≡ Menu

From 1978 to 1980, Earl Campbell averaged 22.7 carries per game. Those carries went for 4.9 yards, giving him an incredible 110.5 rushing yards per game. That makes him jut the 5th (and at the time, 3rd) player to average 110 rushing yards per game over any 3-year period. On the other hand, Campbell averaged just 13 receptions for 63 receiving yards during those three seasons: that’s less than a catch per game.

The Houston offense during this time? Well, that’s a different matter. The Oilers were pretty middle-of-the-road in most categories, including points and Net Yards per Attempt. Take a look:

Overall Offense Rushing Off Passing Off
Year Tm Tms WL% T/G Pts± Yds± Yds Pts GvA Att Yds TD Y/A FL Att Yds TD Int NY/A
1978 HOU 28 6 19 15 16 16 14 12 7 6 5 10 21 24 18 14 4 9
1979 HOU 28 3 2 10 15 22 8 5 3 4 4 7 3 25 25 18 10 19
1980 HOU 28 4 21 11 4 4 20 27 6 2 8 1 23 20 17 23 26 10

Now, let’s talk about Marshall Faulk. From ’99 to ’01, Marshall Faulk averaged 17.4 rushing attempts per game, but with a 5.4 YPC average, that translated to 93.7 rushing yards per game.  Faulk also averaged 0.84 rushing touchdowns per game. Those numbers are incredible, so I don’t want to glass over them, but Faulk’s numbers as a receiver are even more extraordinary.  He averaged 5.7 receptions for 60.1 yards per game (an impressive 10.5 YPR average), along with half a touchdown per game.  Combined, Faulk averaged 154 yards from scrimmage per game and 1.34 touchdowns per game.

Here is how the Rams offense looked from ’99 to ’01; obviously the ranks are significantly different.  St. Louis led the NFL in yards, points, and Net Yards per Attempt in all three seasons.

Overall Offense Rushing Off Passing Off
Year Tm Tms WL% T/G Pts± Yds± Yds Pts GvA Att Yds TD Y/A FL Att Yds TD Int NY/A
1999 STL 31 2 9 1 1 1 1 13 15 5 10 2 24 19 1 1 7 1
2000 STL 31 9 26 10 1 1 1 24 25 17 1 2 14 3 1 1 28 1
2001 STL 31 1 26 1 1 1 1 31 22 5 1 1 31 12 1 1 24 1

Now, Campbell and Faulk were very different running backs stylistically. They also played on very different teams: Faulk played with four Hall of Famers or near-HOFers on offense: Kurt Warner, Orlando Pace, Isaac Bruce, and Torry Holt. Campbell was the only Oiler offensive player to make the Pro Bowl in ’78. In ’79 and ’80, he was only joined by left tackle Leon Gray. And those Oilers were hardly running the offensive system du jour the way the Vermeil/Martz Rams were.

Now, let’s get to the thought experiment. What if we could magically do two things: 1, build a time machine, and 2, put the ’99-’01 version of Faulk on the ’78-’80 Oilers, and put the ’78-’80 version of Campbell on the Greatest Show On Turf Rams?

What would the stats of Campbell look like? What would the stats of Faulk look like? Perhaps more interestingly, how would the offenses of those two teams change? Would they be better, worse, or the same?

  • I think both offenses would end up performing worse. Without the breakout and influence of the WCO, I don’t think Faulk’s ability as a receiver comes close to being used to its full potential. He probably just ends up looking like a rich man’s Chuck Foreman.

    The GSOT Rams relied pretty heavily on Faulk’s receiving ability, and his ability as a receiver helped make things easier on himself as a runner (and vice versa; the old pass to the play action back play served him well). Campbell didn’t have that ability, but he did have the ability to run right down defenders’ throats in a way that Faulk couldn’t. However, bigger and faster modern defenders would somewhat mitigate the bulldozing advantage he had in the late 70s/early 80s. Also, Campbell fumbled 21 times over the three years in question, while Faulk fumbled 5 times. Given the high risk nature of the Rams’ passing offense, having a back fumble that often might place too much burden on the defense to make up for turnovers.

    Now, if we could use that time machine to give Campbell enough time to learn modern carrying techniques, he’d obviously improve. But that wasn’t in the stipulations of the thought experiment.

    • Lenny Moore, TImmy Brown, Charley Taylor, Chet Mutryn (in the AAFC), Frank Gifford had shown the ability to be dual-purpose backs by 1978. And a rich man’s Chuck Foreman is hardly a knock — I’m not sure if Faulk was anything more than that, anyway. In ’75 and ’76, he averaged 80 rushing yards and 45 receiving yards per game, with 1.3 TDs per game.

      The big question on the Oilers side is what would Houston have done with Faulk? How creative would they have been? The pro-Faulk argument would be that he was just as good as a runner as Campbell, albeit in a different style, and that he would have helped the passing game. In ’79, Pastorini had a 50.3% completion percentage and averaged 6.5 Y/A. Would those numbers have been higher with Faulk? Almost certainly. Tim Wilson was second on the team in receptions at 29/208, and he was the fullback.

      We can get to the Campbell/Rams side in a bit, but let’s start with Faulk on the Oilers. Does he make Pastorini look better? Does he average even more YPC than Campbell did? Let’s say he has 100 fewer carries, but those go to Rob Carpenter instead. Does what Faulk brings to the passing game offset that? And how much is this all reliant on what Bum Phillips, Joe Bugel (OL coach) and the rest of the staff can do?

      • sacramento gold miners

        Interesting topic today, I did see those Oilers teams, and they were quite a contrast from the GSOT Rams. Faulk would have brought more versatility, and explosive plays than Campbell did. But the Oilers would have to be careful about usage, Campbell’s success, like other HOF big backs was in wearing down defenses. I could see the Oilers with better offensive numbers, but the conservative approach of Bum Phillips would be a factor. Faulk himself would have to adjust, he would be hit much more frequently without the ball. Part of the success New England had in the SB against Faulk was the physicality aspect, and in the 70s, defenders could be more aggressive. As great as Faulk was, I’m not sure his game would have been portable enough outdoors in December on slippery turf. Chuck Foreman had a spin move, but was a usually more of a straight line runner, which was usually successful in those conditions.
        Conversely, if Earl Campbell was on the GSOT, I could see him getting frustrated by the fewer amount of carries, it wouldn’t have been a good fit. He played at roughly 230 pounds with speed, so this was a rich man’s Marshawn Lynch.

      • Richie

        The phrase “rich man’s ____” is kind of vague. But what do you mean by ” I’m not sure if Faulk was anything more than that, anyway.”

        Is that meant to say that Faulk is overrated or Foreman is underrated?

        In defense of Faulk, his 98 and 99 seasons are probably the best dual-threat seasons in history. And those were on different teams. 2000 and 2001 are probably in the conversation as well.

        Honorable mentions to: 1985 Roger Craig, 2014 LeVeon Bell, 2003 Tomlinson and 2006 Steven Jackson. I don’t remember any of those guys being as scary as Faulk in his prime.

        • Probably that Foreman is underrated, although not necessary by Bryan.

          I agree that prime Faulk was insanely good.

          • I don’t know if I personally underrate Foreman. I have him as a borderline HOFer. A very talented and accomplished dual threat back who was a key player on some really good teams.

            When I say borderline HOFer, I mean close to getting in to the actual PFHOF. I don’t mean close to making my personal HOF, which is much more esoteric (using PFR’s designations, of the 12 HBs in the Hall, I think I’d keep in 5; of the 10 FBs, I’d keep in 6 or 7; of the 19 RBs, I’d keep in 10-13 depending on my mood when you asked me. That’s between 51 and 61 percent of the actual fellows.).

          • sacramento gold miners

            I hope someday we see a retrospective the on outstanding dual threat RB, William Andrews. He was building a HOF case in Atlanta, before a catastrophic knee injury in practice short-circuited his career. As a runner, receiving, and blocker, Andrews was a force. A bruising runner with good hands, and surprising speed. As good as Chuck Foreman was, I’d probably put Andrews ahead of him in this discussion of 1970s-1980s dual threat RBs. I think Ronnie Lott has said no one hit him harder than Andrews on a football field.

      • I don’t know if I would include Charley Taylor as a dual threat back. He only play two full seasons as a running back and had more receiving yards than rushing yards each time. I think it would be more fair to call him a great receiving back who eventually just became a wide receiver. I also think that the presence of great receiving backs like Moore/Foreman/Gifford is different from having an offensive system designed to substitute a portion of the run game with short passes. Granted, Martz’s system was based more on Coryell than Walsh, but traces of Walsh remain on every NFL playbook, regardless of their Coryell/WCO/EP nomenclature.

        Faulk reminds me of Moore in that he played for a team with a stacked offense with multiple other HOF players (Moore wasn’t the best player on his team like Faulk was, but it’s still a huge advantage to play on that kind of offense). Even as the top player on a loaded squad, Faulk never had to carry the load the same way Campbell did. I think Faulk is one of the greatest HBs of all time, even if you exclude his receiving contributions, but I’m not convinced that his skills would be maximized in a vanilla offense with a mediocre supporting cast.

        Faulk would most certainly make Pastorini look better, but you can only prop up Bernie for so long before guests at the party realize he’s dead. He’d have the advantage of playing against LBs who aren’t nearly as sound in coverage as 99-01 LBs were, but he may also have the disadvantage of playing in an era with rules that hinder some of the things that allowed him to be great (e.g., maybe he doesn’t do so well as a receiver when he isn’t allowed as much freedom off the LOS or throughout his route).

        On another note, I don’t know that Campbell was a poor receiver. For all I know he could have been adequate but just not used much as one. He averaged over 21 YPC in college, albeit on 6 catches. Perhaps a more creative offense would have seen him gain more than 6.7 YPC as a pro. I don’t (and can’t) know.

        • Agreed about Charley Taylor, though his teammate Bobby Mitchell is another good example to add to Chase’s list. I think you’re mostly right, Bryan, but not about Foreman’s role in the Viking offense. The passes to Foreman were characterized as “extended handoffs.”

          Bud Grant said, “We know that Chuck can get five yards on a running plays so we throw him a five-yard pass and let him get even more. It is just an extension of our running game.”

          That said, I’m inclined to agree with your conclusion: the Oilers probably would have been worse with Faulk instead of Campbell, and I’m confident the Rams would have been significantly worse off with Campbell than Faulk. His all-around skill set was critical to what St. Louis did under Martz, and IIRC, Faulk was voted team MVP every year. That offense doesn’t work without him.

          • Perhaps I should have been more clear. Sure, Grant threw passes to (and even designed plays to throw to) Foreman knowing that they would generally benefit the offense more than a handoff. However, that is different from an NFL environment, nearly a full generation after the first WCO Super Bowl Champions, where both players and coaches have had over a decade to copy and add wrinkles to an intricate scheme designed to systematically attack the defense both horizontally and vertically, particularly with the use of the running back as a receiver. The basic difference is that in one scenario, the team says “hey this guy is really good at receiving, so we’ll get him more involved with the passing game.” The other team says “hey, if this guy can’t add value in the passing game, he isn’t very valuable to us for what we’re trying to do.” It’s about leaguewide ideologies more than sporadic instances of previous great receiving backs.

    • sn0mm1s

      I agree – while we didn’t see Campbell on another team, Faulk wasn’t exactly carrying the Colts to any great heights. During his first 5 years in the league, Faulk was a mediocre runner and the Colts were in the bottom half of the league in scoring every year. It is only when Faulk isn’t the sole focus of the defense that he becomes the HOFer that we think of when we think of Faulk. Place him on the Oilers as “the guy” and I don’t think he can carry a team with his running ability as much as Campbell could. Put Campbell on the Rams and his YPC might bump a bit – but his lack of receiving ability (he never even caught a TD for his entire career) would make that offense less dynamic and he would likely have less rushing yards because the Rams would focus on passing more than the late 70s Oilers.

      • Tom

        I’m too lazy to check, but you guys seem to know a lot about this, so I’ll ask: did the Rams have another back that they could throw to? Man I’m thinking Bruce and Holt and those guys lighting it up, and then you’ve got Campbell as a threat, I’d think that offense would be lethal. Doesn’t just having Earl in the backfield change the way defenses would approach the Rams? Play-action passes would be more of a threat? My apologies, I’m not much of an X-and-O’s guy…

        • sn0mm1s

          All of this is purely hypothetical but Faulk was a very effective runner with the Rams. Opposing teams couldn’t ignore the run and just play the pass. Faulk was dynamic in a way that I don’t think Campbell could match in that offense.

        • Richie

          In 2001, the Rams added Trung Canidate, who I seem to recall had a similar skillset to Faulk. He was a tall guy with speed who caught 30 passes in his senior year at Arizona.

        • Richie mentioned Trung Canidate, and before him they had Amp Lee.

          I have great respect for Earl Campbell, but Faulk was a better fit for that offense. The Rams wouldn’t have been nearly as good with Campbell, simply because of the stylistic mismatch.

      • Corey

        Faulk was better in STL, but he was pretty darn good in Indy, hardly mediocre. In his five season in Indy his average season line was 278/1064/8 rushing, 59/561/2 receiving, for 1625 yards from scrimmage and 10 TDs. He had a bad season in 1996 (Wikipedia says he struggled with a toe injury) when he averaged only 3 yards per carry that weighs his numbers down a little. But in the other four years he was very good, and made 2nd-team All-Pro 3 times in a competitive era for elite RBs (during the primes of Sanders, Davis, Smith, etc.). He also led the league in yards from scrimmage in 1998, his last year with the Colts.

        • sn0mm1s

          He got a lot of touches – but he was hardly a game breaker. If he really was such a great player the Colts wouldn’t have gotten rid of him for pennies on the dollar. Even excluding his historically horrible rushing season he averaged less than 4 YPC his other 4 seasons. Faulk wasn’t just better on the Rams – he was a HOFer on the Rams. Faulk wasn’t a HOFer on the Colts.

          • Richie

            I was trying to decide if Faulk was on a HOF path with the Colts. I think he would have been. His first 5 seasons were plenty good. 3 pro bowls in 5 years. If you just double his Indianapolis production, that puts him similar to Curtis Martin in terms of AV and similar to Marcus Allen in terms of career rushing and receiving yards.

            And that doesn’t include the effect of adding a prime Peyton Manning.

            I think the Faulk had contract issues with the Colts, and was going to sit out if he didn’t get a contract. Also, apparently the Dolphins offered a first round pick for Faulk, but Polian refused to trade him to an AFC team. So that also reduced Faulk’s trade value.

            • sn0mm1s

              I think that is pretty generous. He basically had 3 healthy seasons (with much greater/more efficient production than his time on Colts) and then rapidly declined. I don’t think he could take as many carries as Edge and I don’t see his ypc moving much from the 4.0-4.4 range. I see his career stats ending up more in the realm of Edge or Tiki – who both *may* make the HOF at some point – but most people don’t think they are anything close to a lock.

              • It’s such a weird situation because the Rams were bad on offense in ’98, then added Warner, Faulk, and Holt in ’99. All the sudden, Bruce and Pace now had three other building blocks, and the offense went from below average to legendary. It’s a pretty unique situation, but watching those teams it always felt to me like Faulk was the engine there. I think you replace Warner with Trent Green and there’s very little dropoff, and you could probably get rid of Holt or Bruce and still be looking darn good.

                Faulk missed two games in ’00, and Justin Watson didn’t do much, although Trent Green was excellent in both games:

                http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200011050ram.htm

                http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200011120nyg.htm

                In ’01, Trung Canidate started two games in lieu of Faulk. The first was against the Jets, and I remember that one pretty well: Canidate looked just like Faulk, going 23/195/2 with 3/37 through the air against Jets defense that looked really slow:

                http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200110210nyj.htm

                The next week, the Rams lost, with Canidate doing nothing on the ground and Warner having 4 INTs, although Canidate did have 100 through the air:

                http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200110280ram.htm

                I’m not sure if those games help or hurt my point, but those are the stats. It did feel to me that Faulk was pretty irreplaceable, but YMMV.

                • sn0mm1s

                  I think Warner was just as important to the Rams as Faulk was. I also agree that Faulk was irreplaceable on the Rams. However, he obviously wasn’t irreplaceable on the Colts (Edge was better than Faulk on the Colts). I just don’t see Faulk being a HOFer if he has 3 healthy seasons on the Colts (that aren’t as prolific as his 3 seasons on the Rams) then has a dramatic dropoff.

  • Corey

    Something to note with the GSOT Rams is that they played weak schedules, especially in 1999 and 2000. Their offensive SOS by DVOA ranked 31st in 1999, 27th in 2000, and 23rd in 2001. That tended to inflate their stats a little, a point I think Chase has made before with regard to Kurt Warner.

    • LightsOut85

      Very true, the best year (2000) is only the 21st best offense by DVOA since 1989. (Not bad, but much lower than their ranking of 8th by points). Surprisingly, their rushing DVOA that year is actually the highest since 1989.

    • Josh Sanford

      This is appropos of nothing, but I love to say it: Kurt Warner went to the Superbowl in every season in which he played all 16 games. Each time he made it to the Superbowl, he threw for more yards than anyone else, before or since, and when he left the field at the end of each game, his team was in the lead.

      • Richie

        Those are some fun facts. I didn’t realize that Warner has the top 3 highest passing yards in the Super Bowl.

      • sacramento gold miners

        When Warner left the field after the Cards last possession in SB 43, he was trailing, 27-23. After the Santonio Holmes TD catch, Arizona got the ball back. The Cardinals were around their own 40, when Warner was hit, fumbled, and that clinched the game.

        • Josh Sanford

          Fair enough. Shall we rephrase that “he left the field with a lead–but a little too much time on the clock?”

  • Robert Ford

    sn0mm1s…totally agree. Run the numbers, assess the physicality, and I doubt if Faulk becomes the team-carrying, defense-dismembering rushing beast Campbell was. Campbell gets dinged by his detractors for his lack of receiving, but I think he became what Bum needed him to be, and what his abilities were most suited to. And it’s not like Pastorini was Stephen Hawking under center, or Bum was a pass-game savant. I think Faulk did what was necessary, given the offense and the Vermeil/Martz scheme, particularly for the GSOT years, just like Earl did for Bum’s scheme.

    It’s interesting that NFL Network just ran Faulk’s “A Football Life”, and he seemed to rise to all rushing occasions, particularly in the Vermeil/Martz offense. Faulk was more of an authentic rusher I think than he gets credit for, particularly seeing as how ’00 and ’01 were 14-game affairs, but Campbell was supernatural as a true rock pounder. Faulk ultimately was more “complete”, but that may have been born of necessity, rather than inherent superiority to Campbell as a “complete” RB.

    Campbell, in the end, probably was “tougher,” more physical, more destructive than Faulk, just as NFL lore would suggest. I suspect Marshall WAS the more “intelligent”, adaptable RB, and gets huge credit for overall understanding (as well as Yards After the Catch) of the game, but Campbell WAS a miracle of bulldozing, historic rushing. Both were incredible. Faulk can NEVER be discounted as a true, authentic rusher. A lot of his “receptions” were more rushing than receiving, anyway.

    • Richie

      Yeah, Pastorini is among the worst QB’s ever to get the amount of opportunity he got.

      Amongst QB’s with 2,000+ career attempts (since 1969), Pastorini ranks last with a 3.36 ANY/A. Next-worst are Rick Mirer (3.80) and Archie Manning (3.85).

      It’s hard to imagine Faulk being able to have a successful receiving career with Pastorini throwing the ball. Although, in 1973, Pastorini’s favorite target was a RB. Fred Willis led the team with 57 receptions.

      • But would the offense be better with a versatile running back like Faulk rather than Campbell? If the QB isn’t very good (although Pastorini wasn’t as bad as you implied (during the relevant years, he ranked 14th out of 24 QBs in ANY/A – http://pfref.com/tiny/Lc033) in ’78 or ’79), wouldn’t having a pass-catching back help?

        For example, I would think a Mark Sanchez-style QB would benefit more from a Marshall Faulk than an Earl Campbell.

        • Richie

          Yeah, I think having a pass-catching RB would help, if the offense was designed to take advantage of it.

          Which is the difficult part of this exercise. Would Bum’s Oilers throw to the RB more if they had Faulk, or would they just keep him in to block when he wasn’t running?

          Which leads me to a question. My instinct is to say that pass-catching RB’s is more of a modern phenomenon that came along with the West Coast Offense. But maybe it just seems like RB’s catch passes more frequently only because teams pass more frequently.

          Do you have any quick numbers to compare the rate of RB catching passes across eras?

  • Robert Ford

    One additional thought…I think Campbell does better in the Vermeil/Marz offense than Faulk does in Bum’s. Vermeil/Martz was, in large measure but not totally, about making defense’s head’s spin with differing sets, spreads, schemes. Faulk GOT that, and adapted supremely well, really made it all work. I think Earl could’ve made that transition, particularly since Vermeil/Martz would’ve understood how to adjust accordingly, use Campbell’s inherent style but still make him evolve. Bum? I’m not certain he would’ve been that innovative, or understood what Marshall’s overall gifts as a scheme-oriented, set-oriented monster were. Marshall might have suffocated a bit more, especially given Pastorini, where as Earl could’ve kept breathing.

    In other words, Bum I think would’ve been more LIKELY to waste/not appreciate Marshall’s talents more than Vermeil/Martz would’ve been LIKELY to waste/not appreciate Earl’s, particularly Dick Vermeil. I think Vermeil would’ve LOVED having a Campbell. He sure could have used him in ’80.

    At any rate, it’s an interesting notion. Two such different careers, two such different circumstances, two such different, necessary adaptations. Faulk more complete, Campbell more raw. But NEITHER as much one or the other, BOTH more the other than one, much more so than common perception suggests. All-time greats both.

    • Josh Sanford

      I agree with you Robert. I’d like to know to what degree Faulk benefitted from an unstacked box due to the prolific passing that his offense could generate. And didn’t that missing defender help him as a receiver? I would assume that Campbell rarely if ever faced fewer than 8 men in the defensive front. I think if they switched places, we would all speak in more hushed tones about Earl Campbell.

      And just for fun, here is the most insane 6 consecutive game run that he ever put together:

      38 for 178
      33 for 203
      27 for 202
      36 for 157
      30 for 130
      31 for 206

      During that span, he caught one pass for 8 yards.

      • Josh Sanford

        I found non-overlapping 6-game spans of Faulk in which he totaled (rushing and receiving) 1114 yards and 1053 yards. Those compare very well to Campbell’s 1076 + 8 total. And Faulk had two such spans!

      • Richie

        I’m sure the other weapons on the Rams helped Faulk as a runner and receiver.

        But don’t forget that as a rookie, Faulk ran for 1,200+ and caught 500+ (at 10 yards per catch), with Jim Harbaugh and Don Majkowski at QB and Sean Jackson and Floyd Turner the top receiving threats.

      • sacramento gold miners

        During his peak, Campbell was feared just like Jim Brown was, it was just ridiculous the way defenders bounced off him. Of course, that kind of workload caught up with Campbell, and the Oilers went downhill as a team too.

        .

  • Richie

    Because I was curious, here are the top 20 NFL rushers, sorted by BMI.

    Jerome Bettis* 5-11 252 35.1
    Jamal Lewis 5-11 240 33.5
    Emmitt Smith* 5-9 221 32.6
    Earl Campbell* 5-11 232 32.4
    Ricky Williams 5-10 226 32.4
    Frank Gore 5-9 215 31.7
    LaDainian Tomlinson 5-10 221 31.7
    Thomas Jones 5-10 220 31.6
    Priest Holmes 5-9 213 31.5
    Shaun Alexander 5-11 225 31.4
    Maurice Jones-Drew 5-8 205 31.2
    Willis McGahee 6-0 228 30.9
    Barry Sanders* 5-8 203 30.9
    Fred Taylor 6-1 234 30.9
    Earnest Byner 5-10 215 30.8
    Marshall Faulk* 5-10 211 30.3
    Gerald Riggs 6-1 230 30.3
    Roger Craig 6-0 222 30.1
    Freeman McNeil 5-11 216 30.1
    Marshawn Lynch 5-11 215 30.0

    • Four Touchdowns

      What is BMI? And what are the asterisks for?

      • sn0mm1s

        Body Mass index. Basically a height/weight ratio.

        • Four Touchdowns

          Ah, thanks. I’ve heard of body mass index but I thought it might be some advanced analytic I never heard of, LOL.

      • The asterisks are for HOFers.

  • Here’s an analogy: If Marshall Faulk plays with the Oilers back then he becomes Lydell Mitchell. What do you think?

  • Four Touchdowns

    BTW, I’m relatively new to this site — is there a “best of” for articles on this site? There’s so much content here and I’d love to read Chase’s best stuff.

    If not, any recommendations (with links, please)? Thanks!

  • Travis Jones

    Good lord, in 1999, Marshall Faulk had an AV of 25!! Just wanted to point that out.

    I need to go through the archives to see what the highest AV’s are of all time. I haven’t seen any that high that I recall

  • Travis Jones

    Good lord, in 1999, Marshall Faulk had an AV of 25!! Just wanted to point that out. Second highest single-season AV ever.

    • Richie

      The Play Index is your friend.

      Faulk’s 25 AV ties OJ Simpson for the 2nd-most in a single season. LaDainian Tomlinson put up a 26 in 2006.

      http://pfref.com/tiny/qjyJU