Advertisement

Football by the Numbers: Better to receive

Michael Salfino
Even with Megatron's disappointing season, thus far, WRs were still the right choice to make early in preseason drafts. (USAT)
Even with Megatron's disappointing season, thus far, WRs were still the right choice to make early in preseason drafts. (USAT)

We thought the injuries, suspension and a lack of production among top 15 running backs was enough to justify the zero running back strategy where you just sit the position out the first four or five rounds of your draft. But it turns out that NFL coaches are also pointing us away from running backs by giving them a lower touchdown share than ever.

According to Pro-Football-Reference’s player database that I mined and double-checked because the results were so stunning, running backs through Week 5 have scored 74 touchdowns, tight ends 72 and wide receivers 149.

Add up the touchdowns scored by the skill players and you get 295 so far this year with an allocation of 25% to running backs, 24.4% to tight ends and 50.5% to wide receivers. That’s a dramatic change from just last year.

In 2013, we had 444 touchdowns for running backs, 250 for tight ends and 529 for wide receivers. That’s 1,223 total touchdowns and a market share of 36% for running backs, 20.4% for tight ends and 43% for wide receivers.

Yes, I counted rushing and receiving touchdowns for running backs in both samples.

In no prior season has the touchdown share for running backs approached anything as low as 25%. Clearly teams are emphasizing other weapons in the red zone and on the goal line. If running backs can’t be more productive touchdown makers than tight ends, that’s just another reasons to avoid investing heavily in them on draft day or during the season.

And this is an important point. The theory does not change now that the season is underway. I get many questions via twitter (@michaelsalfino) from teams loaded at wide receiver who now want to trade for running backs. And they typically have a bevy of playable but not spectacular backs. Why would you want to alter your winning model? If you preferred the impact wide outs then, you should still prefer them now. Even backs who have made it through like DeMarco Murray have a much higher risk factor going forward than wide receivers.

I know some of you are thinking that this strategy, that I advocated and that Shawn Siegele of Rotoviz conceived, isn’t working because of guys like Calvin Johnson and other top receivers who have disappointed. No one claimed the bust rate for wide outs was zero, though. It’s just that it’s about half the bust rate of top running backs. This strategy is about increasing win probability. Whether you actually win comes down to some random factors, like the specific wide receivers and backs you chose.

For simplicity’s sake, conceive of it this way: zero running back about doubles your playoff chances generally. It guarantees nothing. But would you want to double your playoff chances strategically even before actually picking players or play it conventionally and have the same chances you’ve always had and everyone else has, where you’re completely dependent on picking the right players with all the randomness that entails? Zero running back is like playing blackjack from a deck loaded with high cards, while everyone else has a standard deck.

Preseason zero RB target Andre Williams is starting indefinitely now with Rashad Jennings predictably injured after being made a bell cow for the first time at age 29. But the criticism now is that Williams may lose snaps because he struggles in pass protection. I guess this is said simply because he’s a rookie and an unaccomplished pass catcher. But it’s completely invalid. The Giants coaches and Williams’s college coaches at Boston College raved about his pass protection coming into the season and he’s 100% clean (no hurries, pressures or sacks) in his 11 pass protection opportunities this season. Jennings had only 36 pass pro snaps and allowed two hurries (that’s really good, too).

Generally, the entire pass protection argument is overrated by analysts. It sounds really higher-level so people like hearing themselves talk about it. But the worst pass backs in pass protection this year have allowed one sack each. One has allowed two hits (Jordan Todman) and the most pressures even is just four by Darren McFadden. Answer me this: how many times have your heard about how Darren Sproles handles pass protection? I bet that would not go well. But the solution is to use him as a receiver. The Bills could be doing this with C.J. Spiller if they didn’t hate touchdowns so much.

The one guy where pass protection could/should reasonably impact playing time is Doug Martin, who has allowed a sack, a hit and there hurries in just 16 snaps for a ProFootballFocus rating of 75, lowest among any back with at least 25% pass pro snaps. Meanwhile Bobby Rainey has allowed just a hit and a hurry in 26 opportunities.

And I get that some coaches do base snaps on this. I just can’t find many instances where they should.

A little discussed but important stat is percentage of drives ending in a score. Leaders: Chargers (47.2%), Cowboys (45.3%), Colts (44.3%), Saints (44.2%), Ravens (44.2%, shocking to me), Seahawks (41.3%), Packers (41.2%), Giants (41.1%), Browns (40.5%, my apologies to Brian Hoyer), Patriots (40.4%), 49ers (40.4%).

Trailers: Raiders (20.5%), Jaguars (21.3%), Lions (24.6%), Titans (26.7%), Jets (27.1%), Bucs (27.3%), Texans (30.5%), Redskins (30.6%).

Streaming defenses versus the worst pass protection offenses are the Titans (Jaguars), Vikings (Lions) and Lions (Vikings). One of them should be available right now in your league.