What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CJ Anderson (3 Viewers)

BoltBacker said:
Production <> efficiency. If you can't understand that then there is really no reason to read any further.
Click to expand...
Production is not only measured in total yards. Also, total yards is not a good measurement of quality of play. You don't seem to understand that. If you did, you would stop using that as your only data point.

 
BoltBacker said:
Production <> efficiency. If you can't understand that then there is really no reason to read any further.
Click to expand...


Stop being such a dismissive db and back up your statement please.  I believe that you can’t do it, which explains why you would act like such a db in your answer.

 
FF Ninja said:
Production is not only measured in total yards. Also, total yards is not a good measurement of quality of play. You don't seem to understand that. If you did, you would stop using that as your only data point.
Click to expand...
I don't think I have used total yards as my only data point. So we disagree.

 
Bazinga! said:
Wow Bolt, just answer his question or put your tail between legs and walk away.  Responding to a question you instigated with your own statement, with another question?  Hmmmm
Click to expand...
I'm trying to walk him through to get the answer he is looking for.

But if you know the answer that he does not, feel free to chime in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BoltBacker said:
Total yards <> TD's.
Click to expand...
HFS, you can't seriously be this dense. Ok, change my statement to "totals yards and total TDs" and it stands. Eff it, I'll do it for you:

FF Ninja said:
I appreciate the legwork you did on the draft picks, but as Jeaton said, looking at average yards from scrimmage and total TDs per season is not very informative and borders on useless. A guy who averages 1000 yards rushing on 300 carries is not as productive as a guy who does it on 200 carries. Or a scat back who gets most of his yards from receptions isn't a guy you can just plug in effectively as your early down/between the tackles RB. Plus, by only looking at totals, you are also ignoring factors such as pass blocking and situation. I mean, the fact that you think Booker was more productive than CJA speaks volumes. As a rookie Booker came into the game as a change of pace back/3rd down back when CJA was healthy. It's always going to be easier to gain yards when you're facing 6 men in the box and/or playing on 3rd and long. While CJA earned 4.0 ypc behind that OL, Booker managed only 3.5 ypc as a rookie and, most importantly, looked terrible when taking on CJA's responsibilities - which is a great example of why you can't just plug a guy in and expect the same results. Booker looked good as a CoP back, but was garbage as an every down back. Yet you seem to think it will be simple/effective to just plug him in.

What you seem to be missing is that CJA did at least several things pretty damn well to earn the 6th best rating from PFF. I'm not here to say PFF is infallible. It's not. But it is a useful tool and if CJA managed to place 6th in their rating, you simply are not going to replace him with Booker, Henderson, and an average day 3 rookie pick. If you're only looking at total yards, then yes, you can probably replace those yards. It'll probably take you more carries and targets to get there... you'll probably miss out on some first downs... your QB will probably get sacked a few times... but if you stick with it, you might be able to match your aggregate totals. Unfortunately, aggregate totals don't win you games. Good play wins you games and you'll be taking a step back in terms of quality of play if you replace him with those guys.

But again, I'm not advocating for them to keep him. I'm just saying he's not that easily replaced. But if they can make a larger improvement in quality of play in another category than the decrease in quality of play at RB, then it is a net positive. Especially at QB. A rising tide lifts all boats as they say. They could easily net greater than 4.1 ypc from a lesser talent if the passing game is clicking.
Click to expand...
Ok, so now that you're done being pedantic... you can find another way to dance around the questions people pose to you about your bizarre statements. 

 
FF Ninja said:
Ok, so now that you're done being pedantic... you can find another way to dance around the questions people pose to you about your bizarre statements. 
Click to expand...
So yards don't matter, and TD's don't matter. But yards/carry is the only stat that matters? We just find different statements bizarre. Which is fine with me.

 
BoltBacker said:
So yards don't matter, and TD's don't matter. But yards/carry is the only stat that matters? We just find different statements bizarre. Which is fine with me.
Click to expand...
You are clearly being intentionally obtuse. At least I hope anyway. 

I'm glad you've got it all figured out. Why do people even pay for sites like PFF and why do NFL teams pay GMs much money when all they need to look at to determine a players worth is look at YFS and TDs averaged over the years they've been in the NFL? It's obviously that simple and you're the only one to uncover that. We're so impressed.  :rolleyes:

 
FF Ninja said:
You are clearly being intentionally obtuse. At least I hope anyway. 

I'm glad you've got it all figured out. Why do people even pay for sites like PFF and why do NFL teams pay GMs much money when all they need to look at to determine a players worth is look at YFS and TDs averaged over the years they've been in the NFL? It's obviously that simple and you're the only one to uncover that. We're so impressed.  :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, what other stat besides yards/carry did you introduce in your own post that you quoted?

 
BoltBacker said:
I'm sorry, what other stat besides yards/carry did you introduce in your own post that you quoted?
Click to expand...
The PFF rating for starts. Are we going to pretend like Booker's 3.0 ypc as the starter vs. CJA's 4.0 ypc is meaningless because it doesn't suit your narrative? Same team. Same OL. 25% less "production" per touch. 

 
FF Ninja said:
The PFF rating for starts. Are we going to pretend like Booker's 3.0 ypc as the starter vs. CJA's 4.0 ypc is meaningless because it doesn't suit your narrative? Same team. Same OL. 25% less "production" per touch. 
Click to expand...
So in addition to yards per carry, you are also pointing to yards per carry?

 
BoltBacker said:
So in addition to yards per carry, you are also pointing to yards per carry?
Click to expand...
No, I'm asking why you want to pretend ypc doesn't matter, especially when there's a huge delta for 2 guys in the same situation on the same team. And I'm reminding you that CJA was PFF's 6th rated RB last year which takes into account quite a few factors - not just ypc. 

 
FF Ninja said:
No, I'm asking why you want to pretend ypc doesn't matter, especially when there's a huge delta for 2 guys in the same situation on the same team. And I'm reminding you that CJA was PFF's 6th rated RB last year which takes into account quite a few factors - not just ypc. 
Click to expand...
I have no idea what PFF rates any of the RB's. Nor do I know the formula that they use. Are the PFF ratings based on production or efficiency per touch? You tell me.

I am just asking you why yards. TD's, and actual games played are insignifigant stats but yards per carry is the defining stat that seems to matter to you. 

 
Hankmoody said:
In other words you can't back up your statement and you're trolling.  Well done.
Click to expand...
I already have backed up my statement. I think other people have different definitions of the words "production" and "efficiency" than I do. 

Do you know how many seasons CJ Anderson has played in the NFL? If you don't, that's fine. Well done either way.

 
BoltBacker said:
I have no idea what PFF rates any of the RB's. Nor do I know the formula that they use. Are the PFF ratings based on production or efficiency per touch? You tell me.

I am just asking you why yards. TD's, and actual games played are insignifigant stats but yards per carry is the defining stat that seems to matter to you. 
Click to expand...
Again, you can't really need it explained to you... can you? Totals without context or per touch metrics mean next to nothing. Do you understand that?

When one guy averaged 4 ypc in a starer role and another guy averaged 3 ypc in a starter role, on the same team in the same year - that should tell you something. It appears, however, that it isn't telling you something. The fact it isn't telling you something about those two players tells me something about you and your analytic ability, though.

 
FF Ninja said:
Again, you can't really need it explained to you... can you? Totals without context or per touch metrics mean next to nothing. Do you understand that?

When one guy averaged 4 ypc in a starer role and another guy averaged 3 ypc in a starter role, on the same team in the same year - that should tell you something. It appears, however, that it isn't telling you something. The fact it isn't telling you something about those two players tells me something about you and your analytic ability, though.
Click to expand...
And again, I've used total games, games started, rushing yards, passing yards, rushing TD's, passing TD's into consideration..... and all you are bringing up is yards per carry.

So you are accusing someone else of myopia when you are fixated on yards/carry and nothing else? That's the only stat you keep repeating. 

 
BoltBacker said:
And again, I've used total games, games started, rushing yards, passing yards, rushing TD's, passing TD's into consideration..... and all you are bringing up is yards per carry.

So you are accusing someone else of myopia when you are fixated on yards/carry and nothing else? That's the only stat you keep repeating. 
Click to expand...
I don't have a PFF account, but I'm sure I could give you some yards after contact, broken tackles, pass blocking ratings, etc. Just because I don't have them in front of me doesn't mean they don't exist. Nobody in their right mind would say Booker was more productive than CJA in 2016. Yet you do. And you base it on... games played and total yards? Good job. You've found the correlation between volume and total numbers! So by your definition, a guy who rushes 10 times for 5 yards is more productive than a guy who rushes 1 time for 4 yards. That's some next gen s***, BB! FWIW, in only 7 games, CJA had just as many TDs as Booker, so you can take rushing TDs and receiving TDs off your list of ways Booker was "more productive" than Anderson in 2016.

I'm wasting my time here. I don't care that you want to stubbornly die on this hill. You are all alone and everyone is having a good laugh at you for it. Dig your hole deeper or stop. Doesn't really matter to me.

 
FF Ninja said:
BLAH BLAH BLAH

 So by your definition, a guy who rushes 10 times for 5 yards is more productive than a guy who rushes 1 time for 4 yards.

BLAH BLAH BLAH
Click to expand...
So you simply can't help yourself. Any post boils down to YARDS PER CARRY. Are you creating your own little drinking game? 

 
FF Ninja said:
 FWIW, in only 7 games, CJA had just as many TDs as Booker, so you can take rushing TDs and receiving TDs off your list of ways Booker was "more productive" than Anderson in 2016.
Click to expand...
I've never said that Booker was more productive than Anderson in 2016. So if that's what you have been going on about you have been wasting your time even more than you thought. 

 
FF Ninja said:
I struggled through like 20 posts with him and he never did. I had to give up just put him on ignore. He's either trolling us or actually loco  :crazy:
Click to expand...


I saw it coming a long time ago.  He painted himself into a corner and simply cannot admit that he can’t support his position and/or admit that he is wrong, so he counters with raw aggression and bluster.  I’m not sure who he thinks he is fooling by doing this.  Just let it go, it isn’t going to change.

 
BoltBacker said:
I've never said that Booker was more productive than Anderson in 2016. So if that's what you have been going on about you have been wasting your time even more than you thought. 
Click to expand...
I’ll bet the 570 people who have liked your posts in the past are wishing thy could go back and unlike them. 

 
I think we're going round and round in a semantics based discussion on the word "production". Technically BoltBacker is correct, that production really just comes down to "results". The rest are arguing more about "productivity" and "efficiency" while BoltBacker continues to stand his ground on the semantic argument.

I think we can all acknowledge that BoltBacker's underlying point about Anderson not showing the ability to stay on the field is a negative and would make a valid reason for the Broncos to move on - and that Booker, Henderson and a rookie could actually duplicate his production if not his productivity.

I think Anderson continues to be a bit under-rated as a player, but is far from being a special back. If the team needs the cap space, he's an easy cut imo. I could see a guy like Royce Freeman or Kerryon Johnson possibly being even more productive than Anderson (but of course there's the risk that they never show anything close to what Anderson has as well).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rumors of Pats being interested if he’s cut. This is one rumor of someone going to Pats that I think makes sense.

 
Tool said:
Rumors of Pats being interested if he’s cut. This is one rumor of someone going to Pats that I think makes sense.
Click to expand...
Would be an excellent fit...can handle the power duties as well as being able to catch...would not mind adding him and a rookie to White...Pats met with Michel this week as well...love him and would be ecstatic to see him in Foxboro but gotta believe the fumbling could be an issue...

 
Since I happen to live in Colorado (I know, not a big deal with modern technology) but I watch a lot of Broncos games without flipping channels and have owned CJ in many leagues last few years.

I don't have data to back this up, just observation, but one of the most frustrating things you see about CJ if you watch the whole game, not just on red zone or the scoring plays, is how often he seems to wave himself out of the game to take a breather, especially after a run of like 10+ yards, even if they are getting near or in the red zone.

I know conditioning has been an occasional issue with CJ's size and build, but I don't see other backs take themselves out of the game as much and open the door for the backups to come in and play in big situations.

Sometimes I wonder if he has the fire inside to be all that he can be, or if we've seen the peak of his talent already.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
I think we're going round and round in a semantics based discussion on the word "production". Technically BoltBacker is correct, that production really just comes down to "results". The rest are arguing more about "productivity" and "efficiency" while BoltBacker continues to stand his ground on the semantic argument.

I think we can all acknowledge that BoltBacker's underlying point about Anderson not showing the ability to stay on the field is a negative and would make a valid reason for the Broncos to move on - and that Booker, Henderson and a rookie could actually duplicate his production if not his productivity.

I think Anderson continues to be a bit under-rated as a player, but is far from being a special back. If the team needs the cap space, he's an easy cut imo. I could see a guy like Royce Freeman or Kerryon Johnson possibly being even more productive than Anderson (but of course there's the risk that they never show anything close to what Anderson has as well).
Click to expand...
His point remains rather... pointless. Teams aren't looking to gain a certain number of yards and TDs regardless of how many rushes and receptions it takes to get there. Efficiency matters. So his focus on total yards and TDs is asinine*. Teams are looking to gain first downs and keep pressure off the QB - both from pass protection and by being productive running the ball, forcing the defense to play the run. And by productive, I mean efficiently achieving results, not slowly accumulating numbers. 

*if it is a roundabout way to discuss durability then why not actually discuss it directly? That would be a valid concern, although he hasn't missed a ton of games in his career - but he did play through an injury in 2015 that made him less effective early in the season.

I've said all along that I can see why cutting him would be the right move. I've never argued they shouldn't cut him. BoltBacker just continues to say dumb things and fail to back them up.

I agree with you that one of these rookies "could" be more productive than CJA but I wonder what the odds actually are. And I don't see the benefit in duplicating production but not productivity. What does that even mean? That they are putting up the same aggregate stats but in a less efficient manner? That would be a huge step backwards.

The whole discussion is kind of silly. It was basically one guy saying some nonsense and people trying to make him back it up just for the sake of argument, but in reality, none of it really matters. It's a hypothetical that only the Denver GM needs to worry about. For us, all that matters is where CJA goes and who gets the Denver job if he gets cut. If Denver finds a QB and the OL stays healthy, Booker just might be able to put up RB2 numbers if given the job. But his 9 game performance as a starter made him look below JAG level. He turns 26 in a couple months. This is a make or break season for his career. Henderson, despite being a rookie last year, turns 26 during the season. If Denver drafts a solid rookie, those guys will be on dynasty waiver wires.

 
bombjack said:
I guess I was more asking, will CJ be a cheaper contract than Lewis? If the Pats aren't willing to pay up for Lewis, can they afford CJ?
Click to expand...
My guess is it would be similar and they’d prefer CJ. I don’t think price for CJ but will be too high, but it’s possible they get priced out of the market

 
Dr. Octopus said:
I think we're going round and round in a semantics based discussion on the word "production". Technically BoltBacker is correct, that production really just comes down to "results". The rest are arguing more about "productivity" and "efficiency" while BoltBacker continues to stand his ground on the semantic argument.

I think we can all acknowledge that BoltBacker's underlying point about Anderson not showing the ability to stay on the field is a negative and would make a valid reason for the Broncos to move on - and that Booker, Henderson and a rookie could actually duplicate his production if not his productivity.

I think Anderson continues to be a bit under-rated as a player, but is far from being a special back. If the team needs the cap space, he's an easy cut imo. I could see a guy like Royce Freeman or Kerryon Johnson possibly being even more productive than Anderson (but of course there's the risk that they never show anything close to what Anderson has as well).
Click to expand...
Thank you for the attempt at summarizing, and more importantly, clearing up a lot of the pee that's in this here pool.

And agree with the sentiments -- CJ could find some degree of life as a tandem back on another squad, but doubt he can be a truly effective 3 downer on his own.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
Technically BoltBacker is correct, that production really just comes down to "results".
Click to expand...
Be careful. In the CJ Anderson thread gaining yards and touchdowns have very little to do with production. In fact, production has very little to do with actually playing in football games. Games played is a nuisance statistic. Real world NFL teams don't really care if players are available to play in NFL games, obviously. Brock Osweiler is the best runner on the denver broncos because he has the highest yards/carry, and that is the advanced metric that decides if a runner is productive or not. The word production itself is "ambiguous". Que "the Benny Hill Show" theme song anytime you read a post in this thread. 

 
BoltBacker said:
Be careful. In the CJ Anderson thread gaining yards and touchdowns have very little to do with production. In fact, production has very little to do with actually playing in football games. Games played is a nuisance statistic. Real world NFL teams don't really care if players are available to play in NFL games, obviously. Brock Osweiler is the best runner on the denver broncos because he has the highest yards/carry, and that is the advanced metric that decides if a runner is productive or not. The word production itself is "ambiguous". Que "the Benny Hill Show" theme song anytime you read a post in this thread. 
Click to expand...
You spelled Cue wrong.

 
BoltBacker said:
Be careful. In the CJ Anderson thread gaining yards and touchdowns have very little to do with production. In fact, production has very little to do with actually playing in football games. Games played is a nuisance statistic. Real world NFL teams don't really care if players are available to play in NFL games, obviously. Brock Osweiler is the best runner on the denver broncos because he has the highest yards/carry, and that is the advanced metric that decides if a runner is productive or not. The word production itself is "ambiguous". Que "the Benny Hill Show" theme song anytime you read a post in this thread. 
Click to expand...


Wow.  Seriously wow.  That’s an incredulous  amount of smug condescention from a guy who thinks that a RB who will need 320 carries to post 1000 yds rushing is much more productive than a RB who needs 240 carries or less to do it.  It’s even more incredulous given that the same guy couldn’t have actually watched that first RB play, because if he did he’d have seen the wasted steps he takes in attacking the line of scrimmage,how easily he goes down on first contact, and how much he struggles to change direction at the second level and would know better.

 
BoltBacker said:
Be careful. In the CJ Anderson thread gaining yards and touchdowns have very little to do with production. In fact, production has very little to do with actually playing in football games. Games played is a nuisance statistic. Real world NFL teams don't really care if players are available to play in NFL games, obviously. Brock Osweiler is the best runner on the denver broncos because he has the highest yards/carry, and that is the advanced metric that decides if a runner is productive or not. The word production itself is "ambiguous". Que "the Benny Hill Show" theme song anytime you read a post in this thread. 
Click to expand...
You know we seemed to come to a nice place in here but noooooooo, you just can’t drop it can ya

 
BoltBacker said:
Be careful. In the CJ Anderson thread gaining yards and touchdowns have very little to do with production. In fact, production has very little to do with actually playing in football games. Games played is a nuisance statistic. Real world NFL teams don't really care if players are available to play in NFL games, obviously. Brock Osweiler is the best runner on the denver broncos because he has the highest yards/carry, and that is the advanced metric that decides if a runner is productive or not. The word production itself is "ambiguous". Que "the Benny Hill Show" theme song anytime you read a post in this thread. 
Click to expand...
You did a 0% job defending your position, and now you double down with this turd.

 
You guys are making this thread unreadable.  Maybe you can take the silly stuff elsewhere and we can get back to a meaningful discussion about CJ.

As an Anderson owner, I hope he goes somewhere where he can be the lead dog in a committee somewhere.  There are so few teams that have just  single bell cow anymore.  I don't think CJ is one of those guys, but can be very successful as part of a committee if he lands in the right spot. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Titans runningbacks 2024
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
Bri
B
EBF
2025 Rookie Thoughts
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
EBF
EBF
EBF
2024 Rookie Thoughts
Replies
32
Views
7K
EBF
EBF

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top