(01-04-2020, 08:13 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2020, 04:24 AM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ]What a terrible way to look at it...
I'm not really a fan of Fournette at all, but you could look at every RB in the league and take away their longest carry of each game and all of their numbers are going to drop...
It's not terrible, he's just clearly not a statistician able to explain what he's talking about. If you want to get an idea of his consistency you can do things like removing outlier runs and calculating a few things. Ideally you'd want your running back to be consistent in getting good yardage on each run, something like 4, 5, 4, 5, 3, 5, 6 for a 4.5 yard average. Not something like 12, -3, 1, 6, 15, -4 for 4.5 average. The first one helps you get to field goal range, the second one gets you a couple of punts.
The below article touches on the unimportance of a strong running game in the modern NFL, and essentially what a stupid draft selection Fournette was.
https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/whic...-playoffs/
The top 4 running teams from this season made the playoffs.
The top 4 passing teams did not.
The myth that having a strong running game is not important in the "modern NFL" is just not true.
(01-05-2020, 07:10 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2020, 08:13 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]It's not terrible, he's just clearly not a statistician able to explain what he's talking about. If you want to get an idea of his consistency you can do things like removing outlier runs and calculating a few things. Ideally you'd want your running back to be consistent in getting good yardage on each run, something like 4, 5, 4, 5, 3, 5, 6 for a 4.5 yard average. Not something like 12, -3, 1, 6, 15, -4 for 4.5 average. The first one helps you get to field goal range, the second one gets you a couple of punts.
The below article touches on the unimportance of a strong running game in the modern NFL, and essentially what a stupid draft selection Fournette was.
https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/whic...-playoffs/
The top 4 running teams from this season made the playoffs.
The top 4 passing teams did not.
The myth that having a strong running game is not important in the "modern NFL" is just not true.
First of all, good job letting a one year sample overrule that articles 10 years of data. Logic 101 right there.
Second, I have a feeling you're looking at largely useless overall team stats, and not efficiency stats. Because if you were you would see that the top 4 passing teams (and 8 of the top 10) by passing DVOA did make the playoffs. And the second and third by rushing DVOA did not make it, and only 5 of the top 10 overall.
Third, that article clearly showed that good running teams can win games, sometimes. It looks like if you're among the best rushing teams in the league you have about a 50/50 chance of being a winning team.
(01-05-2020, 07:10 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-04-2020, 08:13 AM)SeldomRite Wrote: [ -> ]It's not terrible, he's just clearly not a statistician able to explain what he's talking about. If you want to get an idea of his consistency you can do things like removing outlier runs and calculating a few things. Ideally you'd want your running back to be consistent in getting good yardage on each run, something like 4, 5, 4, 5, 3, 5, 6 for a 4.5 yard average. Not something like 12, -3, 1, 6, 15, -4 for 4.5 average. The first one helps you get to field goal range, the second one gets you a couple of punts.
The below article touches on the unimportance of a strong running game in the modern NFL, and essentially what a stupid draft selection Fournette was.
https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/whic...-playoffs/
The top 4 running teams from this season made the playoffs.
The top 4 passing teams did not.
The myth that having a strong running game is not important in the "modern NFL" is just not true.
Being a a good running team is good thing. Especially in short yardage/red zone situations. However, 3 of those teams essentially have a committee of backs. And there are not many people on they planet built like Derrick Henry.
Essentially, you do not need an All-Pro RB, just a group of above average ones, a line that is above average when working together, good blocking TE's, and a focused scheme that utilizes all of their strengths.
(01-05-2020, 07:48 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2020, 07:10 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]The top 4 running teams from this season made the playoffs.
The top 4 passing teams did not.
The myth that having a strong running game is not important in the "modern NFL" is just not true.
First of all, good job letting a one year sample overrule that articles 10 years of data. Logic 101 right there.
Second, I have a feeling you're looking at largely useless overall team stats, and not efficiency stats. Because if you were you would see that the top 4 passing teams (and 8 of the top 10) by passing DVOA did make the playoffs. And the second and third by rushing DVOA did not make it, and only 5 of the top 10 overall.
Third, that article clearly showed that good running teams can win games, sometimes. It looks like if you're among the best rushing teams in the league you have about a 50/50 chance of being a winning team.
Whatever.
If you're among one of the 32 teams in the NFL you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being a winning team.
The game hasn't changed much over the last 20 or so years. The problem is that fans want to see "exciting" games with long passes and lots of scoring. A "slug it out" running/defensive low scoring kind of game bores too many people, though those are some of the best games.
Again, my response to
Neverrite Seldomrite was pointing out that having a strong running game is important in the "modern NFL". The key is to have at least a "decent" passing game to supplement the running game. The Titans are a very good example of this.
(01-05-2020, 08:06 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2020, 07:48 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]First of all, good job letting a one year sample overrule that articles 10 years of data. Logic 101 right there.
Second, I have a feeling you're looking at largely useless overall team stats, and not efficiency stats. Because if you were you would see that the top 4 passing teams (and 8 of the top 10) by passing DVOA did make the playoffs. And the second and third by rushing DVOA did not make it, and only 5 of the top 10 overall.
Third, that article clearly showed that good running teams can win games, sometimes. It looks like if you're among the best rushing teams in the league you have about a 50/50 chance of being a winning team.
Whatever.
If you're among one of the 32 teams in the NFL you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being a winning team.
The game hasn't changed much over the last 20 or so years. The problem is that fans want to see "exciting" games with long passes and lots of scoring. A "slug it out" running/defensive low scoring kind of game bores too many people, though those are some of the best games.
Again, my response to Neverrite Seldomrite was pointing out that having a strong running game is important in the "modern NFL". The key is to have at least a "decent" passing game to supplement the running game. The Titans are a very good example of this.
When you clearly don’t know what someone is talking about, just respond with “whatever”.
Love it.
The Titans aren't even a good example, as they were #6 in pass DVOA and that's including the Mariota suckage to start the season.
The Eagles are really the only decent option...10th in rush DVOA and 17th in passing.
Every other strong rushing attack in the playoffs also had a very good passing attack.
Upper with some uppercuts lol.
There is no argument that a strong passing attack is more important, but that seems so obvious by now its fruitless to discuss. My stance is just that analytics doesn't appreciate the tactical advantage being able to effectively run the ball gives a team both in the regular season but more so in the playoffs. Theres a reason every coach says they want to run the ball well and stop the run, and its not just because they are all brainwashed into thinking it matters, more so because its a key component of how football actually works.
Take a look at this years playoff field. Most of these are good passing attacks too, however essentially the entire field are at least average at running the ball. Every team who was below average at running the ball efficiently missed the playoffs.
2019 playoff teams by rush DVOA
Ravens: #1
Packers: #4
Titans: #5
Seahawks: #6
Eagles: #10
Texans: #11
Saints: #12
49ers: #13
Chiefs: #14
Vikings: #15
Pats: #16
Bills:#17
In the last 3 seasons, 7 teams have made the playoffs with a below average rushing DVOA (2017, 2018 and 2019)
2017:
Bills: #19
Vikings: #18
2018:
Cowboys: #18
Bears: #19
Eagles:#27
Texans: #26
2019:
Bills: #17
So 5 out of those 7 were still essentially barely below average.
(01-05-2020, 08:51 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]The Titans aren't even a good example, as they were #6 in pass DVOA and that's including the Mariota suckage to start the season.
The Eagles are really the only decent option...10th in rush DVOA and 17th in passing.
Every other strong rushing attack in the playoffs also had a very good passing attack.
So a balanced, top 10ish offense is a key to succeeding? No way!
I haven't heard anyone saying having a strong passing attack is bad, they've said having ONLY a strong passing attack is not a recipe for success. Which is true.
The key philosophical mistake teams and coaches make is trying to build the passing game from the run and not trying to set up the run with pass. Ok so wide zone teams kinda build around the run style but you will rarely see Shanny hammering his RBs into heavy boxes , rather he'd spread them out and run.
(01-06-2020, 12:55 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]The key philosophical mistake teams and coaches make is trying to build the passing game from the run and not trying to set up the run with pass. Ok so wide zone teams kinda build around the run style but you will rarely see Shanny hammering his RBs into heavy boxes , rather he'd spread them out and run.
Everyone has better execution and game plans than what we have seen around these parts. The retained people were noted as liking Armstead when they drafted him. Kinda of seems like the same guy at a lower draft spot. I wouldn't be surprised if they let Fournette go.
(01-06-2020, 01:35 PM)MoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2020, 12:55 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]The key philosophical mistake teams and coaches make is trying to build the passing game from the run and not trying to set up the run with pass. Ok so wide zone teams kinda build around the run style but you will rarely see Shanny hammering his RBs into heavy boxes , rather he'd spread them out and run.
Everyone has better execution and game plans than what we have seen around these parts. The retained people were noted as liking Armstead when they drafted him. Kinda of seems like the same guy at a lower draft spot. I wouldn't be surprised if they let Fournette go.
Hard to know what the coaching staff actually thinks but everyone's been impressed with Fournette there it seems..the front office will make the decision but as we know the coaching has a big say in matters now too
(01-06-2020, 01:35 PM)MoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2020, 12:55 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]The key philosophical mistake teams and coaches make is trying to build the passing game from the run and not trying to set up the run with pass. Ok so wide zone teams kinda build around the run style but you will rarely see Shanny hammering his RBs into heavy boxes , rather he'd spread them out and run.
Everyone has better execution and game plans than what we have seen around these parts. The retained people were noted as liking Armstead when they drafted him. Kinda of seems like the same guy at a lower draft spot. I wouldn't be surprised if they let Fournette go.
Why would you just let him go when he has a year left on his rookie contract? You could do a whole lot worse.
I'd be very surprised, myself.
(01-06-2020, 02:06 PM)Rico Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2020, 01:35 PM)MoJagFan Wrote: [ -> ]Everyone has better execution and game plans than what we have seen around these parts. The retained people were noted as liking Armstead when they drafted him. Kinda of seems like the same guy at a lower draft spot. I wouldn't be surprised if they let Fournette go.
Why would you just let him go when he has a year left on his rookie contract? You could do a whole lot worse.
I'd be very surprised, myself.
Bah I thought he had an option to pick up. Jeez based on the salary numbers he is an awful cap hit no matter what. Yeah we wouldn't let him go. I blew it this thread
I guess I need to resolve to read better in 2020.
From Evan Silva:
Each year ~ this time you’ll read & hear folks note that teams in the playoffs are good at running the ball, their evidence that “the running game isn’t dead,” or something like that.
It’s true, the running game isn’t dead.
But no one said it was; this is a strawman argument.
But this is a fact: the run game tends to be far less efficient than the pass game.
And what those initial folks don’t mention is that playoff teams tend to excel in *multiple phases.*
Yes, they're usually good at running.
They’re also usually good at passing & playing DEF.
They’re good teams good in multiple phases.
And because they win a lot, they protect leads & *have the opportunity* to run more.
That’s why it’s cringeworthy whenever you see team pass & rush attempt totals used to make direct arguments about how teams should or shouldn’t play.
He used a lot of words to say very little
(01-08-2020, 10:06 PM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ]Singletary was one of my favorites in this past draft. I wanted him so bad.
Seen this the other day and thought I'd put it up here for anybody who hasn't seen it.
https://twitter.com/LateRoundQB/status/1...1929230336
Matches what my eyes told me, he gets stuffed a lot.