB. Bill Walsh was a master at getting the ball in playmaker’s hands and the innovations he brought to the backfield were simply brilliant.

"The problem with quotes in internet signatures is 90% of them are made up -Ghandi"

by Heeler on Jun 29, 2011 9:30 PM MDT up reply actions

There are still a number of great FB's

But they are being used more as RB’s now. The changes in formations allow for FB’s to play as bigger RB’s. It’s really hard to tell the difference on many teams. Hillis was a FB here, but a RB in Cleveland because they already have a quality blocking FB. It really depends on the team and player. There are still those same size players that played FB, they might just line up at TE or RB.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jun 29, 2011 9:41 PM MDT up reply actions

That is true.

I remember people getting very upset when I called Hillis a FB. Well, here in Denver he was a FB. I always pictured him as an Alstot Type or Riggins or Franco Harris. Those to young to remember those players (Franco and Riggins) missed a thing of beauty. Those players could do it all. Block, Run, catch…It was amazing. (They also limped away from the game after giving everything they had, but that’s another discussion.)

I guess now people see a FB as primarily a TE for the backfield, but there have been some great FB’s in the history of this league who could flat move the ball as well as block. I guess I just miss good old smashmouth ball. While Bill Walsh liked to use the passing game (short passing game ) to control the ball, they were still tough as hell. Shanny’s offenses in their hayday had Howard Griffith and MAN…that guy could move a pile, catch, block…Like I said a thing of beauty. I hope we return to that.

"The problem with quotes in internet signatures is 90% of them are made up -Ghandi"

by Heeler on Jun 30, 2011 10:28 AM MDT up reply actions

absolutely

Miss those guys. Kay played that type of roll in my opinion. Not sure why the position even exists in todays game.

Opinions are like......, Well anyway, this is mine.

by Sean in Pa. on Jun 30, 2011 11:14 AM MDT up reply actions

That s Rugby Moves - Coach Walsh R.I.P.

When l look back and see some of the backfield moves introduced by Coach Walsh. Its like they coming out of a rugby offensive playbook of the Three quarter backs.

by London_9er on Jun 30, 2011 10:49 AM MDT up reply actions

Great stuff again Max. Lots to think about

It looks like most of the graphs show an uptick in averages around 1995. One idea that comes to mind as to a possible reason is that defenses essentially became less talented around then.

From 1995 to 2002 the NFL added four teams. So each year you’re now sort of taking away 208 players from the original 28 teams and giving them to the four new teams. If you summarily just figure that half are on defense and half on offense, that means each of the original 28 teams now have like 3.5 less defenders… forcing them to fill these positions with players that would have previously not made a NFL roster in years prior.

On defense, since the job is to stop the ball carrier, you’re sort of only as strong as your weakest link – the guy that missed his assignment, for example. In other words, on offense your weakest link might cost you an incompletion or a loss of two yards. But on defense, your weak link missing an assignment will cost you chunks of yards. With less talent to go around, that probably started happening more and more… giving offenses an uptick in yardage.

Another thing I wanted to mention is attempts per year. If we’re thinking that the league is in fact passing more which makes running easier, then a good way to check the theory might be to look at the number of carries per RB, per team, etc.. In other words, the league’s backs look to be getting more efficient, but what’s affecting them more, their improved efficiency or is it more because they are getting more carries (which would mean that offenses, both passing and running are simply getting better than defenses).

Von. Doom. Pow!

by Rodney A on Jun 29, 2011 3:20 PM MDT reply actions

Interesting points Rodney

I did look at attempts per year for both rushing and passing attempts. Passing attempts haven’t changed much, with no up or down ticks. Rushing attempts are slightly down, but just barely. Percentage wise, both offensive sides haven’t changed much since the late 1990’s. The league hasn’t changed much in relation attempts with either rushing or passing.

The issue with looking at an average attempts per RB is that there is such a massive turnover of 3rd and 4th string RB’s, and with each passing year, it would be almost impossible to track. I do know that the increase in multiple, active RB’s on each team keeps them fresher, which is one factor in why RB’s are more successful. There are other factors as well, one of the biggest is that defenses are failing to adjust to offenses in modern decades. I will discuss that more in the next two parts of the series.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jun 29, 2011 3:39 PM MDT up reply actions

great points as always Rodney

I think pass/run ratio is also important.

I think we also must remember the NFL has also instituted rules to “speed up” the game the past 20 years, so there is likely more plays per game than in the past.

From the stats shown in the post, yards have been pretty stable, but YPA running has gone up. That would require less rushing attempts… however, we also guess that the total number of plays has also increased, so it may mean things could be REALLY skewing towards passing, even though the aggregate total yards/TDs are staying stable for rushing.

Interesting thoughts on the defensive dillution… most folks talk about the dillution in limited QB talent from adding new teams (creating bigger disparities between the haves/have nots), but you have an interesting point on creating more “weak links” on defense too. Agree completely that DEF are as good as their weakest point, as the offense typically gets to dictate matchups, etc.

by cjfarls on Jun 30, 2011 12:50 PM MDT up reply actions

Bottom Line

Stats and graphs are nice, but don’t read too much into them. If you have an every down back in a running game, you play him. If not, you platoon your backs and throw in misdirection plays to gain surprise, like a fullback receiver, or pass more. The stats and graphs may just show a drop in overall talent and efforts to cover it up than a real trend. You do what works. A team with a rotation at RB is a team with no star at RB. RBs that are used as receivers a lot means they can’t run consistently and have to do something else. Teams that pass a lot instead of run are often teams that don’t win a lot but have great stats. What’s the point of having the best passing offense if you have an 8-8 record? There are exceptions of course.

Orton, Tebow, Quinn, may the best man win!

by OrangeandBluesBros on Jun 29, 2011 7:41 PM MDT reply actions

I think that mentality is wrong

I read a lot of writing by coaches, and they are making the effort to get backs who seek out backs who can compliment other backs. Look at Adrian Peterson, a pure, every down back, but the Vikings make a big effort to find good backs to help take pressure off them. Jamaal Charles, Arian Foster, heck if Lendale White hadn’t lost a step, Chris Johnson would have one as well. Teams are consciencely changing their plan. There is an actual movement by running back coaches and offensive coordinators to keep backs fresh. In KC, the coaching staff made it clear that Jamaal Charles would never get full carries because that just isn’t how the NFL works anymore, that Thomas Jones would continue to get carries because it will keep Charles fresh and allow his career to last longer. After the rapid, massive burnout of late 1990’s and early 2000’s, coaches openly admit to wanting to keep their backs fresh.

So is the every down back dead, no not at all, that level of talent is still there, but coaches are trying to keep them playing longer. So to use statements like “A team with a rotation at RB is a team with no star at RB” Is incorrect, AP and Charles, two of the best backs in 2010, both were part of a rotation. “RBs that are used as receivers a lot means they can’t run consistently and have to do something else” is just as bad, some of the best backs in history were great receivers, Marshall Faulk, Brian Westbrook, Marcus Allen, Walter Payton, yea, Hall of Fame guys.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jun 29, 2011 8:32 PM MDT up reply actions

Baloney

You mention Adrian Peterson and he is a great example of my point. You look at the Vikings stats and it looks like they were spreading the load. But when they played AP, they did very well on offense. When they tried to spread the load around, they didn’t do so well and Vikings fans were crying for them to just give it to AP. When they did, they did better.

KC didn’t give it to Jamaal Charles all the time because he had problems and they brought in someone to share (actually takeover). Arian Foster did get the ball a lot and gained a lot of yards. LenDale White didn’t lose a step, he let his ego get the best of him and his performance suffered. I’m glad the Broncos got him and I hope he gets over his ego problems and injury to show us some super form. But Chris Johnson did get the load and ran a ton. Marshall Faulk and Brian Westbrook were small and fast. I like them both, but they could not take a pounding running all the time. Marcus Allen and Walter Payton are the exceptions I mentioned. I would put Portis in that category too when he was with Denver, but he is also light like Faulk and Westbrook and didn’t do as well on production with Washington because the NFC East is tougher on runners. There will always be exceptions to any rule. Stats are useful, but I always have a problem when people try to read too much into stats. You did a good job in your write up, but ignored the real reason for the trend. Its talent that dictates the offense style. You play what you got, like Michael Turner in Atlanta. His backup is touted as a possible Broncos pick up because he is under-utilized in Atlanta. But Turner is both big and fast, and therefore used. You might want to breakout small, fast RBs from your analysis because they mostly cannot hold up with a heavy dose of running. Darren Sproles is not an every down back, but a real threat in a rotation.

Woody’s column today says it all:

Problem was the Broncos had no running game, and here is where there’s another “depends.” Knowshon Moreno is not a one-cut back out of the Mike Shanahan era, and he doesn’t have the burst into the hole. What does he have? I don’t know. Haven’t seen it yet. The Broncos will get another running back, and he will play at least half the time, and Moreno may be stuck as a third-down back. Excuse me. He can catch the ball; we have seen that. So the offense will change depending on the new running back.

Orton, Tebow, Quinn, may the best man win!

by OrangeandBluesBros on Jun 30, 2011 7:13 AM MDT up reply actions

If you put too many miles on the tires, you're gonna have to replace them.

I don’t think that the total number of top tier running backs has changed from 20 years ago. Coaches and GM just think in terms of overuse now. By the time most of the feature backs from past 20 years got to the NFL they already had a lot of mileage on them. Handing the ball to them 25x per game for 16 games was a great way to shorten their careers and it was a select few who could take that kind of pounding and maintain their productivity. Look at the size and speed of defenders currently and compare that to the late 70s or even the mid 80s. Players have been getting faster and stronger meaning that the punishment received by a 300+ per year carry back is much greater now relative to 20 years ago. Football outsiders has been looking at RB overuse for a long time now
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2007/370-carries-revisited

by DE_BroncoFan on Jun 30, 2011 8:45 AM MDT up reply actions

You are exactly right

Bigger faster defenders make 200-215 lb RBs face tougher tasks and need more frequent breaks, thus more rotation for them. But bigger fast backs can still carry the load. If you got ’em, you play ’em. If not, you rotate ’em. The rotation is not a “trend,” it is a necessity because of players available. Coaches may give lip service to prolonging the life of a RB, but the reality is that they would play ’em for as long as they can each year if doing so meant winning and then get another one.

Orton, Tebow, Quinn, may the best man win!

by OrangeandBluesBros on Jun 30, 2011 11:55 AM MDT up reply actions

Woody was mostly right about Moreno but he forgot...

he has great lateral movement. This is what angered me about McD getting rid of Hillis. Moreno and Hillis are flawed backs, but together they could have had synergy. Moreno is not a fast back but being a shade faster and having better lateral movement than Hillis would have been a great change up.They could both catch balls out of the backfield. There was a lot of potential to keep defenses off balance. Splitting carries between the two would have been ideal.

I don’t see White providing the same balance. He is not as fast as Hillis and he does not catch the ball as well out of the backfield. If White is healthy will it help? Yes if he is healthy, hungry and accepts his role. I just wish McD could have seen what a lot of others saw, the potential for Moreno and Hillis to be a nasty two back combination. I think this would have helped them with injuries in their careers as well.

by Keyworthpunch on Jun 30, 2011 9:00 AM MDT up reply actions

Agreed. I know I have been chastised for this view. Get ready.

Many just hate the fact that there are holes in Hillis’ game just as there are holes in Moreno. It was a travesty that he was traded, but that doesn’t make Hillis the be all end all of backs.

Conversly, I think if our o-line can open a few holes Moreno could prove to be decent. Maybe not worth a #12 but that is past and can’t be changed. Whining about does nothing. Iknow of very few backs that could get a 4.3YPC average getting hit that many times in the back field. It was pathetic. And the hatred for Moreno I think stems more from who drafted him and where. Those I things out of Moreno’s control. He just needs to show that he can stay healthy in this league. I think a healthy season and a 20 carry a game average and we will see a 1200 yard back. Add in his revieving production and you could be looking at 1600 all pourpose yards. That is not bad production. The key is getting some running lanes and staying healthy.

"The problem with quotes in internet signatures is 90% of them are made up -Ghandi"

by Heeler on Jun 30, 2011 10:39 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs

Amen

Trading Hillis was one of those few come out of my chair are you kidding moments in Broncos history. Two others were: (1) hiring that db from kc years ago and way overpaying him only to see him underperform; and (2) hiring that DT from DC who had a reputation for never attending training camp only to see him come up with yet another excuse for not attending his first training camp with the Broncos by getting into a fight at 3:00 am resulting in an injury that kept him sidelined until the regular season where he underperformed. Everybody knew he always had an excuse to not go to training camp and the Broncos had to know it too, but that didn’t stop them. Arggh! Check Washington Post articles for the summer Denver picked him up to verify that story. Maybe someone should do an article about the Broncos all-time bad trades/signings.

Orton, Tebow, Quinn, may the best man win!

by OrangeandBluesBros on Jun 30, 2011 12:06 PM MDT up reply actions

I see nothing will change your opinion

If facts and examples don’t change it, nothing I say will. Thanks for your thoughts.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jun 30, 2011 11:17 AM MDT up reply actions

Well

You did a good job. Its just your use of the facts I take issue with. Exceptions don’t prove the rule. DE_BroncoFan above is more on point. See my response to him. Floyd Little caught passes out of the backfield a lot 35-40 years ago. So did others. He also went through holes created in the line a lot. But the defenders were not as big and fast then as they are now. Its not a trend. Its coaches doing whatever they need to do to win with what they got. You tell me what the weight and speed is of the RBs on a roster and I will tell you their game plan. But I don’t want to come across as harsh on you. I’ve read a lot of your articles and comments and I usually agree with you. Just not this time.

Orton, Tebow, Quinn, may the best man win!

by OrangeandBluesBros on Jun 30, 2011 12:25 PM MDT up reply actions

See I think you are using exceptions as the fact

Trends, by their nature, represent the majority, not the exception. Big and small receivers catch balls, Hillis is a pretty solid receiver, so is Steven Jackson, and with coaches openly saying they like backs who can catch, that is no exception. Where I see a trend, I see a pattern, it is strengthen by what I read from NFL players and coaches. While some may see a trend or change as an exception. I am also a little fuzzy on what you disagree with, because DE_BroncoFan makes my point for me, teams avoid putting too much pressure on RB’s by bringing in others to take the load off. This isn’t an exception, it’s a fact, the Chiefs have said it about Charles, the Texans about Foster, the Vikings about Peterson. Chris Johnson and Steven Jackson are the exceptions, and the Rams have been very vocal about trying to find ways to keep Jackson healthy. Rotation is a trend, because it didn’t exist and wasn’t used in the 1970’s and 1980’s, heck it wasn’t used very often in the 1990’s. The increasing number of 1,000 yard backs and the increasing in playing time for #2 and #3 backs shows a trend. I think your statements like “If you got ’em, you play ’em. If not, you rotate ’em” are just completely false, great backs in todays NFL get rotated, it’s a fact, not an exception. Are their still pure backs, yes, the level of talent hasn’t gone down, it’s just being rotated, that’s why backs have a longer shelf life.

Also, you have to remember when you say things like “Its not a trend. Its coaches doing whatever they need to do to win with what they got.” That is the definition of a trend, making changes to win, and coaches have been adapting, as you said, just like an increase in passing yards is a trend because passing is more successful than running. At this point, you seem to either be confused on my point or misunderstand what a trend is.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jun 30, 2011 1:39 PM MDT up reply actions

I know what a trend is

I just don’t see much of a trend in your data. Let me be specific.

As YOU say, “Now many may just think there are more 1,000 yard rushers because more teams are breaking up their carries, that’s partly true, but also, while the trend has been slight, there has been a trend that in the 2nd half period of the study, there have been more 1,500 yard rushers than in the 1st half.”

If rotation has not had much impact on 1000 yd rushers, where is the trend? And if there are more 1500 yd rushers in the last half of the study, what happened to the alleged trend in rotational RBs? That’s why I say coaches simply play stars if they have them and rotate RBs if they don’t. As far as backs catching passes, that has always happened in the last 40 years. But I didn’t see any data that supports a claim of a trend for more of it than usual.

So you are correct. I am confused on your point. Indeed, you may be confused on your point as well.

By the way, I must say again, I still like your writing, its just this article I have trouble with.

Orton, Tebow, Quinn, may the best man win!

by OrangeandBluesBros on Jun 30, 2011 3:59 PM MDT up reply actions

I didn't say there wasn't a connection between 1,000 yard rushers and rotational backs

I said it wasn’t the whole story, I sorry if that wasn’t clear, I did mention it twice in the section you quoted above though. I think you are also avoiding or ignoring my claims, I am not saying there is less talent, that is why there are still 1,500 yard rushers, a big cause of that is from RB’s becoming massively more efficient. I think that when you keep saying comments like " That’s why I say coaches simply play stars if they have them and rotate RBs if they don’t" that is just untrue, plain and simple, it’s statistically false and doesn’t match up with coaches say as well.

As for pass catching, just look at the stats, it’s not even close, RB’s catch more passes in the past 20 years than they did in the 20 years before that, it’s a huge gap. If I could post a chart here in the comments I will. I will actually include it in my next post, the line is clear. I can understand you not making this personal, and I’m not taking it that way, so don’t worry, there is just no evidence to support your view point, I’m sorry. Hope that cleared up where I am coming from.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jun 30, 2011 8:47 PM MDT up reply actions

This discussion is actually getting interesting

On 1000 yd rushers: There has always been a difference of style among runners, some able to provide effective spot duty by going in for a few plays and having some impact compared to others who claim they need to get into the flow of the game to really produce the yards. Many of the older 1000+ yd runners fall into the latter category. When I look at your data, I wonder if there would be more 1500+ or 2000+ runners if not for rotations. To look at the impact of rotation on the game, I would have expected to see more groupings of 500 to 1000 yd runners because one team would be reducing the yards of its top runner and increasing the yards of its supporting runners. Looking at 1000+ and 1500+ tells me very little about rotation. While some might claim its fresh legs for top runners, those same top runners might say they could have done a lot better if not for splitting carries so much. Maybe better conditioning or some other factor is the real answer. I’m just not willing to take the leap to assuming its rotation without more data. You did start out by saying its a complex area and I agree with that. But dumbing it down for us readers lost something. The data and the graphs you did provide didn’t do much for me. For example, the graphs for yards per game and TDs per game seemed fairly flat within certain up and down tolerances since 1985. The rise in 1000 yd runners may have more to do with rules changes and better conditioning than rotation. When you open up the passing game, you also open up the running game because defenses have to do different things to defend the pass.
On the claim that runners are catching more passes, you provided no data that I could see to support it in your article. You just threw it out there. I see you have now provided some data in your comment below and I will address it below.

Orton, Tebow, Quinn, may the best man win!

by OrangeandBluesBros on Jul 1, 2011 8:12 AM MDT up reply actions

In relation to RB's in the passing game

Here’s a brief summery:
-1st half to 2nd half saw an increase in 3.3 reception, 1.2 yards per reception, 37.5 yards.
- Touchdowns fell .1 from the 1st half to the 2nd.
- Increase in number of running backs who caught at least 1 ball by 59% from the 1st half to the 2nd half. It saw an increase of 31% of RB’s who had at least 10 receptions, and increased by 29% for those who caught 50 receptions or more.

There is a significant increase in RB’s being used in the running game. There were so many RB’s not used in the running game compared to the percentage that catch now. In the 1st half of the data, only 37% of RB’s had at least 1 reception, 61% did in the 2nd half.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jun 30, 2011 10:36 PM MDT up reply actions

Excellent, some data on passing

I recall some teams in the older days, pre-1985, using a lot of passes to backs. Is the increase you cite due to more overall teams using passes to backs or are all teams using more passes to backs. It would be interesting to see a comparison of say Floyd Little’s breakdown of runs to passes compared to say Clinton Portis in Denver and a few other teams noted for a passing attack, like Air Coryell San Diego v. Norv Turner San Diego and Adrian Peterson in Minnesota the last 4 years.
Also, in your second paragraph, you say “RBs being used in the running game.” Do you mean in the passing game? I read it both ways and either could be correct but they mean different things. However, thinking back over the last few years at all the injuries to RBs, I am wondering if the stats only reflect a need for a warm body on the field due to starters going down.
I don’t disagree that there is more rotation of RBs, I just am not convinced that it is being done in the RBs best interests or specifically to gain more yards or out of necessity for a variety of different reasons.
Thank you for this interesting interchange.

Orton, Tebow, Quinn, may the best man win!

by OrangeandBluesBros on Jul 1, 2011 8:36 AM MDT up reply actions

Way to go max!

I think you successfully separated the hot (fast) atoms from the cold. However, did you expend any energy doing it?

by idahobronc on Jun 29, 2011 10:36 PM MDT reply actions

Yes, yes I did

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jun 29, 2011 11:25 PM MDT up reply actions

I hope Moreno can step up and give the Broncos a good full season at RB.

by Mr. Rockie on Jun 30, 2011 12:27 AM MDT reply actions

I think he will

While I don’t think he becomes a top tier RB, but he should reach 900+ yards

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jun 30, 2011 12:39 AM MDT up reply actions

Thanks.

"I actually watched the World Cup. I HATE baseball. Hockey’s over. Hey, at least we have the WNBA. Oh, man. I’m making a noose. Want one?"

Harv Neptune.

Is it Free Agency yet? Wake me up when it starts!

by boydy2669 on Jun 30, 2011 5:57 AM MDT reply actions

Thanx For Late Afternoon Class In Rainy London -London_9er (London's -49er Superfan)

Great Class.You really are a talented coach.If we had you and TIM TEBOW, I GUESS my team San Francisco 49ers would have gone far mate. Keep up the good coaching work.

Greetings from LONDON

London_9er

by London_9er on Jun 30, 2011 10:43 AM MDT reply actions