Tweet
I won't post the whole article but take a look at this extract:
But setting that aside, I think there is a far more significant reason why rush attempts matter, and receptions do not, when measuring workload. Take a look at these real games turned in by NFL running backs.
Running Back A: 29 rush attempts, 102 rushing yards, 0 receptions, 0 receiving yards, 2 touchdowns
Running Back B: 23 rush attempts, 117 rushing yards, 6 receptions, 52 receiving yards, 0 touchdowns
Now picture those games in your head, based only on the running back statistics. What type of backs are they? And more importantly, how did the game proceed?
These two games occurred almost exactly thirteen years apart. Running Back A is Ickey Woods in the AFC Championship game played on January 8, 1989 against the Buffalo Bills, in a game that the Bengals won to advance to the Super Bowl, 21-10. The Bengals led or were tied the whole game, and Woods' fourth quarter touchdown plunge sealed the victory. Running Back B is Priest Holmes in the final game of the 2001 season (played January 6, 2002) against the Seattle Seahawks. Holmes got some carries early, but the Chiefs fell behind 14-0 in the second quarter, and the Chiefs would play from behind the rest of the game, ultimately losing 21-18.
Which leads me back to why rush attempts matter in measuring workload, and receptions do not. It has to do with correlation with winning. High rush attempt games are highly correlated with teams that won the game. Why should that matter? Because teams that are winning tend to run the ball heavily late. The distribution of runs is not uniform throughout the game. The difference between a 20 carry back and a 28 carry back may be 8 carries, but it's probably not 2 carries every quarter. The 28 carry back probably has a quarterly distribution more like 7-5-6-10, while the 20 carry back is more uniform. The high workload rushing attempt guy, then, is getting a greater percentage of carries in the fourth quarter, when he may be tired. Those carries are more likely to come consecutively, when his team wants to run clock, and the other team knows they are going to run the ball. Running the ball is a risk every time, running the ball fatigued, though, is a greater risk to cause damage that will show up in the near future.
I think this article nails it. Take a look at Indy, always one of the top passing teams under Manning but how many times have they won the big one? This year is another where they have virtually NO running game. They are undefeated but will they go all the way? I say the odds are not in their favor. We need to get back to a balanced attacked or we won't see consistency in our offense.
But setting that aside, I think there is a far more significant reason why rush attempts matter, and receptions do not, when measuring workload. Take a look at these real games turned in by NFL running backs.
Running Back A: 29 rush attempts, 102 rushing yards, 0 receptions, 0 receiving yards, 2 touchdowns
Running Back B: 23 rush attempts, 117 rushing yards, 6 receptions, 52 receiving yards, 0 touchdowns
Now picture those games in your head, based only on the running back statistics. What type of backs are they? And more importantly, how did the game proceed?
These two games occurred almost exactly thirteen years apart. Running Back A is Ickey Woods in the AFC Championship game played on January 8, 1989 against the Buffalo Bills, in a game that the Bengals won to advance to the Super Bowl, 21-10. The Bengals led or were tied the whole game, and Woods' fourth quarter touchdown plunge sealed the victory. Running Back B is Priest Holmes in the final game of the 2001 season (played January 6, 2002) against the Seattle Seahawks. Holmes got some carries early, but the Chiefs fell behind 14-0 in the second quarter, and the Chiefs would play from behind the rest of the game, ultimately losing 21-18.
Which leads me back to why rush attempts matter in measuring workload, and receptions do not. It has to do with correlation with winning. High rush attempt games are highly correlated with teams that won the game. Why should that matter? Because teams that are winning tend to run the ball heavily late. The distribution of runs is not uniform throughout the game. The difference between a 20 carry back and a 28 carry back may be 8 carries, but it's probably not 2 carries every quarter. The 28 carry back probably has a quarterly distribution more like 7-5-6-10, while the 20 carry back is more uniform. The high workload rushing attempt guy, then, is getting a greater percentage of carries in the fourth quarter, when he may be tired. Those carries are more likely to come consecutively, when his team wants to run clock, and the other team knows they are going to run the ball. Running the ball is a risk every time, running the ball fatigued, though, is a greater risk to cause damage that will show up in the near future.
I think this article nails it. Take a look at Indy, always one of the top passing teams under Manning but how many times have they won the big one? This year is another where they have virtually NO running game. They are undefeated but will they go all the way? I say the odds are not in their favor. We need to get back to a balanced attacked or we won't see consistency in our offense.
Comment