The deep dive into Zach Charbonnet’s profile as a runner is a story for another day, but the general skinny on the UCLA Bruin is that he’s a classic size/speed workhorse; Fusue Vue has been comping him to Nick Chubb since Charbonnet was in high school (an assertion I would prove if Fusue didn’t have three different Twitter accounts get banned in the meantime). Generally, you expect a guy in that archetype to be a two-down pounder, but some of Charbonnet’s numbers speak to a level of receiving ability that transcends such a role.

Such a reality would be big for Charbonnet’s fantasy potential. Of the 110 backs who have averaged at least 15 fantasy points per game (roughly the threshold for RB1-level production in PPR leagues) in a single season in the last decade, only 36 of them (32.7%) did so without averaging at least three receptions per game.

Even less attainable for backs without sizable receiving roles is truly elite fantasy production, as during the same 10-year timeframe, only seven of the 34 runners that averaged at least 20 fantasy points per game (roughly the threshold for an RB3-or-better season) did so while averaging fewer than three receptions per game.

If Charbonnet is going to produce big-time fantasy seasons in the NFL, he’s probably going to need to contribute heavily in the passing game. His college target share numbers and receptions totals (marks in the 84th and 77th percentiles, respectively) speak well to that possibility, but too often revealing themselves to be mirage metrics, those figures need to represent more than a barrage of simple screen passes and checkdowns. Those impressive data points need to be propped up by bona fide pass-catching ability that will allow Charbonnet to stay on the field on all three downs. Let’s take a closer look:

On the whole, Charbonnet’s usage as a receiver at both Michigan and UCLA does not speak particularly well to the idea that he is some sort of pass-catching weapon. I’ve kind of been dancing around this concept throughout this article, but a distinction needs to be made between running backs who are simply capable of catching the ball when they are wide open in the flat and running backs who can command defensive attention on actual pass routes beyond the line of scrimmage. Either of those two players can garner high receptions totals, but only the latter is doing so due to his inherent ability rather than circumstantial opportunity.

The fly in the ointment of Charbonnet’s receiving production is the fact that his average target occurred more than a full yard behind the line of scrimmage. That doesn’t mean that he’s bad, but if we’re using high-end Target Share and Catch Rate numbers as evidence of Charbonnet’s receiving chops, we need to acknowledge that the degree of difficulty on the passes thrown his way was low enough to call the validity of that evidence into question.

We can throw more cold water on that evidence with the revelation that (using data from Sports Info Solutions) basic, dump-off type routes (screens, flat routes, swing passes, etc.) made up more than three-quarters of Charbonnet’s route tree in college, a higher portion than for 83% of college backs in the last five seasons. Similarly, Charbonnet’s 25th-percentile mark in overall Route Diversity indicates that there’s not a whole lot in his bag as a route runner.

We can generally define Charbonnet’s “go-to” routes as those that he a) ran most often, and b) was targeted on most frequently. Using nationwide numbers for route percentages and targets per route run data, Charbonnet’s qualifying routes are the following:

Our guy was quite the swing pass maven in college, running the route nearly twice as often as backs across the college football landscape do, while the flat and angle routes on his toolbelt were also used relatively frequently. Most encouraging among these three is the angle route, which (according to NFL yards per route run numbers) is one of the few most valuable pass routes on the running back tree.

Charbonnet was targeted more frequently on those routes than the respective CFB-wide rates, but just barely. For reference, the average college back would be expected to earn 3.9 targets on the 12 angle routes that Charbonnet ran during his amateur career, while Charbonnet earned 4 actual targets on those routes. Similarly, the 29 targets he earned on swing routes don’t represent a notably larger total than the 28.1 targets we’d expect of an average college back running the same number of swing routes as Charbonnet ran.

This discussion also sort of buries the lede on the idea that “earning” targets is a bit of a misnomer when it comes to the basic route types that made up the vast majority of Charbonnet’s total route inventory. There are certainly ways to screw up while running a swing route in the backfield, but for the most part, the quarterback is either going to checkdown to you given the circumstances of the pass rush and coverage downfield, or he’s not. Charbonnet isn’t “getting open” on these dump-offs, he’s simply available just in case.

That’s not the case on more advanced route types that entail the running back venturing downfield and engaging with defenders in coverage, of which the angle route is one. We’ve already demonstrated that Charbonnet was not earning targets on angle routes appreciably more often than would be expected of an average college player, but that’s also true of his performance on advanced route types in general. His actual target earnings on those route types was 12, giving him a Route-Adjusted Target Earnings mark of 95.5% on advanced routes (relative to the 12.6 targets we’d expect on average). Ho hum.

The path to three-down potential in the NFL for a guy like Charbonnet is the Leonard Fournette model. Charbonnet caught more passes in college than Fournette did, but Fournette also came out of LSU with a respectable Target Share (his 11.5% was in the 74th percentile) and has since carved out a role as a size/speed workhorse who contributes in the passing game with a large helping of checkdowns and swing passes. Nobody is confusing Fournette for James White, but he has reliable enough hands to stay on the field on third down, and has multiple 80+ target seasons on his resumé to show for it.

The truth, however, is that such an outcome -- while conceivable -- is not probable. Fournette’s 2019 season with the Jaguars is the only campaign in the last six years in which an NFL running back earned more than 39 targets while having basic route types make up no less than 73% (a seemingly arbitrary cutoff point that I chose in an attempt to isolate runners with basic route percentages within five points of Charbonnet’s college number) of his total tree. If your receiving capabilities are limited to checkdowns and screens, your receiving production is going to be very dependent on situational factors that are impossible to predict, and your ceiling is likely capped as a result. That reality is reflected here:

Indeed, there have been 41 individual seasons in which running backs drafted since 2019 (2018 is as far back as college route data at Sports Info Solutions goes) averaged at least two receptions per game; those backs collectively averaged a 74th-percentile Route Diversity mark in college, and only five of those seasons (12%) came from backs whose college route trees were below the 50th percentile in diversity. If Charbonnet ever averages multiple receptions per game during the course of an NFL season, only Ty Johnson will have accomplished the same feat after having a less diverse route tree in college.

Despite receptions totals, market share numbers, and even alignment data (Charbonnet lined up out wide or in the slot on 10% of passing snaps in college, a 60th-percentile mark) that paint the picture of a high-end receiving weapon out of the backfield, a closer look simply isn’t as kind (just three of Charbonnet’s 96 career targets came while lined up out wide or in the slot, and only two of those on non-screen plays).

His hands are probably soft enough that he’ll be functional as a screen and swing pass guy at the next level, but don’t get out over your skis on Charbonnet’s potential in the receiving game.