The dynamic of the CFF running back position has changed substantially since I drafted BYU RB Luke Staley with my first ever CFF selection back in 2001. The emergence of air raid/spread offenses has led to more running backs relying on receiving production in order to climb the CFF rankings. Here is an extensive overview of the RB position spanning the last five years.
2018
RBs with 1,000 Yards = 59 (35 Power 5 and 24 Group of 5)
RBs with 1,000 Yards + 10 TDs = 42 (26 P5 and 16 G5)
RBs with 200+ Carries = 45 (25 P5 and 20 G5)
RBs with 30 Receptions = 16 (8 P5 and 8 G5)
RBs with 300+ Receiving Yards = 18 (7 P5 and 11 G5)
RBs with 1,000 Rush Yards and 300+ Receiving Yards = 1 (CJ Verdell ) - No. 2 Elijah Mitchell (973 rush yards).
Rushers with 1,000 Yards + 10 TDs with less than 200 carries = 10
2019
RBs with 1,000 Yards = 51(22 P5/29 G5)
RBs with 1,000 Yards + 10 TDs = 32 (14 P5/18 G5)
RBs with 200+ Carries = 56 (24 P5/27 G5)
RBs with 30 Receptions = 24 (13 P5/11 G5)
RBs with 300+ Receiving Yards = 19 (P5 11/G5 8)
RBs with 1,000 Rush Yards and 300+ Receiving Yards = 7 (Najee Harris , Jonathan Ward , CJ Marable , Kenneth Gainwell , Travis Etienne , Zack Moss , Clyde Edwards-Helaire )
Rushers with 1,000 Yards + 10 TDs with less than 200 carries = 7
2021
RBs with 1,000 Yards = 51 (30 P5/20 G5)
RBs with 1,000 Yards + 10 TDs = 33 (22 P5/11 G5)
RBs with 200+ Carries = 39 (22 P5/17 G5)
RBs with 30 Receptions = 22 (17 P5/5 G5)
RBs with 300+ Receiving Yards = 16 | Returning 300+ Rec RBs = 9
RBs with 1,000 Rush Yards and 300+ Receiving Yards = 9
Rushers with 1,000 Yards + 10 TDs with less than 200 carries = 6 (Rachaad White , Shermari Jones , Ty Chandler , Bijan Robinson , Braelon Allen , Kennedy Brooks )
Top-20 RBs who did not have 10 TDs: 1
2022
RBs with 1,000 Yards = 40 (20 P5/20 G5)
RBs with 1,000 Yards + 10 TDs = 28 (15 P5/13 G5)
RBs with 200+ Carries = 37 (17 P5/20 G5)
RBs with 30 Receptions = 27 (20 P5/7 G5)
RBs with 300+ Receiving Yards = 14 | Returning 300+ Rec RBs = 7 (17 Returning RBs w/250+ Rec Yards)
RBs with 1,000 Rush Yards/300+ Receiving Yards = 3 (5 if you count Xazavian Valladay who had 289 receiving yards and Mar’Keise Irving who had 299)
Rushers with 1,000 Yards + 10 TDs with less than 200 carries = 2 (Nicholas Singleton with 156 carries for 1,057 yards and 12 TDs, Zach Charbonnet with 194 carries for 1,358 yards and 14 TDs)
Top-20 RBs who did not have 10 TDs: 2 (Deuce Vaughn
and Frank Gore Jr.
each had 9)
Volume is becoming increasingly important when it comes to projecting CFF breakouts. In the last four seasons, 25 players accrued 1,000 yards and 10 TDs without receiving 200+ carries each year -- (10 in 2018, 7 in 2019, 6 in 2021, 2 in 2022).
The downward trends in producing high-end fantasy rushers despite limited usage also coincides with the 32% reduction in 1,000-yard running backs over the last five years -- (59 in 2018 compared to 40 in 2022)
On the inverse, college teams are targeting their primary RBs more often. In 2018, there were only 16 RBs with 30+ receptions, however there were 27 in 2022.
The 50-Point Principle
The 41% increase in high-usage receiving RBs, and the subsequent 32% decrease in 1,000-yard rushers, over the past five years can largely be attributed to the Air Raid-ification of the collegiate game.
There were only 35 running backs who scored 200+ PPR points last year and 14 of them failed to eclipse the 1,000-yard rushing mark. Of those 14 who couldn’t cross the 1,000 yard threshold, 12 of them were able to offset the lack of a traditional bell cow workload by accruing 50+ PPR points from their receptions + receiving yardage + receiving touchdowns. The only two exceptions to the 50-Point Principle in 2022 were Baylor’s Richard Reese , who just missed the 1,000-yard barrier with 972 yards, but was the beneficiary of 14 touchdowns and of course UCF bruiser Isaiah Bowser , who rushed for just 799 yards but scored 16 rushing TDs and threw for another, relying on a potent offense with a bevy of goal line opportunities to vulture.
The bottom line is if you’re drafting a RB who isn’t likely to receive a 200-carry workload, that player is unlikely to crack your every week CFF lineup as a RB2-3 unless they’re a defined contributor in the passing game. 30 receptions and 300 receiving yards is equivalent to 10 touchdowns from a PPR perspective, so you can envision how rapidly collegiate all-purpose RBs with every-down roles can rack up points if their teams are behind by multiple scores.
Last year, 15 of the top 20 PPR RBs based on points per game caught at least 20+ passes. In 2021, of the top-11 leading rushers, six of them had 30 receptions and 300 receiving yards on the year. Interestingly, just 12 of the 49 RBs who caught 30 or more passes over the last two seasons attended Group of Five programs. The superior passing acumen of Power Five-level quarterbacks has been a clear asset in projecting P5 Wide Receivers compared to their G5 counterparts, and it appears that is the case with RB receiving production as well. It will be interesting to see if that 4-to-1 gap between 30+ receptions P5 and G5 backs persists for a third straight campaign.
With the 50-Point Principle in mind, here are some running backs to target with established receiving credentials in fantasy relevant offenses that have been overlooked in the many CFF Industry Drafts I’ve participated in since February:
Of the seven returning RBs with 300 yards receiving in 2022, only Michael Wiley , Jaydn Ott and Roman Hemby have solidified roles. Blake Watson (Transferring from ODU to Memphis), Micah Bernard (RB2 behind Ja’Quinden Jackson ), Taron Keith (RB2 in Bowling Green, pass down specialist LY) and Asa Martin (Transferring from Memphis to Troy with RB1 Kimani Vidal ) all have usage questions that are hampering their pre-camp value.
RBs with 50 Point Principle upside along with their 2022 receiving production:
Edward Saydee , Temple: 37 Rec, 267 Rec Yds, 0 TDs = 63.7 points
Devin Mockobee, Purdue: 32 Rec, 274 Rec Yds, 0 TDs = 59.4 points
Frank Peasant , MTSU: 27 Rec, 278 Rec Yds,| 2 TDs = 66.8 points
Nakia Watson , Wazzu: 30 Rec, 295 Rec Yds, 4 TDs = 83.5 points
Mar’Keise Irving , Oregon: 31 Rec, 299 Rec Yds, 3 TDs = 79.9 points
Lincoln Pare , Texas State: 29 Rec, 229 Rec Yds, 1TD = 58.8 points
Shadrick Byrd , UNC-Charlotte: 21 Rec, 222 Rec Yds, 1 TD = 49.2 points
Josh Henderson, Indiana: 24 Rec, 274 Rec Yds, 4 TDs = 75.8 points
Jalen White , Georgia State: 20 Rec, 217 Rec Yds, 1 TD = 48.7 points
Tahj Brooks , Texas Tech: 26 Rec, 164 Rec Yds, 1 TD = 48.4 points
RJ Harvey , UCF: 22 Rec, 215 Rec Yds, 0 TDs = 43.5 points
Jaden Nixon, Oklahoma State: 20 Rec, 189 Rec Yds, 3 TDs = 56.9 points
In summation, the CFF RB landscape is shifting in accordance with the changes in offensive philosophy at the college level. The foundational basis for drafting CFF running backs is to achieve as much volume as possible, with the expectation that the fantasy production will follow. However, with the role of the college running back evolving, we must adapt and tailor our draft approach towards gathering as many high-upside receiving backs in the later portions of your draft once the projectable, high-volume rushers have been taken.