I think all Rotoworld readers understand the limitations of using yards per carry as a way to rank running backs. The old school metric doesn’t account for a lot of things, including defenders in the box, which is highly correlated to rushing success. Defenders in the box data isn’t publicly available on a per-play basis to my knowledge, but I do know that down-and-distances and whether a quarterback is under center or in shotgun does hold some correlation into how many defenders in the box there will be on a given play. So that’s why I created a YPC Plus/Minus metric that accounts for 1) yards to go for a first down, and 2) shotgun/under center splits.
The chart shows that shotgun runs (red line) go for more yards on average compared to under center runs (blue line), and the difference is heightened in short-yardage situations where shotgun runs are approximately one-yard better on average. But what this chart really shows is how much “yards to go for a first down” plays into yards per carry. Short-yardage backs get crushed in the traditional yards per carry metric, while pass-catching backs who get a few handoffs on random 1st-and-10 plays get too much credit. My YPC Plus/Minus model adjusts for these things, so we can actually see which players are exceeding expectations for the situations they’re playing in. Let’s see last year’s results:
2019 YPC Plus/Minus Leaders
Translation: “Lamar Jackson averaged 2.6 more yards per carry than the average player in his situation after adjusting for yards to go and shotgun/under center snaps.” Note: I removed QB scrambles and QB kneels from calculations, so it’s just designed runs. Minimum 50 carries to qualify.
Rank | Player | Team | YPC +/- | Carries |
1 | Lamar Jackson | BAL | +2.6 | 120 |
2 | IND | +1.9 | 51 | |
3 | ARI | +1.9 | 56 | |
4 | SF | +1.5 | 137 | |
5 | SEA | +1.5 | 65 | |
6 | DAL | +1.1 | 86 | |
7 | TEN | +1.0 | 303 | |
8 | SF | +1.0 | 123 | |
9 | BAL | +0.9 | 133 | |
10 | BUF | +0.9 | 149 | |
11 | OAK | +0.8 | 240 | |
12 | CLE | +0.8 | 298 | |
13 | ARI | +0.7 | 122 | |
14 | MIN | +0.6 | 99 | |
15 | CAR | +0.6 | 285 | |
16 | NE | +0.6 | 65 | |
17 | MIN | +0.6 | 250 | |
18 | ARI | +0.6 | 59 | |
19 | NO | +0.5 | 171 | |
20 | NO | +0.5 | 146 | |
21 | GB | +0.5 | 236 | |
22 | BAL | +0.5 | 202 | |
23 | DAL | +0.4 | 300 | |
24 | HOU | +0.4 | 83 | |
25 | DEN | +0.4 | 222 | |
26 | NYG | +0.4 | 217 | |
27 | JAX | +0.3 | 265 | |
28 | LeSean McCoy | KC | +0.3 | 101 |
29 | WAS | +0.2 | 210 | |
30 | IND | +0.2 | 246 | |
31 | SEA | +0.2 | 274 | |
32 | PHI | +0.2 | 119 | |
33 | PHI | +0.2 | 179 | |
34 | TB | +0.1 | 172 | |
35 | Josh Allen | BUF | +0.1 | 52 |
36 | DET | +0.1 | 63 | |
37 | DET | +0.0 | 89 | |
38 | GB | +0.0 | 105 | |
39 | ATL | +0.0 | 78 | |
40 | LAC | +0.0 | 132 | |
41 | HOU | -0.1 | 245 | |
42 | KC | -0.1 | 152 | |
43 | SF | -0.1 | 136 | |
44 | LA | -0.1 | 223 | |
45 | CIN | -0.1 | 278 | |
46 | PIT | -0.2 | 107 | |
47 | PHI | -0.2 | 59 | |
48 | NE | -0.3 | 247 | |
49 | BUF | -0.3 | 164 | |
50 | NE | -0.3 | 67 | |
51 | TEN | -0.3 | 54 | |
52 | LA | -0.3 | 68 | |
53 | LAC | -0.3 | 162 | |
54 | MIA | -0.4 | 53 | |
55 | DEN | -0.4 | 131 | |
56 | IND | -0.4 | 52 | |
57 | DET | -0.4 | 113 | |
58 | PIT | -0.5 | 116 | |
59 | OAK | -0.5 | 106 | |
60 | NYJ | -0.5 | 58 | |
61 | ATL | -0.5 | 184 | |
62 | CHI | -0.6 | 242 | |
63 | TB | -0.8 | 153 | |
64 | ARI | -0.9 | 93 | |
65 | BAL | -0.9 | 58 | |
66 | Le’Veon Bell | NYJ | -1.0 | 245 |
67 | CIN | -1.0 | 53 | |
68 | CHI | -1.2 | 64 | |
69 | MIA | -1.5 | 61 | |
70 | PIT | -1.8 | 66 | |
71 | MIA | -2.4 | 73 |
What Lamar Jackson did as a runner -- not even as a scrambler but as a pure designed runner -- was unbelievable. He averaged a full yard better on average than elite rushers like Derrick Henry, Christian McCaffrey, Kyler Murray, Josh Jacobs, and on and on. Not only that, but Lamar’s presence also boasted the efficiency of his running backs (Gus Edwards +0.9 and Mark Ingram +0.5) with defensive ends’ feet stuck in quicksand while they try to read quarterback keepers. As long as Lamar is healthy, the running backs around him will be near the top of efficiency leaderboards.
Another thing to look at is how players did compared to their teammates because that also removes some of the noise with coaching and offensive line play. Here are some notable performers:
Derrick Henry (+1.0) vs. Dion Lewis (-0.3)
Devin Singletary (+0.9) vs. Frank Gore (-0.3)
Josh Jacobs (+0.8) vs. DeAndre Washington (-0.5)
Aaron Jones (+0.5) vs. Jamaal Williams (+0.0)
Raheem Mostert (+1.5) and Matt Breida (+1.0) vs. Tevin Coleman (-0.1)
Kenyan Drake (+0.7) and Chase Edmonds (+0.6) vs. David Johnson (-0.9)
Rex Burkhead (+0.6) vs. Sony Michel (-0.3) and James White (-0.3)
2019 YPC Plus/Minus Leaders - Shotgun Carries Only
Minimum 50 shotgun carries to qualify.
Rank | Player | Team | Shotgun YPC +/- | Shotgun Carries |
1 | Lamar Jackson | BAL | 2.7 | 115 |
2 | ARI | 1.8 | 51 | |
3 | BAL | 1.1 | 126 | |
4 | CLE | 1.0 | 124 | |
5 | ARI | 1.0 | 99 | |
6 | GB | 0.9 | 73 | |
7 | NYG | 0.8 | 102 | |
8 | BAL | 0.6 | 191 | |
9 | HOU | 0.5 | 53 | |
10 | DEN | 0.4 | 63 | |
11 | PHI | 0.4 | 108 | |
12 | CIN | 0.0 | 136 | |
13 | LAC | -0.1 | 66 | |
14 | HOU | -0.1 | 163 | |
15 | IND | -0.1 | 111 | |
16 | DAL | -0.1 | 99 | |
17 | LeSean McCoy | KC | -0.3 | 64 |
18 | BUF | -0.4 | 66 | |
19 | SEA | -0.5 | 161 | |
20 | LAC | -0.5 | 58 | |
21 | TEN | -0.6 | 64 | |
22 | CHI | -0.6 | 123 | |
23 | KC | -0.7 | 84 | |
24 | JAX | -0.7 | 62 | |
25 | PIT | -0.7 | 79 | |
26 | CAR | -1.0 | 130 | |
27 | BAL | -1.0 | 57 | |
28 | ARI | -1.0 | 76 | |
29 | CHI | -1.0 | 52 | |
30 | Le’Veon Bell | NYJ | -1.2 | 100 |
2019 YPC Plus/Minus Leaders - Under Center Carries Only
Minimum 50 under center carries to qualify.
Rank | Player | Team | Under Center YPC +/- | Carries |
1 | SF | 1.9 | 103 | |
2 | CAR | 1.9 | 155 | |
3 | BUF | 1.8 | 83 | |
4 | DAL | 1.7 | 57 | |
5 | TEN | 1.5 | 239 | |
6 | SF | 1.4 | 104 | |
7 | OAK | 1.1 | 199 | |
8 | SEA | 1.1 | 113 | |
9 | MIN | 0.7 | 228 | |
10 | DAL | 0.7 | 201 | |
11 | KC | 0.7 | 68 | |
12 | ATL | 0.7 | 58 | |
13 | JAX | 0.6 | 203 | |
14 | CLE | 0.6 | 174 | |
15 | PHI | 0.6 | 70 | |
16 | WAS | 0.6 | 168 | |
17 | IND | 0.5 | 135 | |
18 | NO | 0.5 | 129 | |
19 | DEN | 0.4 | 159 | |
20 | NO | 0.4 | 134 | |
21 | MIN | 0.3 | 93 | |
22 | GB | 0.3 | 163 | |
23 | TB | 0.2 | 146 | |
24 | NYG | 0.0 | 115 | |
25 | LAC | 0.0 | 66 | |
26 | HOU | 0.0 | 82 | |
27 | LA | 0.0 | 208 | |
28 | PIT | 0.0 | 76 | |
29 | BUF | -0.1 | 139 | |
30 | PHI | -0.1 | 71 | |
31 | NE | -0.1 | 218 | |
32 | DET | -0.3 | 91 | |
33 | LAC | -0.3 | 104 | |
34 | CIN | -0.3 | 142 | |
35 | GB | -0.3 | 60 | |
36 | OAK | -0.3 | 82 | |
37 | DEN | -0.4 | 91 | |
38 | DET | -0.5 | 52 | |
39 | ATL | -0.5 | 144 | |
40 | LA | -0.6 | 64 | |
41 | CHI | -0.6 | 119 | |
42 | TB | -0.8 | 141 | |
43 | Le’Veon Bell | NYJ | -0.9 | 145 |
44 | SF | -1.0 | 103 |
Fantasy Football Content
1. Reviewing Late-Season Production - QBs & TEs
2. Reviewing Late-Season Production - RBs & WRs
3. 2019 Rushing Efficiency Rankings
4. 2019 Receiving Efficiency Rankings
5. 2019 Expected Rushing TD Rankings
6. 2019 Expected Receiving TD Rankings
7. 2019 Expected Yards After The Catch Rankings
8. 2019 Deep Target Efficiency Rankings
9. 2019 Expected Fantasy Points (WR)
10. 2019 Expected Fantasy Points (TE)
11. NFL Depth Charts - QB, RB, WR, TE