Better pure runner> Emmitt Smith vs Fred Taylor (1 Viewer)

[Dman30]

It was built to get on a guy just long enough for the hole to open.

Great. You just described every offensive line in the history of mankind.

 

[Bri]

Chiming in 5 pages late.

I love Taylor's running style but Emmitt is the record holder and deserves his due.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Furthermore:

In the past 6 seasons, Fred Taylor has a total of 55 carries on third or fourth down with 1-3 yards to go. Compare that to Edgerrin James (129), Tomlinson (110), Portis (99), Alexander (99), or even Thomas Jones (98). He has the fewest short-yardage carries of any starting RB who's been in the league that long; he's #31 overall in that stat, just behind Deshaun Foster and Travis Henry (both of whom have outperformed him). On first and second down, Taylor is #7 overall in carries over that time span (1444).

So now we finally have the explanation for Taylor's high ypc averages. It's not that he's running better than anyone else--it's that his only gets the ball in situations which are conducive to high YPC. Of the top 20 RBs by first and second down carries, 19 of them have ypc over 4.0 (exception: Thomas Jones, 3.94). In a real sense, Taylor's inability to convert short yardage runs has improved his YPC averages--because they don't give him short yardage runs anymore.

He'll have to work on being a better pure runner than Deshaun Foster before he can make the claim of being a better pure runner than Emmitt Smith.

Nice work Calbear, I am more in line to agree with you with that stat breakdown. I don't think that Foster holds a candle to Taylor, but I am sure you were being facetious.I am curious, if you have the time could you post a similar breakdown of Tomlinson and his teammates?

 

[CalBear]

First and second down since 2002:

Tomlinson: 1843/8584 (4.66 ypc)

Turner: 193/1121 (5.81 ypc)

Neal: 76/291 (3.83 ypc)

Chatman: 68/376 (5.53 ypc)

Sproles: 34/143 (4.21 ypc)

Thind/fourth and short since 2002:

Tomlinson: 110/536 (4.87 ypc), 75 first downs

Neal: 26/69 (2.65 ypc), 21 first downs

Turner: 17/56 (3.29 ypc), 10 first downs

In case you needed verification that Tomlinson is amazing, he actually gains more yardage per carry on third/fourth and short than he does on first/second, and significantly outperforms his teammates in that situation. Note to Football Outsiders: Any metric you develop which doesn't have Tomlinson in the top two or three backs in the league has no connection to reality.

 

[Tau837]

So now we finally have the explanation for Taylor's high ypc averages. It's not that he's running better than anyone else--it's that his only gets the ball in situations which are conducive to high YPC.

I said this in post #136.

The bottom line is that ypc is really Taylor's best statistic, but it has been inflated because of his inability to succeed as a short yardage runner, thus causing him to have fewer short yardage carries that would have served to pull down his ypc.

 

[sn0mm1s]

First and second down since 2002:Tomlinson: 1843/8584 (4.66 ypc)Turner: 193/1121 (5.81 ypc)Neal: 76/291 (3.83 ypc)Chatman: 68/376 (5.53 ypc)Sproles: 34/143 (4.21 ypc)Thind/fourth and short since 2002:Tomlinson: 110/536 (4.87 ypc), 75 first downsNeal: 26/69 (2.65 ypc), 21 first downsTurner: 17/56 (3.29 ypc), 10 first downsIn case you needed verification that Tomlinson is amazing, he actually gains more yardage per carry on third/fourth and short than he does on first/second, and significantly outperforms his teammates in that situation. Note to Football Outsiders: Any metric you develop which doesn't have Tomlinson in the top two or three backs in the league has no connection to reality.

I wouldn't go that far. Their success rate stat is pretty logical in its defintion. Tomlinson has been ranked 2,1, and 7 in the last three years on that site. I have always thought Tomlinson was great. I think when all is said and done he will be 3rd all time behind Sanders and Payton.

 

[TD Ryan]

Emmitt Smith = one of the greatest RBs everFred Taylor = NOT one of the greatest RBs everlol @ "pure runner"... I'm pretty sure Michael Bennett is a better "pure runner" than both and I'm pretty sure that nobody cares.

I think your not understanding what "pure runner" means if you are using Bennett as an example.

you've got a bunch of Kenyans on your list?when you talk about pure runners, it's either Bennett(s) or Kenyans.good luck discrediting the great Emmitt Smith though.based on pure dancing ability, Emmitt was a better WR than Jerry Rice.

 

[CalBear]

In case you needed verification that Tomlinson is amazing, he actually gains more yardage per carry on third/fourth and short than he does on first/second, and significantly outperforms his teammates in that situation. Note to Football Outsiders: Any metric you develop which doesn't have Tomlinson in the top two or three backs in the league has no connection to reality.

I wouldn't go that far. Their success rate stat is pretty logical in its defintion. Tomlinson has been ranked 2,1, and 7 in the last three years on that site. I have always thought Tomlinson was great. I think when all is said and done he will be 3rd all time behind Sanders and Payton.

I agree that Football Outsider's success rate stat is logical in its definition. But it's completely useless, because it tells us that Ron Dayne is more successful than Ladanian Tomlinson. There are plenty of metrics one could invent which are logical; the question is whether they measure something meaningful or not. Any stat that rates Tomlinson's performance this year as #31 in the league is simply not useful or meaningful.

 

[Wadsworth]

In case you needed verification that Tomlinson is amazing, he actually gains more yardage per carry on third/fourth and short than he does on first/second, and significantly outperforms his teammates in that situation. Note to Football Outsiders: Any metric you develop which doesn't have Tomlinson in the top two or three backs in the league has no connection to reality.

I wouldn't go that far. Their success rate stat is pretty logical in its defintion. Tomlinson has been ranked 2,1, and 7 in the last three years on that site. I have always thought Tomlinson was great. I think when all is said and done he will be 3rd all time behind Sanders and Payton.

I agree that Football Outsider's success rate stat is logical in its definition. But it's completely useless, because it tells us that Ron Dayne is more successful than Ladanian Tomlinson. There are plenty of metrics one could invent which are logical; the question is whether they measure something meaningful or not. Any stat that rates Tomlinson's performance this year as #31 in the league is simply not useful or meaningful.

So metrics are only valid if they yield the results you expect?

 

[CalBear]

I agree that Football Outsider's success rate stat is logical in its definition. But it's completely useless, because it tells us that Ron Dayne is more successful than Ladanian Tomlinson. There are plenty of metrics one could invent which are logical; the question is whether they measure something meaningful or not. Any stat that rates Tomlinson's performance this year as #31 in the league is simply not useful or meaningful.

So metrics are only valid if they yield the results you expect?

No, but metrics are just numbers, and methods for generating numbers aren't useful unless those numbers say something meaningful. Are they predictive? Do they actually say something interesting about reality? Is the "success rate" stat a better indicator of RB performance than more traditional metrics? Football Outsiders begs the question--they need to prove that their metrics are useful instead of assuming they are.If you looked at every Tomlinson run this season, how often do you think you could realistically say, "Ron Dayne would have done a better job in that situation"? Conversely, if you looked at every Ron Dayne run, how many would you look at and say "gee, he surely did better than Tomlinson would have in that situation"? My answer is zero and zero.

 

[sn0mm1s]

I agree that Football Outsider's success rate stat is logical in its definition. But it's completely useless, because it tells us that Ron Dayne is more successful than Ladanian Tomlinson. There are plenty of metrics one could invent which are logical; the question is whether they measure something meaningful or not. Any stat that rates Tomlinson's performance this year as #31 in the league is simply not useful or meaningful.

So metrics are only valid if they yield the results you expect?

No, but metrics are just numbers, and methods for generating numbers aren't useful unless those numbers say something meaningful. Are they predictive? Do they actually say something interesting about reality? Is the "success rate" stat a better indicator of RB performance than more traditional metrics? Football Outsiders begs the question--they need to prove that their metrics are useful instead of assuming they are.If you looked at every Tomlinson run this season, how often do you think you could realistically say, "Ron Dayne would have done a better job in that situation"? Conversely, if you looked at every Ron Dayne run, how many would you look at and say "gee, he surely did better than Tomlinson would have in that situation"? My answer is zero and zero.

Well, it depends. The stats you posted earlier show that Neal has a higher success rate than Tomlinson in short yardage (he converted a higher number of his carries for first downs). No one claims that Neal is a better than Tomlinson, but he does make first downs at a higher rate than Tomlinson in apparently extreme short yardage (since his YPC is small, but success rate is high). If the bulk of Dayne's carries are 1 yard plunges he might be more successful than Tomlinson since he weighs 50 lbs more. Brandon Jacobs and Tiki Barber last year would be similar when you are 6'5'' and fresh coming in for 1 or 2 goal line carries your success rate will probably be better than a more winded Barber who is 60 lbs less. You aren't a better back, but you are put in the best possible position to succeed. Their DVOA stat is pretty good as far as stats go. It obviously can't really account for line or surrounding talent but it is a good measuring stick of the value of the back when they got to touch the ball.

 

[CalBear]

Well, it depends. The stats you posted earlier show that Neal has a higher success rate than Tomlinson in short yardage (he converted a higher number of his carries for first downs). No one claims that Neal is a better than Tomlinson, but he does make first downs at a higher rate than Tomlinson in apparently extreme short yardage (since his YPC is small, but success rate is high). If the bulk of Dayne's carries are 1 yard plunges he might be more successful than Tomlinson since he weighs 50 lbs more.

Lorenzo Neal is maybe the best fullback to play in the past 20 years. Ron Dayne is a fat tub of goo. I would take Tomlinson over Dayne at any down and distance, and I'm sure every NFL coach would as well.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Well, it depends. The stats you posted earlier show that Neal has a higher success rate than Tomlinson in short yardage (he converted a higher number of his carries for first downs). No one claims that Neal is a better than Tomlinson, but he does make first downs at a higher rate than Tomlinson in apparently extreme short yardage (since his YPC is small, but success rate is high). If the bulk of Dayne's carries are 1 yard plunges he might be more successful than Tomlinson since he weighs 50 lbs more.

Lorenzo Neal is maybe the best fullback to play in the past 20 years. Ron Dayne is a fat tub of goo. I would take Tomlinson over Dayne at any down and distance, and I'm sure every NFL coach would as well.

I agree Dayne is a fat tub of goo, but that doesn't mean he isn't better at getting 4th and inches than a back 50 lbs lighter no matter who the back is. Even Tomlinson's own coaches don't give him the ball on every rush. All things being equal you obviously take Tomlinson. After 25 carries, against a hard hitting D, it might be better to let Neal (or Dayne) take the pounding for a few inches.

 

[Pai Mei]

If you give both Emmitt Smith and Fred Taylor the same offensive lines and both are in their primes, who would you take as the better pure running back?I was arguing this with one of my GB's and wanted to get some other opinions.

Fred Taylor has more talent, he just never stayed healthy. I remember after 1998 when he had 1600 yards and 17 TDs as a rookie, he was in the same breath as Randy Moss in terms of first year wonders.

 

[Pai Mei]

The best runner I've ever seen was Bo Jackson. Fred Taylor had obviously more talent than Emmitt Smith, and neither one of them were close to Bo's talent level.

Best RB I've ever seen: Bo Jackson - bruising runner that broke tackles with ease, and also had breakaway speed that made DBs look slow. Unbelievable.

Best QB I've ever seen: Kurt Warner - circa 1999-2001 - Hands down he could throw a football like no other. Sure, some guys had the strong arm, or the great ability to read a defense. But what Kurt had that set him apart from anyone else I've ever seen is impossibly great touch. Kurt Warner wouldn't just hit the open receiver, he would place the ball PERFECTLY so that the WR would never even have to adjust or break stride. And he did it a lot even when the WR wasn't open. He was undefendable (until teams just started hammering him). It may not sound like much to you, but it made such a tremendous impact. I never said "wow" about so many throws than Warner's.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Furthermore:

In the past 6 seasons, Fred Taylor has a total of 55 carries on third or fourth down with 1-3 yards to go. Compare that to Edgerrin James (129), Tomlinson (110), Portis (99), Alexander (99), or even Thomas Jones (98). He has the fewest short-yardage carries of any starting RB who's been in the league that long; he's #31 overall in that stat, just behind Deshaun Foster and Travis Henry (both of whom have outperformed him). On first and second down, Taylor is #7 overall in carries over that time span (1444).

So now we finally have the explanation for Taylor's high ypc averages. It's not that he's running better than anyone else--it's that his only gets the ball in situations which are conducive to high YPC. Of the top 20 RBs by first and second down carries, 19 of them have ypc over 4.0 (exception: Thomas Jones, 3.94). In a real sense, Taylor's inability to convert short yardage runs has improved his YPC averages--because they don't give him short yardage runs anymore.

He'll have to work on being a better pure runner than Deshaun Foster before he can make the claim of being a better pure runner than Emmitt Smith.

Well said and thanks for posting all the meat and potatoes with the stats. His yard per carry is exactly what it is for the reasons you have stated. I don't want to bash Fred Taylor because I like Fred but then again, I didn't make a post asking to compare him to one of the greatest running backs.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

The best runner I've ever seen was Bo Jackson. Fred Taylor had obviously more talent than Emmitt Smith, and neither one of them were close to Bo's talent level.

Two things......go watch some clips of Barry Sanders and secondly, ah never mind.

 

[Wadsworth]

I agree that Football Outsider's success rate stat is logical in its definition. But it's completely useless, because it tells us that Ron Dayne is more successful than Ladanian Tomlinson. There are plenty of metrics one could invent which are logical; the question is whether they measure something meaningful or not. Any stat that rates Tomlinson's performance this year as #31 in the league is simply not useful or meaningful.

So metrics are only valid if they yield the results you expect?

No, but metrics are just numbers, and methods for generating numbers aren't useful unless those numbers say something meaningful. Are they predictive? Do they actually say something interesting about reality? Is the "success rate" stat a better indicator of RB performance than more traditional metrics? Football Outsiders begs the question--they need to prove that their metrics are useful instead of assuming they are.If you looked at every Tomlinson run this season, how often do you think you could realistically say, "Ron Dayne would have done a better job in that situation"? Conversely, if you looked at every Ron Dayne run, how many would you look at and say "gee, he surely did better than Tomlinson would have in that situation"? My answer is zero and zero.

I ask because you seem perfectly willing to accept any stats that support your point of veiw but work overtime to undermine any stat that opposes it. You say you've defined the real reason for Fred high YPC with a breakdown of carry by down and distance since 2002. Yet you ignore that Fred had the same YPC average earlier in his career when he was the short yardage and goal line back. I get the feeling that if your opinion of Fred was reversed, you could easily refute your current argument with more carefully selected stats.