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!
Seems like we've already been over that haven't we? Do you really not know the history of John Fox? Jake Delhomme is still his QB.... Fox is going to stick with his veteran starters. I knew this before the season even started in '09'.
I've looked into this before. There really isn't any correlation.But yes, you should do a rearview SOS analysis -- i.e., his '08 production based on his '08 SOS. That's worthwhile.
Three thoughts:1) I wonder how the projection would look for guys with 9-15 TDs and 13-17 TDs.2) HTH did Jim Brown averaged over 25 yards per TD on 17 TDs?3) Probably should use median TD length.
This is pretty interesting.Of course the other thing to note isn't so much the #'s in this chart (although obviously the point), but to pay attention to the NAMES on this chart.Maybe you can do the same thing for a similar ypc that DeAngelo had (5.5 ypc) with > 200 carries and how they did the following year?
Rushing Receiving Year Age Tm Pos G GS Att Yds TD Lng Y/A Y/G A/G Rec Yds Y/R TD Lng R/G Y/G YScm RRTD Fmb 1981 23 SDG RET 14 2 109 525 3 28 4.8 37.5 7.8 46 329 7.2 3 29 3.3 23.5 854 6 7 1982 24 SDG RET 9 0 87 430 6 48 4.9 47.8 9.7 13 66 5.1 0 12 1.4 7.3 496 6 4 1983 25 SDG rb 15 5 127 516 3 61 4.1 34.4 8.5 25 215 8.6 0 36 1.7 14.3 731 3 8 1984 26 CIN RB 15 11 103 396 2 33 3.8 26.4 6.9 34 268 7.9 2 27 2.3 17.9 664 4 4 1985 27 CIN RB 16 16 192 929 7 39 4.8 58.1 12.0 55 576 10.5 5 57 3.4 36.0 1505 12 7 1986* 28 CIN RB 16 16 205 1087 5 56 5.3 67.9 12.8 54 686 12.7 4 54 3.4 42.9 1773 9 2 1987 29 CIN RB 9 7 94 290 1 18 3.1 32.2 10.4 22 272 12.4 2 46 2.4 30.2 562 3 0 1988* 30 CIN RB 15 15 182 931 8 51 5.1 62.1 12.1 29 287 9.9 6 28 1.9 19.1 1218 14 1 1989* 31 CIN RB 16 14 221 1239 7 65 5.6 77.4 13.8 37 306 8.3 2 25 2.3 19.1 1545 9 9 1990* 32 CIN RB 16 15 195 1004 5 56 5.1 62.8 12.2 26 269 10.3 4 35 1.6 16.8 1273 9 3 1991 33 CIN RB 15 12 152 571 2 25 3.8 38.1 10.1 40 348 8.7 2 40 2.7 23.2 919 4 5 1992 34 2TM 6 2 18 44 0 13 2.4 7.3 3.0 2 -1 -0.5 0 4 0.3 -0.2 43 0 1 TAM 2 0 5 6 0 4 1.2 3.0 2.5 6 0 0 CLE 4 2 13 38 0 13 2.9 9.5 3.3 2 -1 -0.5 0 4 0.5 -0.3 37 0 1 Career 162 115 1685 7962 49 65 4.7 49.1 10.4 383 3621 9.5 30 57 2.4 22.4 11583 79 51 8 yrs CIN 118 106 1344 6447 37 65 4.8 54.6 11.4 297 3012 10.1 27 57 2.5 25.5 9459 64 31 3 yrs SDG 38 7 323 1471 12 61 4.6 38.7 8.5 84 610 7.3 3 36 2.2 16.1 2081 15 19 1 yr CLE 4 2 13 38 0 13 2.9 9.5 3.3 2 -1 -0.5 0 4 0.5 -0.3 37 0 1 1 yr TAM 2 0 5 6 0 4 1.2 3.0 2.5 6 0 0
Happy to oblige.This is an even smaller sampler size. Including DeAngelo Williams, there have only been eleven (11) instances of a RB averaging 5.5 yards per rush with a minimum of 200 carries.
C'mon now good buddy.
C'mon now good buddy.
This = GOOD STUFF
FOX during his coaching career AVG top RB gets 53.16%Fox may favor veterans but he has also split carriers. I am not suggesting he won't give DWill the majority of carries or that he doesn't favor veterans. I think Fox will stay consistent with the carries he has historically given to his top RB. Since he has always favored veterans and he has only given his top RB 53% of the carries, if you take that he favors veterans as a fact it does not itself suggest a reason that DWill will have his carries increased because that would be inconsistent with what he has already done. So there would have to be some change? I don't believe that it's talent because the gap of in talent is not large enough to suggest that. So then what why would Fox change his distribution upwards for DWill? He was still favoring veterans last year under your argument.
I think this is a misleading statistic.The Panthers under Fox have not really had a feature RB stay healthy for the whole season except for in 2003 and 2008.Stephen Davis in 2003 had 318 carries with Foster getting 113. Then of course the distribution last year.In 2004 both Davis and Foster were hurt and Nick Goings led the team with 200 some carries.In 2005 with both Davis and Foster healthy Fox stuck with Davis for 180 carries at 3.1 ypc even though he had Foster averaging 4.3. Foster ended up the year with barely more carries than Davis (205) and pretty much because Davis was not getting it done. Davis did score 12 TD that year.2006 and 2007 were the Foster Williams splits. Foster started over Williams even though Williams was clearly outperforming Foster. Mainly because Williams struggled with his blocking.So really the only decent examples we have from the past on the current situation are last year and 2003.
Right, so let's look at it from that standpoing. In 2008, Carolina rushed 475 times (RBs-excludes Delhomme and S Smith rushes). That averages to about 29 rushes/game.Assuming that they will try to utilize the strength of their team (their 2 RBs), lets add 4 rushes a game to that mix. That is 33 rushes a game, or 528 for the season.53% of 528 is 280 rushes (279.84).Assuming DWill's YPC drops to about 4.8 (his career average is 5.1), that gives him 1344 rushing yards. Let's look at TDs. For his career, Williams has averaged one TD for every 23 rushes. However, in 2009, Williams averaged one TD for (approximately) every 15 rushes. Let's split the difference and say one TD for every 20 rushes. That means he "should" score 14 rushing TDs.Receiving stats, he has averaged 26 catches, a 7.8 YPR, and a TD every 20 catches. Lets give him 24 catches (@ 7YPR), with 1 TD.Predictions for 2009: 280 rushes, 1344 yards, 14 TD, 24 catches, 168 yards, 1 TD1512 total yards, 15 total TDs. I'll take those numbers.
I haven't done my 2009 projections as of yet, but I'm thinking that what I will come up with for Williams will be very similar to this. I've currently got him ranked as the #2 RB behind MJD. I guess I'll have to see how those numbers pan out vs. all the other RBs in my projections but I'd say those are good enough for top 5 no matter how you slice it.
Excellent point, plus you get an extra kudos for mentioning James Brooks 
Your analysis breaks down right here. Their 2 RBs were the strength of their team last year, yet they couldn't get them 33 rushing attempts per game. Why would things be different this year? Especially given that their schedule appears to be more difficult, and, thus, there is a reasonable chance they will be in favorable running situations less often.IMO it is much more likely their RB rushing attempts per game will drop than increase. There is still room for debate on what that means for Williams, but I think there is very little chance that he and Stewart will split 528 carries this year. According to the Data Dominator, only 1 team in the past 5 years has had that many rushing attempts for its RBs - Pittsburgh in 2004 with 534. Only one other team has been over 500 - Baltimore last year, with 523. In fact, within the past 5 years, only 6 teams have had more than Carolina's 475 RB rushing attempts last season.Now, I still think there is room for Williams to be a great fantasy RB. I just don't think your assumption here was valid. You should rework your numbers with a more reasonable base of rushing attempts.
As long as Delhomme is playing QB Car would be wise to run the ball 500+ times.....
Why is that? Jake is not a bad QB.
Yet he's been there since 2003 and last year's 475 was the highest total of RB rushing attempts for any season since he joined the Panthers.YR TEAM RSH RSHYD YD/RSH FD RSHTD FANT PT 2003 CAR 465 2015 4.33 101 8 326.10 2004 CAR 392 1488 3.80 77 9 287.60 2005 CAR 449 1632 3.63 79 15 324.70 2006 CAR 389 1546 3.97 92 5 267.30 2007 CAR 404 1631 4.04 73 7 258.60 2008 CAR 475 2381 5.01 113 28 438.90 Granted, they didn't have the RBs and OL in the first 5 years that they have now, but the fact remains that 500+ RB rushing attempts for one team in a single season is extremely rare. There are too many circumstances that have to come together to make it possible - health of RBs, OL, QB, etc.; playcalling; game situations; quality and strengths of opponents; etc.
Even if that statistics isn't truly representative(which is reasonable to argue), how do you explain last year. DWill was a veteran last year and Stewart was a rookie and had injury issues. If Fox favors veteran and he gives DWill 274 or 54%, why then does he change that distribution in 09? It can't be because he favors veterans b/c he still favored veterans last year and Stewart was more raw last and had injury issues. I am not saying there isn't an argument, but him favoring veterans certainly doesn't hold up to this point.
My post was a reply to the poster who said that DWill should expect to only get 53% of the carries b/c Fox will only give 53% of the rushes to his lead RB. To assume that, you have to believe that Stewart is very talented to take more carries away from the #1RB in the league. If you have two RBs of that caliber, it is reasonable to predict a small increase of 4 carries/game.Personally, I'm more likely to believe that the carries might not go up, but that DWill will get more than 53% of the carries: Either way, I feel that 1500 yards and 15 TDs is very possible for him this year.
So Stewart has gotten less talented since last year? Or has Fox or Carolina done something to suggest they like him less or will use him less? What's changed?
No... it's not reasonable... that was the point of my post. If you want to stick to 1500/15 even if the carries stay at 475 are below, fine, it's just not supported by the logic as you presented it.
All I am saying is that the only reasonable models to look at are 2003 and 2008. So distribution stays pretty much the same or Williams might see a slight increase in carries to the 300 mark like Stephen Davis did. Obviously 2008 is more relevant.I do not see total rushing attempts going down unless the running game is less effective and results in fewer 1st downs.
53.16% the Average is not reasonable but 54% 2008 numbers are reasonable? I think your splitting hairs there. Your talking about a 1% difference or about 5 carries.
No, but neither has DWill, has he? In fact, Stewart got a higher percentage of the carries early in the season last year. As the year wore on, and DWill was putting up HUGE numbers, he began to get a higher % of the carries. Going into last year, DWill had been a solid COP back to Foster. It wasn't known that he could be the lead RB. As he proved that he could, he earned a higher % of the carries. So, to answer your question, nothing has really changed, but those who are suggesting that Stewart will get a higher % of the carries this year are implying that something has.
Yes, it is-you're not looking at this as a reply to another post, but as a separate post of its own.To ASSUME that Fox will only give DWill 53% of the carries, you have to ASSUME that Stewart is a very talented RB, because he will be taking carries away from the best RB from 2008.
YR TEAM RSH RSHYD YD/RSH FD RSHTD FANT PT1 2004 PIT 534 2249 4.21 115 14 366.802 2008 BAL 523 2084 3.98 112 17 376.803 2008 ATL 489 2197 4.49 115 21 410.204 2005 PIT 483 2022 4.19 103 17 355.005 2003 BAL 479 2450 5.11 104 18 390.906 2005 DAL 479 1803 3.76 92 10 288.907 2005 SEA 476 2338 4.91 137 28 438.208 2008 CAR 475 2381 5.01 113 28 438.909 2004 NE 473 2094 4.43 108 15 368.9010 2005 DEN 473 2233 4.72 122 22 442.3011 2006 CHI 472 1912 4.05 100 14 317.1012 2006 KC 471 2042 4.34 99 17 369.4013 2003 DEN 471 2237 4.75 106 17 399.2014 2003 GB 470 2523 5.37 126 18 503.9015 2004 NYJ 470 2224 4.73 119 14 393.5016 2008 TEN 469 2087 4.45 104 24 416.4017 2008 NYG 469 2482 5.29 124 18 419.5018 2005 WAS 469 2057 4.39 103 15 389.5519 2005 KC 468 2244 4.79 128 26 469.0020 2003 CAR 465 2015 4.33 101 8 326.1021 2008 MIN 465 2157 4.64 101 14 374.9022 2005 CHI 461 2030 4.40 94 11 310.0023 2006 SD 461 2480 5.38 127 31 528.7024 2004 DEN 458 2060 4.50 112 12 361.5025 2007 PIT 452 1906 4.22 88 7 293.0026 2004 KC 450 2069 4.60 128 31 499.6027 2005 CAR 449 1632 3.63 79 15 324.7028 2004 SD 449 1910 4.25 104 20 374.7029 2007 OAK 448 1887 4.21 95 8 309.7030 2006 SEA 448 1662 3.71 99 8 240.4031 2007 JAX 445 2118 4.76 101 17 382.6032 2007 WAS 444 1671 3.76 86 14 337.8533 2002 MIA 444 2110 4.75 107 19 423.2034 2007 SD 440 1987 4.52 96 18 392.5535 2003 JAX 440 1934 4.40 105 10 348.9036 2004 BUF 440 1694 3.85 91 15 294.80Then we agree DWill should not surpass 54% of the team's carries.
It is nice to see it in this perspective.I highlighted 2003 and 2008 which are both in the top 20 all time for rushing attempts. Both under Fox. I think it is safe to say he is commited to running the ball.I was also looking at KC being up here several times and this situation could be similar to when they had Priest and Johnson both performing well. Except Williams is much younger than Priest was and also healthy.hmm bolded tags won't work inside coded text I guess.
Maybe. If all goes well.This was a career season so you have to expect some regression.If the Panthers end up running less running plays this season then the distribution may look more like 2003 with Williams getting the majority of the carries.Then we agree DWill should not surpass 54% of the team's carries.
Dude, your reading comprehension needs work.I responded solely to your first assumption in your post. I didn't address whether a 53% split is appropriate or not. I didn't address Stewart's talent. The bottom line is that there is about a 0.1% chance that Carolina will have 528 RB rushing attempts this season. Look at Chase's post. It's not happening. That's what I responded to, period. Given that was your first assumption, it invalidates your analysis.
I don't understand this. the Panthers ran more 522 times in 2003 then the 504 times in 2008. So why does running less make the running distribution more comparable to 2003 then to 2008?Maybe. If all goes well.This was a career season so you have to expect some regression.If the Panthers end up running less running plays this season then the distribution may look more like 2003 with Williams getting the majority of the carries.Then we agree DWill should not surpass 54% of the team's carries.
Without resorting to childish insults (which you felt the need to use), my reading comprehension is fine, but I feel like yours is a little off. Where did I say that you addressed whether the split is appropriate or not? Where did I say that you addressed Stewart's talent? I challenge you to show me, because I NEVER DID. I wasn't making a projection for 2009, but a prediction of what could happen, IF YOU USE THE ASSUMPTION FROM THE ORIGINAL POSTER that DWill would only get 53% of the touches.My original post was in response to another poster who ignored the fact that DWill was the best RB in the NFL last year. He stated that DWill would get 53% of the carries, period, because that is what Fox has done in the past. I replied "Let's look at it from that standpoint." THE ENTIRE POINT OF MY POST WAS THAT YOU CAN'T LOOK AT ONE STAT, AND IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE! <HINT-I don't think this is what will happen, but I was portraying a possible scenario> If Stewart is good enough to take almost half of the carries away from the best RB from 08, then Carolina's rush attack will have to be great. If it is that great, 4 carries more a game isn't a stretch.<HINT-I don't think this is what will happen, but I was portraying a possible scenario>So, I'm not actually predicting more carries a game for Carolina, but that is one way I could see the split occuring like the 1st poster stated.<HINT-I don't think this is what will happen, but I was portraying a possible scenario>I do believe that DWill will come down some from last year (he almost has to), but I fully expect 1500 yards, 15 TDs, which should definitely place DWill in the top 10, possible top 5.BTW-In case you missed the subtlety, I don't actually think the Panthers will rush a lot more in 2008, but if Stewart is good enough to take almost 1/2 the carries, they would almost have to run more.
You are the one who said the Panthers would give 4 more carries to their RBs per game. Not the other poster. Thus, you are the one that is wrong on that point, since that was a base assumption you based the rest of your post on. Why is this so hard for you to understand? That (4 more rushing attemps per game to the Panthers RBs) is not going to happen. If you didn't think this would happen, what was the point of your post? Just a waste of space?Bayhawks said:
OK, because you appear to be having trouble, I tried to make the point of my post very, very clear. Look at it again, please. It should jump out at you.And where did I say that the Panthers would give 4 more carries to their RBs? It was a hypothetical situation, based on the assumption made by the 1st poster. Furthermore, I have (SEVERAL TIMES) posted since that I don't believe this would happen, but that if the 1st poster's hypothetical occured, then these hypothetical 4 carries could occur.
OK... so even though you suggested in your post that Carolina would give its RBs 4 more rushing attempts per game... and YOU did that, no one else... you didn't really MEAN it... because you were just going along with another poster's assumptions on another point (percentage of carries).
So what is the point of your post, if you don't stand behind it? Let us know when you want to post something you believe and want to stand behind.So we're relying on 2008 defensive numbers to repeat so we can justify not relying on a RB's 2008 numbers to repeat?
If you look above you see that RB carries for Carolina, not total carries RB carries were 10 less in 2003 than 2008. RB averared 4.3 ypc compared to 5.0 significantly less right? And the Panthers also had 12 less 1st downs in 2003 than 2008.A difference in 10-20 1st downs running the ball over a season could lead to anywhere from 10-40 less RB carries depending on the teams situation at the time. The Panthers are on this list twice in the top 20 however so to me that is pretty convincing about the Pathers under Fox being commited to running the ball more often than most teams. Even in less that ideal situations. The difference in the 18 total running plays from 2003 (when running game was much less effective) was Delhomme running the ball 22 more times and Steve Smith getting 6 more carries.I think these 2 seasons are relevant because these were the seasons where the starting RBs were healthy.I am not saying I think the Panthers running game will decline a lot. I think it is clear that Fox wants his team to run the ball 500+ times and both Williams and Stewart are more talented RB than they have ever had before (They had Williams but carries were limited). But if there is a decline in effectivness (and thus less rushing attempts for the RB) I don't expect the distribution between Williams and Stewart to stay the same as 2008 and would likely fall back towards 2003 distribution. That is if Williams and Stewart are both healthy.The way Fox split carries last year was to give Stewart every 3rd series. That is a lot easier to do when it is working and your team is ahead. But it is also kind of a luxury. If the team struggles more this season. The defense is on the field too much and the Panthers are playing from behind I would expect Fox to keep his best RB in more often and that might look more like the 2003 distribution.You do not have to agree. But I hope you at least understand what I am saying.I don't understand this. the Panthers ran more 522 times in 2003 then the 504 times in 2008. So why does running less make the running distribution more comparable to 2003 then to 2008?Maybe. If all goes well.This was a career season so you have to expect some regression.If the Panthers end up running less running plays this season then the distribution may look more like 2003 with Williams getting the majority of the carries.Then we agree DWill should not surpass 54% of the team's carries.
You've asked me several times: what's the point of my post. I don't know how to say it, but I have to ask, seriously: CAN YOU READ? I capitalized, bolded, underlined, and enlarged the point of my original post! Here it is again:THE ENTIRE POINT OF MY POST WAS THAT YOU CAN'T LOOK AT ONE STAT, AND IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE!OK... so even though you suggested in your post that Carolina would give its RBs 4 more rushing attempts per game... and YOU did that, no one else... you didn't really MEAN it... because you were just going along with another poster's assumptions on another point (percentage of carries).
So what is the point of your post, if you don't stand behind it? Let us know when you want to post something you believe and want to stand behind.
I haven't said that your conclusion (1500/15) is wrong, just that the way you arrived at it is wrong. The way you arrived at it is based on the assumption I showed is wrong. If you want to revise it, great. You are the one that seems unwilling to budge off the stupid assumption.
How quickly this went from a 5-star to a 1-star./thread
)... not in the sense that sanders could make cuts at full speed at the extreme range of human possibility, and his superhuman COD ability made him look like a cartoon character at times... but in the sense that both have very low centers of gravity, powerful lower bodies, shocking contact balance and ability to stay on their feet (smith had this, payton & jim brown, who was obviously bigger, were legendary for their power, contact balance & ability to stay on their feet & keep the play alive)... also deceptively powerful upper bodies to help fend off would be tacklers... like sanders, deangelo also has electric burst, suddenness & instant acceleration... the CAR OL is so good right now that williams gets to the second level almost untouched a lot... if the defense doesn't maintain consistent gap discipline, he is a horrific quickness mismatch for LBs, & he is off to the races... plus he is stronger than most CBs & faster than most safeties, so a mismatch even in the last line of defense (it isn't an accident that he busted so many long TD runs, improbable or statistically unlikely or not)... none of this would matter if he didn't have the vision & instincts to make it work, & like sanders, he seems to have that spooky sixth sense to see not just where 21 other players on the field, running at different speeds, are NOW, but where they WILL BE a split second from now... basically, being able to see how the play will unfold before it has... the great ones have it, deangelo seems to... 
To everyone else, sorry for clogging up the thread.