The Trent Richardson Thread (2 Viewers)

[MoveToSkypager]

That's a lesson people learn early on. If you want your statistics to have meaning, you don't use arbitrary values to sort them.

Feel free to look at post #2251 where I already addressed this. Any other dead horses you'd like to beat?
If carries inside the 3 yard line or plays when 2 yards or less are needed for a 1st down are "arbitrary" definitions of "short yardage situations," what definition, then, shall I use?

Picking the 5 yard line is just as arbitrary as picking the 3 yard line. I thought my definitions woked fine for short-yardage. If someone can point me to the approved, authoritative source for the definition of "short-yardage," I would be happy to use that criteria.

I am unaware of a universal source, because they can't exist. The Colts are unique to all other teams (like all teams are unique to other teams). So in this particular situation you'd need to define what short yardage means based on the Colts RBs production in particular situations. Since you want to compare TR to DB, what you should have done is an array of short yardage definitions. From the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If you see that these values are wildly different, then how can you in good conscience use a particular definition if you cannot show what short yardage means? Or why you chose your particular definition? Or the significance of your definition? You didn't do this. You just picked one and rolled with it. I hope you didn't shop for stats that fit your conclusion, which is a sin if your goal is to find truth and not merely engage in statistic-rhetoric. If perhaps many of the values tell the same story, then you are probably OK, since it appears that the outcomes of these situations are similar. But that didn't happen.

What, you want me to make a histogram and calculate 3 standard deviations? C'mon...

I don't understand a scenario where suggesting 5 yards and less should be considered short yardage.

Use whatever stats you want. I assume you posted them because you wanted them to mean something to someone.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

That's a lesson people learn early on. If you want your statistics to have meaning, you don't use arbitrary values to sort them.

Feel free to look at post #2251 where I already addressed this. Any other dead horses you'd like to beat?

If carries inside the 3 yard line or plays when 2 yards or less are needed for a 1st down are "arbitrary" definitions of "short yardage situations," what definition, then, shall I use?

Picking the 5 yard line is just as arbitrary as picking the 3 yard line. I thought my definitions woked fine for short-yardage. If someone can point me to the approved, authoritative source for the definition of "short-yardage," I would be happy to use that criteria.

I am unaware of a universal source, because they can't exist. The Colts are unique to all other teams (like all teams are unique to other teams). So in this particular situation you'd need to define what short yardage means based on the Colts RBs production in particular situations. Since you want to compare TR to DB, what you should have done is an array of short yardage definitions. From the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If you see that these values are wildly different, then how can you in good conscience use a particular definition if you cannot show what short yardage means? Or why you chose your particular definition? Or the significance of your definition? You didn't do this. You just picked one and rolled with it. I hope you didn't shop for stats that fit your conclusion, which is a sin if your goal is to find truth and not merely engage in statistic-rhetoric. If perhaps many of the values tell the same story, then you are probably OK, since it appears that the outcomes of these situations are similar. But that didn't happen.

What, you want me to make a histogram and calculate 3 standard deviations? C'mon...

I don't understand a scenario where suggesting 5 yards and less should be considered short yardage.

At the goaline?

 

[Jrodicus]

That's a lesson people learn early on. If you want your statistics to have meaning, you don't use arbitrary values to sort them.

Feel free to look at post #2251 where I already addressed this. Any other dead horses you'd like to beat?

If carries inside the 3 yard line or plays when 2 yards or less are needed for a 1st down are "arbitrary" definitions of "short yardage situations," what definition, then, shall I use?

Picking the 5 yard line is just as arbitrary as picking the 3 yard line. I thought my definitions woked fine for short-yardage. If someone can point me to the approved, authoritative source for the definition of "short-yardage," I would be happy to use that criteria.

I am unaware of a universal source, because they can't exist. The Colts are unique to all other teams (like all teams are unique to other teams). So in this particular situation you'd need to define what short yardage means based on the Colts RBs production in particular situations. Since you want to compare TR to DB, what you should have done is an array of short yardage definitions. From the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If you see that these values are wildly different, then how can you in good conscience use a particular definition if you cannot show what short yardage means? Or why you chose your particular definition? Or the significance of your definition? You didn't do this. You just picked one and rolled with it. I hope you didn't shop for stats that fit your conclusion, which is a sin if your goal is to find truth and not merely engage in statistic-rhetoric. If perhaps many of the values tell the same story, then you are probably OK, since it appears that the outcomes of these situations are similar. But that didn't happen.

What, you want me to make a histogram and calculate 3 standard deviations? C'mon...

I don't understand a scenario where suggesting 5 yards and less should be considered short yardage.

At the goaline?

Misnomer? The goal line is at the goal line. The 5 yard line is...y'know....15 feet away from that.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

That's a lesson people learn early on. If you want your statistics to have meaning, you don't use arbitrary values to sort them.

Feel free to look at post #2251 where I already addressed this. Any other dead horses you'd like to beat?

If carries inside the 3 yard line or plays when 2 yards or less are needed for a 1st down are "arbitrary" definitions of "short yardage situations," what definition, then, shall I use?

Picking the 5 yard line is just as arbitrary as picking the 3 yard line. I thought my definitions woked fine for short-yardage. If someone can point me to the approved, authoritative source for the definition of "short-yardage," I would be happy to use that criteria.

I am unaware of a universal source, because they can't exist. The Colts are unique to all other teams (like all teams are unique to other teams). So in this particular situation you'd need to define what short yardage means based on the Colts RBs production in particular situations. Since you want to compare TR to DB, what you should have done is an array of short yardage definitions. From the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If you see that these values are wildly different, then how can you in good conscience use a particular definition if you cannot show what short yardage means? Or why you chose your particular definition? Or the significance of your definition? You didn't do this. You just picked one and rolled with it. I hope you didn't shop for stats that fit your conclusion, which is a sin if your goal is to find truth and not merely engage in statistic-rhetoric. If perhaps many of the values tell the same story, then you are probably OK, since it appears that the outcomes of these situations are similar. But that didn't happen.

What, you want me to make a histogram and calculate 3 standard deviations? C'mon...

I don't understand a scenario where suggesting 5 yards and less should be considered short yardage.

At the goaline?

Misnomer? The goal line is at the goal line. The 5 yard line is...y'know....15 feet away from that.

I've wasted enough time. Might as well have a discussion with my shoe.Read your question and my answer again. Maybe you'll figure it out.

 

[Jrodicus]

That's a lesson people learn early on. If you want your statistics to have meaning, you don't use arbitrary values to sort them.

Feel free to look at post #2251 where I already addressed this. Any other dead horses you'd like to beat?

If carries inside the 3 yard line or plays when 2 yards or less are needed for a 1st down are "arbitrary" definitions of "short yardage situations," what definition, then, shall I use?

Picking the 5 yard line is just as arbitrary as picking the 3 yard line. I thought my definitions woked fine for short-yardage. If someone can point me to the approved, authoritative source for the definition of "short-yardage," I would be happy to use that criteria.

I am unaware of a universal source, because they can't exist. The Colts are unique to all other teams (like all teams are unique to other teams). So in this particular situation you'd need to define what short yardage means based on the Colts RBs production in particular situations. Since you want to compare TR to DB, what you should have done is an array of short yardage definitions. From the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If you see that these values are wildly different, then how can you in good conscience use a particular definition if you cannot show what short yardage means? Or why you chose your particular definition? Or the significance of your definition? You didn't do this. You just picked one and rolled with it. I hope you didn't shop for stats that fit your conclusion, which is a sin if your goal is to find truth and not merely engage in statistic-rhetoric. If perhaps many of the values tell the same story, then you are probably OK, since it appears that the outcomes of these situations are similar. But that didn't happen.

What, you want me to make a histogram and calculate 3 standard deviations? C'mon...

I don't understand a scenario where suggesting 5 yards and less should be considered short yardage.

At the goaline?

Misnomer? The goal line is at the goal line. The 5 yard line is...y'know....15 feet away from that.

I've wasted enough time. Might as well have a discussion with my shoe.Read your question and my answer again. Maybe you'll figure it out.

Maybe you and your shoe can debate Hail Mary passes in the red zone?

If anyone is taking wagers on that discussion, my money is on the shoe to cover.

 

[Jrodicus]

Pep said preseason he wanted a RBBC. He said later in the year he still wanted a RBBC.

He wanted a RBBC because he was being nice in saying that he didn't have a legit RB on the team....................then this happened. They traded a FIRST ROUNDER for Richardson. He proceeded to be absolutely horrific, and after his horrific play, Pep said again he wanted a RBBC. Not because he actually wanted a RBBC, but because what else is he going to say?

I think you forget that whole middle part to the story which proves, yes PROVES, he really didn't want a RBBC, he wanted a good RB who could get most of the work and made a trade thinking they got that. They were wrong.

Week 1 they have a RBBC with Ballard and Bradshaw (2/3 - 1/3 split). Ballard gets hurt.

Week 2 they have a RBBC with Bradshaw and Brown (2/3 - 1/3 split). Brown misses a block in the 1st quarter that causes Luck to get strip-sacked. He misses another block in the 4th that causes Luck to get sacked.

Colts trade for TRich.

Week 3 they have a RBBC with Bradshaw TRich ( 54/37 - Brown got 3 carries). Bradshaw gets hurt.

If the goal was to have TRich be the lead back by himself, why was it RBBC with Bradshaw?

I guess I'm not really sure how you see this "PROVES" he didn't want a RBBC when everything they did to this point would suggest that they DID want a RBBC.

TRich got the bulk of the carries the next few weeks; IMO, that has more to do with their distrust of Brown than it suggest that they didn't want a RBBC. TRich was a liability in some situations, no doubt about it, so they were forced to go back to a RBBC with Brown.

Again, if Bradshaw doesn't get hurt, I think he and TRich are in a RBBC for the rest of the season.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Colts traded their 1st round pick for Richardson intending to have him play 2nd fiddle to Ahmad Bradshaw?

Look, Richardson SUCKED last year. He was god-awful. It doesn't mean he'll be that bad again in 2014 and beyond, but all these attempts at sugar-coating 2013 are foolish. Trent was BRUTAL. He was bad enough that he likely wouldn't have a job right now if he were just some random mid-rounder or FA. He was absolutely that bad.

The entire Colts offense looked horrible for a good chunk of the season - basically from the time Reggie went down until they benched DHB and started to use Da'Rick, Whalen, and Brazil more.

You're making it sound as if he literally had zero good plays last year. I don't think that's the case at all. There were a number of times he was hit at or behind the line of scrimmage and was able to get positive yardage. A 2 yard run doesn't look impressive on the stat sheet, but that doesn't take into account that he was hit 3 yards into the backfield.

It's plays like these that make me think it's a bit premature to think that the book on TRich has been written: http://sulia.com/channel/football/f/55af7ee8-c46d-449d-8c21-fabb315d6dd8/

 

[Jrodicus]

That's a lesson people learn early on. If you want your statistics to have meaning, you don't use arbitrary values to sort them.

Feel free to look at post #2251 where I already addressed this. Any other dead horses you'd like to beat?
If carries inside the 3 yard line or plays when 2 yards or less are needed for a 1st down are "arbitrary" definitions of "short yardage situations," what definition, then, shall I use?

Picking the 5 yard line is just as arbitrary as picking the 3 yard line. I thought my definitions woked fine for short-yardage. If someone can point me to the approved, authoritative source for the definition of "short-yardage," I would be happy to use that criteria.

I am unaware of a universal source, because they can't exist. The Colts are unique to all other teams (like all teams are unique to other teams). So in this particular situation you'd need to define what short yardage means based on the Colts RBs production in particular situations. Since you want to compare TR to DB, what you should have done is an array of short yardage definitions. From the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If you see that these values are wildly different, then how can you in good conscience use a particular definition if you cannot show what short yardage means? Or why you chose your particular definition? Or the significance of your definition? You didn't do this. You just picked one and rolled with it. I hope you didn't shop for stats that fit your conclusion, which is a sin if your goal is to find truth and not merely engage in statistic-rhetoric. If perhaps many of the values tell the same story, then you are probably OK, since it appears that the outcomes of these situations are similar. But that didn't happen.

What, you want me to make a histogram and calculate 3 standard deviations? C'mon...

I don't understand a scenario where suggesting 5 yards and less should be considered short yardage.

Use whatever stats you want. I assume you posted them because you wanted them to mean something to someone.

I just tried to find a reasonable definition of short yardage situations.

Football Outsiders uses a stat that they call "power success" to rank O-line. They define that as "runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer."

This lines up pretty well with how I defined short-yardage situations, with the exceptions that I included runs on 2nd down of 2 yards or fewer to go, and I included runs with 3 yards or less in goal-to-go situations.

It looks like my arbitrary definition at least lines up with the arbitrary definition created by others.

 

[fantasycurse42]

He was just tackled for a 2 yard loss.

 

[starks]

Will the colts look O-line in the first few rounds? Would love to see some help there.

 

[cstu]

If carries inside the 3 yard line or plays when 2 yards or less are needed for a 1st down are "arbitrary" definitions of "short yardage situations," what definition, then, shall I use?

Picking the 5 yard line is just as arbitrary as picking the 3 yard line. I thought my definitions woked fine for short-yardage. If someone can point me to the approved, authoritative source for the definition of "short-yardage," I would be happy to use that criteria.

Fair enough, I think both are useful stats to have.

 

[Jrodicus]

If carries inside the 3 yard line or plays when 2 yards or less are needed for a 1st down are "arbitrary" definitions of "short yardage situations," what definition, then, shall I use?

Picking the 5 yard line is just as arbitrary as picking the 3 yard line. I thought my definitions woked fine for short-yardage. If someone can point me to the approved, authoritative source for the definition of "short-yardage," I would be happy to use that criteria.

Fair enough, I think both are useful stats to have.

I agree. Carries inside the red zone would also be useful, but I considered that to be outside to scope of short yardage.

 

[pizzatyme]

The Colts wanted a RBBC. That doesn't mean they didn't want a lead back.

This thread has devolved into interpreting "coachspeak". We obviously have toouch time on our hands or are arguing to feel some sense of accomplishment.

The beauty of this hobby is that there are differing opinions. If you own TRich and think he's a chump, get what you can for him. If you think he's undervalued currently, go buy low.

The proof is in the pudding not in the interpretation of coachspeak.

 

[stbugs]

The Colts wanted a RBBC. That doesn't mean they didn't want a lead back.

This thread has devolved into interpreting "coachspeak". We obviously have toouch time on our hands or are arguing to feel some sense of accomplishment.

The beauty of this hobby is that there are differing opinions. If you own TRich and think he's a chump, get what you can for him. If you think he's undervalued currently, go buy low.

The proof is in the pudding not in the interpretation of coachspeak.

Really, they traded a first round pick for just another guy? Also, the backers of Trent are interpreting everything they can. The proof is in the 2.9 ypc.

 

[pizzatyme]

They traded for Trent as they were looking for a lead back in a RBBC.

Or maybe they thought they were getting the next Jim Brown?

 

[stbugs]

I think they were hoping to get their lead RB for a long time. If anyone thought he was Jim Brown, then the Browns don't trade him. You're interpreting coach speak if you think they got what they were hoping to get. Again, money talks and a 1st round pick is an investment you are hoping hits into a solid starter.

Since you seem to have a thing for them do you think the Seahawks are hoping to get a WR2 out of Harvin, i.e. they don't want a pro-bowler? They were probably hoping all Russell Wilson would be was a backup. It would have been better if he didn't challenge Flynn. No reason to hope for better especially for a first rounder.

 

[pizzatyme]

What exactly are you arguing?

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Competent teams love to trade their 1st round pick for a RBBC guy. Yep.

 

[amnesiac]

i didn't think it was possible for this thread to get any worse.

i was incorrect.

 

[Jrodicus]

Competent teams love to trade their 1st round pick for a RBBC guy. Yep.

When was the last time any team traded their RB for a 1st round pick? I mean seriously, what else do you compare the TRich trade to?

You're silly.

Are you really suggesting that Colts planned on not using Bradshaw at all after trading for TRich? C'mon.

Late 1sts were used on Ingram and David Wilson the past few years. Ingram hasn't even been part of a RBBC yet...still burried on the depth chart...and Wilson was on such a short leash he hardly had a chance to do anything.

Apparently competent teams also like to draft RBs late in the 1st round and then not use them.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Maybe the Colts just traded for Richardson to motivate Tatum Bell.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

"Clock killing" plays (4th quarter with a lead, forcing the opponent to burn timeouts):

Brown: 2 carries, 2 yards

TRich: 4 carries, -1 yards

Given that Brown had 7 carries for 45 yards and a TD with a 7 point lead in the 4th quarter of the Tennessee game alone, I have to question the validity of these stats.

Nonetheless, the situational nonsense has been debunked a thousand times in various Richardson threads. Removing short yardage carries doesn't help him. Removing goaline carries doesn't help him, Removing clock killing carries doesn't help him. Removing 3rd and long draw plays doesn't help him. As others have pointed out, it's a completely disingenuous argument where you have to bend the stats to absurd levels to get things even remotely close, at which point he's still embarassingly behind.

 

[ghostguy123]

Competent teams love to trade their 1st round pick for a RBBC guy. Yep.

When was the last time any team traded their RB for a 1st round pick? I mean seriously, what else do you compare the TRich trade to?

You're silly.

Are you really suggesting that Colts planned on not using Bradshaw at all after trading for TRich? C'mon.

Late 1sts were used on Ingram and David Wilson the past few years. Ingram hasn't even been part of a RBBC yet...still burried on the depth chart...and Wilson was on such a short leash he hardly had a chance to do anything.

Apparently competent teams also like to draft RBs late in the 1st round and then not use them.

Great examples................

Both WERE drafted to be lead backs. Unfortunately Ingram was terrible, and WIlson immediately fumbled and then cried on the sideline, and is now hurt.

Call me crazy, but the reason they are not playng is because of lack of production, not because the GM drafted them them in the first round to get 5 carries a game.

Are you even listening to yourself?

Also wondering if you even know what RBBC is. When a RB gets 2/3 of the carries, that is not RBBC, but you seem to think it is for some reason. 2/3 of the carries for a year is likely over 300 carries.

 

[IHEARTFF]

Maybe the Colts just traded for Richardson to motivate Tatum Bell.

 

[Jrodicus]

Competent teams love to trade their 1st round pick for a RBBC guy. Yep.

When was the last time any team traded their RB for a 1st round pick? I mean seriously, what else do you compare the TRich trade to?

You're silly.

Are you really suggesting that Colts planned on not using Bradshaw at all after trading for TRich? C'mon.

Late 1sts were used on Ingram and David Wilson the past few years. Ingram hasn't even been part of a RBBC yet...still burried on the depth chart...and Wilson was on such a short leash he hardly had a chance to do anything.

Apparently competent teams also like to draft RBs late in the 1st round and then not use them.

Great examples................

Both WERE drafted to be lead backs. Unfortunately Ingram was terrible, and WIlson immediately fumbled and then cried on the sideline, and is now hurt.

Call me crazy, but the reason they are not playng is because of lack of production, not because the GM drafted them them in the first round to get 5 carries a game.

Are you even listening to yourself?

Also wondering if you even know what RBBC is. When a RB gets 2/3 of the carries, that is not RBBC, but you seem to think it is for some reason. 2/3 of the carries for a year is likely over 300 carries.

I've been ignoring you because I hoped that if I stopped feeding the trolls they would go away. Apparently you have a crush?

Ingram was terrible? You about that? He had the highest YPC of any RB on their roster last season - 4.9. Thomas was only 3.7, but he got almost twice as many carries. Hmmm...must be something else? Try again. No, wait..scratch that. Please, don't try again.

I don't know what RBBC is and 2/3 is not RBBC. Ok, what is your correct definition? All you keep doing is telling me that the information I give and thresholds I chose are wrong, but you don't really say any rationale for what the correct definitions are (or even provide an alternate definition).

" 2/3 of the carries for a year is likely over 300 carries." If 300 carries were 2/3, then the total for the team would be 450 (hopefully you will at least agree on that, but I would totally not be surprised if you argued that). There were only 13 teams that had a total of more than 450 attempts last season; 8 teams didn't even have 400. So yeah, chances are that a RB with 2/3 of his teams carries would be well under 300.

In actuality, I don't think RBBC has anything to do with the number of carries; it has to do with how the players are used. But please, tell me the correct definition of RBBC. Here, let me google that for you: http://www.fftoolbox.com/fantasy_football_dictionary.cfm

And since you have a crush, I will tell you this once, and once only: no, I will not make out with you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfw5-wCVMNM

 

[ghostguy123]

Talking about ingram after ye was drafted, not 4 years later. He was drafted to be a starter and horse. He didn't get that much work because be wasn't good.

He is better now, and getting an expanding workload, go figure.

And I guess 2/3 would be under 300 if a guy plays for one of those 8 teams, unless that rb is actually good then they will run more.

Maybe I missed something over the years, but when rbs play good they get more carries than guys who don't. Weird.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Maybe the Jimmy Irsay traded for Richardson because he wanted extra help doing chores around the house.

 

[ghostguy123]

Maybe the Jimmy Irsay traded for Richardson because he wanted extra help doing chores around the house.

There has to be cheaper ways of getting that done, no? Still think maybe they traded for him for only short yardage situations. He is good at getting short amounts of yards.

 

[pizzatyme]

Why do some people continue to actively try to derail legitimate discussions?

This isn't your personal sandbox.

For those saying Richardson was brought to Indy to be anything other than part of a committee, will you please provide a link to the Head Coach or Offensive Coordinator saying such? I'm interested to read it. Not saying they didn't, just don't recall it being said.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Fishermen that pretend to be something other than what they are the worst interneters of all. These people dish it as much as they like, then pretend to be good citizens when they realize they have bitten off more than thew chew. It's a cowardly existence.

Edit = Trent Richardson sucks

 

[ghostguy123]

Why do some people continue to actively try to derail legitimate discussions?

This isn't your personal sandbox.

For those saying Richardson was brought to Indy to be anything other than part of a committee, will you please provide a link to the Head Coach or Offensive Coordinator saying such? I'm interested to read it. Not saying they didn't, just don't recall it being said.

The trade says they brought him in to be the starter and get the bulk of the RB workload.

If you trade a 1st for a RB to be a committee back, then you are a horrible GM.

So one of two things is true, they either traded for Trich to be the man and he flopped, or they are raging idiots.

 

[Jrodicus]

"Clock killing" plays (4th quarter with a lead, forcing the opponent to burn timeouts):

Brown: 2 carries, 2 yards

TRich: 4 carries, -1 yards

Given that Brown had 7 carries for 45 yards and a TD with a 7 point lead in the 4th quarter of the Tennessee game alone, I have to question the validity of these stats.

Nonetheless, the situational nonsense has been debunked a thousand times in various Richardson threads. Removing short yardage carries doesn't help him. Removing goaline carries doesn't help him, Removing clock killing carries doesn't help him. Removing 3rd and long draw plays doesn't help him. As others have pointed out, it's a completely disingenuous argument where you have to bend the stats to absurd levels to get things even remotely close, at which point he's still embarassingly behind.

This came up earlier and was addressed in post #2216. You seemed to disregard the "forcing the opponent to burn timeouts" part of the criteria.

The Colts had a 1 point lead, not 7, when they started their drive with about 8 minutes left to go in the game. Yes, Brown did carry the ball a number of times, but all of those carries came outside of the 2:00 minute warning and, more importantly, didn't force Tennessee to burn any timeouts (which was part of the criteria I used).

Before you start making accusations, questioning the validity of my statements, and say that I am bending stats, maybe you should make sure you know what you are talking about.

 

[Jrodicus]

Talking about ingram after ye was drafted, not 4 years later. He was drafted to be a starter and horse. He didn't get that much work because be wasn't good.

He is better now, and getting an expanding workload, go figure.

And I guess 2/3 would be under 300 if a guy plays for one of those 8 teams, unless that rb is actually good then they will run more.

Maybe I missed something over the years, but when rbs play good they get more carries than guys who don't. Weird.

What, no comment on the "correct" definition of RBBC? Please, enlighten me. Put up or shut up time.

 

[ghostguy123]

Talking about ingram after ye was drafted, not 4 years later. He was drafted to be a starter and horse. He didn't get that much work because be wasn't good.

He is better now, and getting an expanding workload, go figure.

And I guess 2/3 would be under 300 if a guy plays for one of those 8 teams, unless that rb is actually good then they will run more.

Maybe I missed something over the years, but when rbs play good they get more carries than guys who don't. Weird.

What, no comment on the "correct" definition of RBBC? Please, enlighten me. Put up or shut up time.

I think 2/3 is a pretty good indication that it is NOT a committee.

It also depends on the total carries for the team. If they have 600 carries and the "lead guy" gets 300, and the other 2-3 guys split the other 300, then that is also NOT a committee. That is a clear indication of there being a lead guy, but they also don't want to burn him out with 400+ carries, although it does happen from time to time.

If they have 350 carries as a team and the lead guy has 200, thats a committee.

If you want a full iron clad 200 page definition covering every example, I would need to be paid pretty well to drum that one up. If you would like to provide a specific example, I would be happy to tell you if it is a RBBC or not.

But hey, you are welcome to think the Colts traded for Trich to get 10 carries a game and be part of a RBBC. More power to ya.

 

[ghostguy123]

Starting right after this post, no more posts from me about Richardson.............. .........until he has either a 100 yard game, a 25 yard carry, or a game where he has at least 10 carries and average 4.5 YPC or more. This could be a while.

 

[pizzatyme]

So, 57% of 350 carries is a committee, but 50% of 600 carries is not a committee? Got it!

What about passing downs?

Is Forte in a committee?

 

[Jrodicus]

Talking about ingram after ye was drafted, not 4 years later. He was drafted to be a starter and horse. He didn't get that much work because be wasn't good.

He is better now, and getting an expanding workload, go figure.

And I guess 2/3 would be under 300 if a guy plays for one of those 8 teams, unless that rb is actually good then they will run more.

Maybe I missed something over the years, but when rbs play good they get more carries than guys who don't. Weird.

Ingram has only been in the league for 3 years, not 4.

"He didn't get that much work because be wasn't good. He is better now, and getting an expanding workload, go figure."

His rookie year, he had 122 carries and averaged 3.9 YPC.

This year he averaged 4.9 YPC and had....wait for it.....78 carries.

According to you, he got an expanded workload this year because he was doing better. That's a great theory...too bad it is the exact opposite of what reality is.

Am I on Punk'd or something? Seriously, I can't imagine someone being this wrong about so many things unless they were doing it deliberately. Ashton, is that you?

 

[Jrodicus]

So, 57% of 350 carries is a committee, but 50% of 600 carries is not a committee? Got it!

What about passing downs?

Is Forte in a committee?

Only if the game is on Thursday...or it's a full moon...or if the RB is left handed. Otherwise, it's not a RBBC.

 

[Jrodicus]

Fishermen that pretend to be something other than what they are the worst interneters of all. These people dish it as much as they like, then pretend to be good citizens when they realize they have bitten off more than thew chew. It's a cowardly existence.

Edit = Trent Richardson sucks

Starting right after this post, no more posts from me about Richardson.............. .........until he has either a 100 yard game, a 25 yard carry, or a game where he has at least 10 carries and average 4.5 YPC or more. This could be a while.

Well, there you have it.

 

[ghostguy123]

So, 57% of 350 carries is a committee, but 50% of 600 carries is not a committee? Got it!

What about passing downs?

Is Forte in a committee?

Yes, because a lead dog is going to get a certain workload, with a cap on how many carries in most cases. Teams don't generally run their guys into the ground. It does happen from time to time.

If there is a true lead dog on a team that only has 350 carries as a team, that lead dog is going to have around 300 of them.

Now, if a team had a TON of carries (600 is way too high of a number, just using it for the purposes of this), I would not expect the lead dog to have anywhere near as high of a percentage of those as in the other example.

This is actually pretty simple.

 

[Jrodicus]

Starting right after this post, no more posts from me about Richardson.............. .........until he has either a 100 yard game, a 25 yard carry, or a game where he has at least 10 carries and average 4.5 YPC or more. This could be a while.

Starting with this post, no more posts from me answering you.....until you either say something pertinent, coherent, or factual.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[pizzatyme]

DeMarco Murray had 217 of Dallas' 319 RB rushes this year per the data dominator (68%)

Lead back or RBBC?

 

[pizzatyme]

Knowshon Moreno had 242 of a possible 422 RB rushes for Denver this season (57%)

Lead dog or RBBC?

Before you answer, he also had 60 catches for 548 yards and 13 of Denver's 18 RB TDs.

 

[pizzatyme]

Oh crap, in the last 3 years no team has 600 RB rushes. And only 1 team has eclipsed 500 RB rushes. That ONE out of 96 teams in 3 years.

Apparently the Lead Back is dead!

 

[MoveToSkypager]

So, 57% of 350 carries is a committee, but 50% of 600 carries is not a committee? Got it!

What about passing downs?

Is Forte in a committee?

Only if the game is on Thursday...or it's a full moon...or if the RB is left handed. Otherwise, it's not a RBBC.

Teasing numbers to fit an argument is more you than anyone else in this thread.

 

[Archer]

Trent is training with me this offseason. He will be ready for next year.

 

[ghostguy123]

DeMarco Murray had 217 of Dallas' 319 RB rushes this year per the data dominator (68%)

Lead back or RBBC?

Definitely lead back based on the number/percentage of carries and plays he was in the game for the games he was active.

 

[Jrodicus]

So, 57% of 350 carries is a committee, but 50% of 600 carries is not a committee? Got it!

What about passing downs?

Is Forte in a committee?

Only if the game is on Thursday...or it's a full moon...or if the RB is left handed. Otherwise, it's not a RBBC.

Teasing numbers to fit an argument is more you than anyone else in this thread.

Dude, I set what I thought was a reasonable criteria for short yardage situations, then looked at the data - not the other way around. You apparently don't like the results, so you feel a need to accuse me of being unscrupulous.

By all means, feel free to make your own definition of short yardage situations, and look at the data yourself.

I'd offer to look at the data for you, using your definitions, but that'd be pointless since you obviously can't trust me not to cook the numbers.

You don't like my definition of short yardage situations? Fine. What definitions do you think I should've used?

 

[SproutDaddy]

Maybe the Colts just traded for Richardson to motivate Tatum Bell.

Never was funny......still isn't. Please let it die!

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Yes, Brown did carry the ball a number of times, but all of those carries came outside of the 2:00 minute warning and, more importantly, didn't force Tennessee to burn any timeouts (which was part of the criteria I used).

.

What? So it's only "killing the clock" on plays where the other team to uses a timeout? What if they have no timeouts left and it actually, you know....kills the clock?

 

[Jrodicus]

Yes, Brown did carry the ball a number of times, but all of those carries came outside of the 2:00 minute warning and, more importantly, didn't force Tennessee to burn any timeouts (which was part of the criteria I used).

.

What? So it's only "killing the clock" when you force the other team to use a timeout?

So you're saying that I should've counted runs with 6 minutes left in the 4th quarter as "clock killing" runs then? If I had called them "timeout inducing runs" instead, would that have gotten your approval?

What definition do you think I should've used? If you don't like the definition I used, fine, but at least suggest what you think a suitable replacement definition is.

Otherwise, feel free to have that conversation with your shoe.