This chart makes me think... Why don't we see more WRs running the ball?

a) start empty
b) motion WR to backfield
c) run if conditions are favorable https://twitter.com/Cardanski0/status/1286290741845786624

I mean, the skills should be transferrable...

1/ RBs are largely replaceable

2/ RBs targets < WR targets

3/ outside runs > inside runs

Just spit balling here, but the idea of running with 1x player at a high rate seems like it would dictate the RB size profile.... Reduce the workload and you'd be able to run the same plays with a differently built players.

And finally, this all boils down to the idea of space.

A run play utilizes space close of the line of scrimmage, the defense only had to focus on that area, with a bias to the middle of the field.

A pass play forces a defense to defend everywhere (etc. screens, deep passes, and no bias to L-R-M).

Why would you run ~half of your plays that only force a defense to defend ~25% of the field?

At the snap, if a RB is on the field - the defense knows they typically will be defending that players close to the line, or occasionally on a pass/screen.

Additionally, they know what that RB is good at, and they know *if* it's a run, who going to get the ball 95% of the time.

If you ran more with WRs; first, the defense now has to assume they need to defend everywhere.

Next, if you did choose to run, how does the defense know which WR will run *after* they make their personal substitutions?

A player like Shenault or AJB look a whole lot different than a Hill or a Ruggs.

Think a teams LBs are terrible against the pass? Line up Shenault at RB a few times, get the LB sub and then split him out side.

Think a teams CB core is shallow? Why are you even playing a RB at all?

TLDR;
Running backs shouldn't have a monopoly on carries, and the future is all WRs.