The Rise of the Rookie Receiver?

Back in my day...

I have this old-man phrase in my head as I was thinking of rookie running backs and how they've gone (or at least seemed to have gone) from highly-wanted commodities to mid-round fodder in NFL drafts in my lifetime. Given the rule changes that favor explosive passing games, it's not much of a shock to see this happening. (an aside: what's more shocking is the lack of shock for Indianapolis trading a FIRST-ROUND pick for a running back this season)

This year, there's a couple of rookies making noise - Eddie Lacy and Zac Stacy are the first who come to mind. But only those two backs and possibly Le'Veon Bell even have a chance at cracking the 800 yard mark.

A year to year breakdown of rookie tail backs who've ran for 800+ yards (at least 50 yards/team game) shows this trend of their declining value (with highest rookie in parenthesis):

1993: 3 backs (Jerome Bettis 1429)

Edgerrin James

1994: 3 backs (Marshall Faulk 1282)
1995: 4 backs (Curtis Martin 1487)
1996: 2 backs (Eddie George 1368)
1997: 4 backs (Corey Dillon 1129)
1998: 2 backs (Fred Taylor 1223)
1999: 3 backs (Edgerrin James 1553)
2000: 2 backs (Mike Anderson 1487)
2001: 3 backs (LaDainian Tomlinson 1236)
2002: 2 backs (Clinton Portis 1508)
(Total of 28 players, highs ranging from 1129 to 1508)

2003: 1 back (Domanick Williams 1031)
2004: 3 backs (Willis McGahee 1128)
2005: 2 backs (Cadillac Williams 1178)

Alfred Morris

2006: 2 backs (Joseph Addai 1081)
2007: 3 backs (Adrian Peterson 1341)
2008: 4 backs (Matt Forte 1238)
2009: 1 back (Knowshon Moreno 947)
2010: 1 back (LeGarrette Blount 1007)
2011: 2 backs (Ben Tate 942)
2012: 5 backs* (Alfred Morris 1613)
(Total of 24 players, highs ranging from 942 to 1613)
*includes a non-running back (RG3)

Now, the rookie receivers who have broken the 800+ yard barrier in that time:

Randall Moss

1993: 1 (Terry Kirby 874)* (highest WR - James Jett 771)
1994: 2 (Darnay Scott 866)
1995: 3 (Joey Galloway 1039)
1996: 4 (Terry Glenn 1132)
1997: 0 (highest - Rae Carruth 545)
1998: 1 (Randy Moss 1313)
1999: 1 (Kevin Johnson 986)
2000: 0 (highest - Darrell Jackson 713)
2001: 1 (Chris Chambers 883)
2002: 1 (Jeremy Shockey 894)** (highest WR - Antonio Bryant 733)
(Total of 14 players, highs ranging from 545 to 1313)
*running back
**tight end

2003: 2 (Anquan Boldin 1377)

Anquan Boldin

2004: 3 (Michael Clayton 1193)
2005: 0 (highest - Reggie Brown 571)
2006: 2 (Marques Colston 1038)
2007: 1 (Dwayne Bowe 995)
2008: 2 (Eddie Royal 998)
2009: 0 (highest - Hakeem Nicks/Percy Harvin - 790)
2010: 2 (Mike Williams 964)
2011: 3 (AJ Green 1057)
2012: 3 (Justin Blackmon 865)
(Total of 18 players, highs ranging from 571 to 1377)

The numbers aren't completely there yet, but the last three years (with at least 2 receivers gaining 800+ yards) show a potential trend in the making. So far in 2013, there are six players (including tight end Jordan Reed) averaging over 45 receiving yards a game, which would blow any of these previous seasons out of the water.

While there has been a rookie running back with at least 800 yards every season in the past 20 years, there doesn't seem to be as many consistent workhorse running backs coming out of college. One major reason for that could be the NFL mirroring the college game (more two-back systems and much more focus on the passing game than ever before). Last year showed a sudden uptick in big efforts from rookie backs, but will that continue? Ultimately, I think 2012 will be proven to be the exception.

I believe this trend will continue (rising numbers in rookie wideouts and lowered numbers in rookie backs) for the foreseeable future, as the rule changes in the recent past indicate a heavy emphasis on protecting quarterbacks and wide receivers from huge hits.

B List - Stupidest Sports Arguments (List 9)

I still plan on writing about the new NCAA playoff format and how it's going to cause more problems than it creates.

For now, I will mention it among six other sports arguments that I consider to be among the stupidest. This will likely have a slight Chicago lean, as I have listened to many an argument about sports from friends and strangers alike.

Here's the list of arguments that I consider to be among the most pointless.

7.  Tebow - There's no way to have a reasonable debate on Tim Tebow. He's such a polarizing sports figure that you may as well discuss your stance on abortion, gun rights and gay marriage and be more productive in talking. His critics (such as myself and anyone who likes their quarterbacks to be accurate and good) will never convince his fans (who love what he stands for and his ability to win close games) that he sucks, and his fans will never convince his critics that he is the greatest quarterback of all time. I'm convinced that ranking systems like NFL Networks Top 100 players (ranked him 95th best player in the league) and NFL Films (ranking him the 7th best Heisman winner in NFL history - a ranking that was to measure the career accomplishments of Heisman winners) were just to grab attention and ratings. Anyone who thinks Tebow has accomplished more in his short career (one in which he hasn't started a complete season) than Earl Campbell (8th) and Marcus Allen (9th) is smoking the kind of crack I'd like to smoke if I was into that sort of thing.

6. Comparing Michael Jordan to anyone - There are way too many times people want to compare the best players of the day to MJ. I discussed this in a blog almost two months ago with Kobe and how he and Lebron are often brought up by people who want to discuss today's players with the best of all time. No reasonable person would argue that these guys are better than MJ. Many times, this argument, at least from my observations, is usually addressed by the folks who are so hard for MJ that they can't wait to bring his name up anytime Kobe or LeBron does something good. "Kobe's good, but he's no MJ" or pictures of MJ flaunting his rings asking LeBron about his rings are just a few of the examples that pop up when people want to remind the world that MJ is the best. I don't think we need these comments/pictures posted on FB all the time to know that MJ is better than both of them. Let it go.

5. Old champs vs. new champs - Media and public folks do this a lot. How would (current champ) do against (some old great team), with most of the folks who are on the elderly side of the debate usually arguing for the latter. The most recent example of this was Kobe being asked if he thought this current collection of Olympians could beat the Dream Team in a game, with Kobe answering affirmatively. Did everyone expect Kobe to say, "No, you know what, I think we'd get killed." It's not in Kobe's DNA to admit that he can't do something, even if his heart of hearts believed that his current squad would have no chance. In one game, sure, this collection of guys may be able to win, but the Dream Team, whose player composition included all but one Hall of Famer, would likely win most matchups. But you know what? You can't possibly know what would happen because it can never happen. Therefore, these type of arguments are deemed pointless in my eyes.

4. Best running back ever - I've heard this many times argued among friends and on TV alike. There's only a few names that I would even consider being reasonable to discuss in the equation - including Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, OJ Simpson, Earl Campbell, and of course Walter Payton. Living in Chicago, the most common debate I heard was Payton being the best, with a few of my Dallas friends arguing Emmitt's case. It may not be the worst argument in sports, but with the way I've heard it argued, it usually turns into an ugly conversation. Perhaps that's more of a reflection of my friends arguing it than the argument itself. Since I am not old enough to have seen (or remember) many of these guys play, I can only go by statistics to say who was the best. And I don't think that's fair to the debate. I've always contended that Jim Brown was the best ever. Take a look at his stats and accomplishments if you get the chance to understand why I would think this. I'd rather not get into this argument, so I'm going to stop now.

3. BCS - For most of its existence, people have denounced the BCS as a crappy way to crown a college champion. The truth is - there is no perfect way to do this. Since there are many conferences and there's no way that teams can play completely balanced schedules, there will always have to be a human element involved with deciding who should be considered for the right to be champion (or at least play for the championship). The system that preceded the BCS was straight up voting, with many seasons in NCAA history ending without the two best regular season teams facing each other based on how the Bowl system would place teams into specific Bowls. Instead, the winner was voted on in polls before the BCS. At least with the BCS, you have almost always had two of the top 2-4 teams in the nation playing for the national championship. This new 4-team playoff is going to cause more problems than it will solve and will likely become one of its own top 2-3 dumb sports arguments out there. Whenever a selection process is used to decide who will make a playoff (as this playoff will be), you will hear about at least 2-3 teams a year (if not more) who got screwed out of a chance to play.

2. NCAA Tourney snubs - Speaking of NCAA and selection committees, one of the dumbest arguments I hear on a yearly basis is the teams who were left out of the NCAA March Madness tourney. Every year, a big part of ESPN and CBS broadcasts on Selection Sunday is devoted to the teams who barely squeaked in and the teams who just missed the tourney. Cases are made for each team who didn't make it (teams who are roughly 18-12 and lost in the second round of their conference tourney) as if they were leaving out the best team in the nation. It's gotten so bad with the tourney that they've even expanded the tourney several times in our lifetimes and people still complain about the last team who didn't make it. If you can't convince people that you are not one of the best teams in the nation when you have an 18-12 record and you don't win an automatic bid, you can't complain when you leave your team's postseason fate in the hands of a committee. The screams for the last team in are bad with the NCAA tourney - imagine how bad it will be when football gets around to their 4-team playoff.

1. All Star snubs - And the grand champion for stupid debates for me is All Star snubs. And this is by far the stupidest for me. While baseball is fresh in my mind, this also applies for the other sports who host an annual All-Star game. However, the bickering over baseball All Stars is probably the loudest (and definitely the most annoying). Even with expanding rosters, you could always find an idiot who says "My guy should have made it". Yeah, he could/should have, but who cares? In some ways, I'd rather have my guy rest for 3-4 days than go to a glorified exhibition game that most fans (at least the ones I know) don't care who wins. Even with the White Sox making a run towards the postseason, I have given little thought to the fact that they would be travelling for Game 1 of the World Series if they were lucky enough to make it that far because a collection of AL players lost 8-0 the other day. The new rule of adding a World Series stipulation to the game inspired the slogan "This Time, It Counts" from Fox for the longest time, inspiring even more annoying banter among people who say their guy should have made it and been able to help their league out in what should be a meaningless All-Star game. The emotion that is wasted when one gets sad or angry about their guy being left off a roster should instead be used to cheer that player on after the All-Star break ends. At the end of the day, the All Star game is an exhibition, whether the MLB's WS stipulation tells you or not.

Footballs Deep: NFL trends and Week 2 thoughts

The Death of the Running Back


Welcome to Thursday night. We are officially a week removed from the exciting start to the NFL season, where we saw the duel between Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees. Who knew that the slinging would continue into the Monday night games, particularly in a matchup featuring Tom Brady and Chad Henne, who somehow combined for more yards than Rodgers and Brees? Many games on Sunday also featured some high passing yardage totals, with Cam Newton and Ryan Fitzpatrick being among the unexpected leaders in the clubhouse.

The trend of high passing yardage is nothing new, but the number of guys in Week 1 who performed well, especially by the unknowns, makes me believe that having a top quality running back isn't all that important anymore. Sure, it helps with play actions and keeping some defenses honest.

But look at how many teams line up in shotgun formation on a regular basis, especially with the top quarterbacks. Even when teams know that these guys are going to pass, defenses can do nothing to stop it. I think the death of the running back is its prime right now.

Yes, yes - there's still elite running backs in the league. But how many of them are on teams that are considered the favorites to win the Super Bowl?


Fool's Gold Bet of the Week

Baltimore (-5.5) at Tennessee: From what I saw of the game, which was very limited amount, the Titans seemed to struggle to move the ball much against the Jaguars - a team not considered to epitomize great defense. You'd think that playing a team like the Ravens, a team that just schooled its rival Pittsburgh 35-7, would warrant a higher line that 5.5 point home dogs as a result. With this line, Vegas is telling me that they expect the Ravens to have somewhat of a letdown (especially off of the rivalry angle), while also saying that the Titans might not be as bad as they looked in Week 1. I think Chris Johnson is able to get on track this week. The Titans almost won the opener despite CJ's struggles to get going, so if he's able to get one or two big runs like he's accustomed to, that will be the difference in keeping this game close. (Likely betting Tennessee +5.5)

Fool's Gold YTD: 1-0 (record based on betting against the trend - Last week's pick (Washington) easily covered). This is a record of betting against the spread, not straight-up.


Fantasy Football Blurb

I wrote a blog about how nobody really cares about your fantasy football team if they're not asking about it, so since you're not asking, I won't tell you. I will mention that I did lose all of my big money league games, but I refuse to panic and think my season is over. It obviously makes winning week 2 more important than normal, but the season is a grind and needs to be treated as such.

Lots of times, teams who lose week 1 start to panic and make irrational moves based on one week's worth of data. If you know owners like that in your leagues, my suggestion is to exploit these owners. Try getting Blount or CJ from some panicked owner and then reap the rewards later. Just don't do it in any of my leagues.


Week 2 Leans/Bets

Week 1 started off on a terrible foot, with the Under being destroyed in the opening game of the year. In fact, Overs went 12-3-1 in NFL's first week. Much of that is credited to the trend I mentioned at the top of the blog - Quarterbacks Gone Wild.

Two unlisted bets from Monday - I lost $60 total on Monday (1-1), $55 Sunday (2-3-1) and $66 (0-1) on Thursday - so a rough start to the NFL (3-5-1, -$181). Luckily, I won all 3 of my college bets on Saturday (+$120) to negate much of that damage.

Week 2 is a lot murkier for me at this point, but here's some games I'm looking to bet:

Ten +5.5 vs Baltimore
KC +7.5 at Detroit
Pitt -14 vs. Seattle or the Under 40
Dallas -3 at San Fran
Atlanta +1.5 vs Phil

I will post final bets on Sunday.

Survivor pool pick. I used San Diego last week. Week 2 pick: Pittsburgh.

Good luck in your bets, fantasy leagues, and most importantly, to the actual team that you root for.