SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.

Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.

Pro-Football-Reference.com » Sports Reference

For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.

More on spreading it around in the passing game

Posted by Doug on September 14, 2006

Last week in this post, I constructed a measurement of the extent to which a given team spreads the ball around to different receivers. It was based on seasonal yardage totals, and was certainly susceptible to pollution from a number of factors. For example, the 2005 Eagles ranked very high on the spread-it-around index, but that's largely due to the fact that Reggie Brown and Greg Lewis had similar yardage totals to Terrell Owens for the season. Had Owens stuck around, they would probably have ranked very low. This index begs to be interpreted as evidence of the size of the talent gap among a team's receivers or evidence of the coaching staff's philosophy. While it probably is evidence of one or both of those in many cases, there are definitely exceptions.

In the comments to that post, the always-perceptive monkeytime suggested a different way to measure spread-it-around-ness: average number of different pass receivers per game. Seems like a good idea, so I decided to run it. As usual, I'll just post the lists and let you pick through them to see if you can find anything interesting.

To make sure we're clear on what this means, look at the first line. It says that the 2005 Packers, in an "average" game, had 7.75 different players catch a pass. The MIN column says that they had no fewer than 6 players catch a pass in every game (and no, that 1 in the 49ers MIN column is not a typo). You can figure out what the MAX column is.

A caveat: this data comes from my database, which only includes offensive stats for QBs, RBs, WRs, and TEs. So tackle eligibles and passes to Mike Vrabel are not included. Once again, the genius of Tom Brady eludes quantification.


MIN AVG MAX
==========================
gnb 2005 6 7.75 10
ten 2005 5 7.75 9
ari 2005 5 7.56 9
min 2005 5 7.56 10
stl 2005 6 7.44 9
det 2005 6 7.38 9
cin 2005 4 7.31 9
nwe 2005 5 7.25 9
den 2005 6 7.12 9
tam 2005 5 7.00 9
jax 2005 5 6.88 9
phi 2005 5 6.81 11
buf 2005 4 6.69 9
kan 2005 4 6.62 9
bal 2005 5 6.56 9
sea 2005 3 6.56 10
cle 2005 5 6.44 8
nor 2005 4 6.44 9
mia 2005 4 6.44 9
nyj 2005 4 6.31 9
was 2005 5 6.31 9
sfo 2005 1 6.12 9
dal 2005 4 6.12 8
sdg 2005 5 6.06 8
atl 2005 4 6.00 7
oak 2005 4 6.00 8
pit 2005 2 6.00 9
ind 2005 5 5.88 8
car 2005 5 5.88 8
chi 2005 3 5.81 8
hou 2005 3 5.81 7
nyg 2005 3 5.31 7

oak 2004 7 8.56 11
gnb 2004 7 8.12 10
tam 2004 6 7.62 10
jax 2004 5 7.62 11
nyj 2004 3 7.25 9
det 2004 5 7.25 9
sfo 2004 5 7.19 9
ten 2004 5 7.19 10
min 2004 5 7.12 9
sea 2004 5 7.06 9
stl 2004 4 7.06 10
cin 2004 5 7.00 9
phi 2004 5 7.00 10
den 2004 5 7.00 9
bal 2004 5 6.94 10
kan 2004 6 6.88 8
nwe 2004 4 6.81 10
mia 2004 5 6.69 10
chi 2004 5 6.69 8
ari 2004 4 6.56 8
car 2004 4 6.56 11
buf 2004 5 6.38 9
dal 2004 5 6.19 8
cle 2004 4 6.19 8
nor 2004 4 6.12 8
ind 2004 5 6.12 8
hou 2004 3 6.00 8
was 2004 4 5.94 8
atl 2004 4 5.69 8
sdg 2004 3 5.56 8
nyg 2004 4 5.56 8
pit 2004 3 5.50 7

gnb 2003 6 7.94 12
phi 2003 6 7.62 10
det 2003 5 7.62 11
jax 2003 5 7.44 10
tam 2003 5 7.38 10
cle 2003 5 7.25 9
cin 2003 6 7.19 9
nwe 2003 5 7.12 10
ten 2003 5 7.00 8
was 2003 3 7.00 10
kan 2003 5 6.88 8
sfo 2003 5 6.81 9
nyj 2003 5 6.75 8
pit 2003 4 6.62 8
oak 2003 5 6.62 9
min 2003 5 6.56 9
car 2003 4 6.44 9
stl 2003 5 6.44 8
ari 2003 4 6.44 9
dal 2003 4 6.38 9
chi 2003 5 6.38 9
buf 2003 5 6.38 8
nyg 2003 5 6.31 8
ind 2003 4 6.31 8
nor 2003 5 6.25 9
sea 2003 5 6.25 8
den 2003 4 6.06 8
bal 2003 4 5.88 8
mia 2003 5 5.88 8
hou 2003 4 5.88 8
atl 2003 4 5.81 7
sdg 2003 4 5.62 8

nwe 2002 6 7.94 10
cin 2002 5 7.81 10
gnb 2002 6 7.56 10
tam 2002 6 7.25 9
phi 2002 4 7.19 10
stl 2002 4 7.19 9
nyj 2002 6 7.00 8
chi 2002 5 7.00 9
ten 2002 4 7.00 10
det 2002 6 7.00 9
dal 2002 4 7.00 10
was 2002 4 6.94 10
cle 2002 4 6.94 9
den 2002 4 6.88 9
sea 2002 5 6.81 9
oak 2002 4 6.81 9
mia 2002 5 6.69 9
nyg 2002 4 6.62 8
buf 2002 5 6.56 8
car 2002 3 6.56 10
sfo 2002 5 6.44 9
atl 2002 4 6.44 8
pit 2002 5 6.44 8
min 2002 5 6.44 7
ind 2002 5 6.31 8
kan 2002 5 6.31 8
ari 2002 4 6.25 8
nor 2002 4 6.25 8
bal 2002 5 6.12 8
sdg 2002 4 6.06 8
hou 2002 1 5.69 7
jax 2002 3 5.50 7

cin 2001 5 7.56 9
gnb 2001 5 7.50 9
sfo 2001 4 7.31 9
oak 2001 4 7.25 9
atl 2001 5 7.06 9
det 2001 5 7.06 9
bal 2001 4 7.00 9
min 2001 5 6.88 9
pit 2001 4 6.88 10
car 2001 5 6.88 8
cle 2001 5 6.75 8
den 2001 3 6.69 10
nwe 2001 5 6.62 9
tam 2001 5 6.62 8
buf 2001 5 6.56 9
ten 2001 4 6.56 10
mia 2001 4 6.56 8
stl 2001 5 6.56 8
was 2001 4 6.50 9
chi 2001 4 6.50 9
ari 2001 4 6.44 9
nyg 2001 5 6.44 9
sea 2001 4 6.38 8
kan 2001 5 6.38 8
phi 2001 4 6.31 8
sdg 2001 4 6.25 8
ind 2001 5 5.94 8
jax 2001 4 5.88 7
nor 2001 5 5.88 8
dal 2001 2 5.81 9
nyj 2001 4 5.69 7

phi 2000 5 7.56 10
det 2000 5 7.25 10
ari 2000 5 7.19 10
gnb 2000 4 7.12 9
oak 2000 4 7.00 9
was 2000 5 6.81 9
sea 2000 5 6.75 9
pit 2000 6 6.62 8
stl 2000 5 6.62 9
cle 2000 4 6.62 10
chi 2000 4 6.50 9
nyg 2000 5 6.44 8
min 2000 5 6.44 8
nwe 2000 4 6.38 9
sfo 2000 5 6.38 8
car 2000 5 6.38 7
mia 2000 5 6.31 10
den 2000 3 6.31 8
sdg 2000 5 6.19 9
buf 2000 5 6.19 8
ten 2000 5 6.19 9
cin 2000 2 6.12 9
bal 2000 4 6.12 9
nyj 2000 5 6.00 7
kan 2000 4 6.00 8
ind 2000 5 5.94 7
atl 2000 4 5.94 8
nor 2000 4 5.81 8
tam 2000 3 5.62 8
dal 2000 3 5.56 9
jax 2000 3 5.50 7

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 14th, 2006 at 4:02 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.