Madden curse (1 Viewer)

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

Quick question:

John Madden used to be on the cover of the Madden video game - is he cursed?

I've heard that he pockets $5 per game sold.

Doesn't sound like any type of curse to me....

 

[SSOG]

How on earth did you come up with an average of just 3 games here? You are way off.

9 RB's who carried a heavy load into the Super Bowl over the past 8 years have missed a total of 65 games. Which comes to an average of 7.3 games missed per year. Where in all your statistical glory you come up with 3 games missed, I just don't get.

I was going off of all 32 SB RBs since 1990, not simply the 9 that you highlighted.

Once again you twist what I stated around. Nowhere did I say let's go all the way back to 1981. Going back to 1981 makes about as much sense as the other stats you provided with the guy using backup RB's and fullbacks. It has absolutely nothing to do with my statements.

And again, over the past 8 years in a row now, the Super Bowl RB who carried a heavy load has missed on average 7.3 games per year.

Personally I believe that you are just hating on me because I was correct in downgrading Shaun Alexander this preseason, and in saying I would not be drafting him at all this year based on his adp.

Now, why on earth would I hate on you for being correct in downgrading Shaun Alexander? This is the second straight season that I've downgraded Shaun Alexander due to an abnormally heavy workload in the season before. Unless they've been pruned, I can still go back and pull the threads from a year and a half ago to prove it.

But it is okay for you to imply that I am a complete idiot for not downgrading Tomlinson too, right? Even after I have thoroughly explained to you here on numerous occassions my reasons for downgrading Alexander. This is why I had to speak slowly for you, because you continued to ignore what was already stated several times here. I don't see how you equate me saying I will speak slowly so you finally get it as a "personal attack", yet in the same breath implying I am stupid for downgrading Alexander and not Tomlinson is not one and the same.

"Anyway, if this whole high workload thing scared you off of Alexander, it must have scared you off of Tomlinson, too. Alexander had 448, 392, and 389 touches over the last 3 years (1229 total). Over that same span, Tomlinson has put up 390, 427, and 413 touches (1230 total). Tomlinson has just as much wear on him (in one fewer game), and has already had problems with nagging injuries, but I didn't see you calling *HIM* an injury risk this preseason."

I never tried to imply that you were a complete idiot. I pointed out Tomlinson as an example of how you were restricting your "heavy workload" theory too much by only looking at Shaun Alexander. Historically speaking, Tomlinson is as likely to miss time as Alexander is, because both are coming off of equally heavy workloads (and Tomlinson actually has a recent injury history). That's a case of me pointing out what I perceive as shortcomings in your theory, not a case of me pointing out what I perceive as shortcomings in you as a human being. I've never met you. I wouldn't presume to make judgements about you.

Never did this anywhere. Just another example in a long long here of you misrepresenting what I have stated.

I offered the top 20 RB's from 2005 in responses to your faulty list of fullbacks and backup RB's...in your hopes to convince all that NFL starting RB's miss an average of 3 games per season. You used this in efforts to discredit my presentation of Super Bowl RB's who carry a heavy load get injured the following year. The list you provided is not only faulty due to using many fullbacks and backup running backs, but also for the fact it doesn't list how these players were injured. As in, most of these backup RB's and FB's played on special teams, where a high injury rate always exists.

First thing's first. I would strongly disagree with the assertion that a player is more likely to get injured in 5-8 special teams plays where he may or may not even get hit than he is to get injured in 22 offensive plays where he's going to get hit pretty much every time. *NO POSITION IN THE NFL* has a higher injury rate than high-workload featured RBs... therefore, including any players OTHER THAN high-workload featured RBs is only going to skew the injury stats DOWNWARDS.One last point... you claim that these fullbacks are more likely to get injured than these featured RBs. Tell me, who has a longer average career, a Fullback or a featured RB? I can think of three full-time fullbacks who will be 35 or older by the end of the season without even looking... and all three are performing at a pro-bowl caliber level (Mack Strong, Lorenzo Neal, Tony Richardson- all of whom went to a pro bowl within the past 2 seasons). Can you name me even ONE full-time starting RB who is 35 or older, whether he's playing at a pro bowl level or not? Don't you think that speaks to the comparative injury rates of featured RBs vs. FBs?

Why you would feel that a list of backup RB's and FB's can be used as an injury comparison to heavy workload RB's playing in Super Bowl's like Alexander, Dillon, Lewis ect is beyond rational thinking. Nobody ever said Mack Strong or Maurice Morris was gonna get injured this year, so I don't see the validity of your list with "Touchdown" Tommy Vardell and others in it. I already pointed out that the majority of the heavy injury data acquired from your selective list was from these fullbacks and backups. Again, most likely from special teams injuries.

Here you are AGREEING that fullbacks and backup RBs are less likely to get injured. Why are you complaining with their inclusion, since they probably brought the injury numbers DOWN, if anything?

In my experience, trying to make yourself come off as smarter than the other person by insinuating that you need to use smaller words or speak more slowly is generally a crass move that just makes you look bad in the end.

This will be my favorite post of the year. It is full of irony when it comes from the king of using the

Just because you seem to have an axe to grind doesn't mean everyone else does.By the way, have you seen the top 250 forward from this week? Ahman Green's value saw a large spike.

Sorry but a selective top 10 RB list back to '88 just doesn't cut it for me either.

You wanna find out the RB injury rate? How about running the numbers for the past 5 or 10 or 15 years of all starting NFL RB's? That would give everyone a better idea of the actual starting RB and their games missed due to injury ratio. A breakdown by year over either the past 10 or 15 years would be even better.

And really what SSOG said is immaterial. He was just being argumentative and had no point, other than to mislead others as to what I have previously stated.

Over the past 8 years Super Bowl RB's who carried a heavy load have missed on average of 7.3 games per season. It would be interesting to do a comparison over the past 8 years to see how the injury rate of NFL starting RB's compares. Or even the last 5 years. Or the last 10 years. Even the last 15 years has some bearing on the original discussion, as back in 1990 is when the NFL extended the playoff season with adding additional teams to the playoff format. Thus additional games (practices) played for RB's in the playoffs to the Super Bowl.

First off, the list isn't "selective". Selective lists are the bane of objective statistical analysis. Second off, first your complaint is that the list contains too many borderline scrub RBs... and now your complaint is that it contains too few? It appears to me (and I could be very far off base here, but this is the appearance, at least) that you are just trying to find a list that best supports your conclusions so that you can start touting that list as the only "good" one out there.Also, again, kindly refrain from telling me whether I do or do not have a point, or for telling me exactly why I'm posting. I know why I'm posting. You don't- just like I don't know why you're posting. I'm not merely being arguementative, I just honestly take umbrage with the conclusions that you are drawing because I feel that they fail to account for several serious lurking variables (i.e. if you want to prove that it's the Superbowl thing that's doing it, you have to isolate that variable and hold all others constant. This means comparing Superbowl RBs to all RBs, or comparing Superbowl RBs with heavy workloads to all RBs with heavy workloads. This does NOT mean comparing Superbowl RBs with heavy workloads to all RBs- in that situation, there are two variables, and we cannot conclude which is correlating with the missed time).

 

[zoonation]

Can someone put together a list of the players who have been on the cover of Madden and how they did that season?

Here you go.Bottom of the page

don't you get that no one gives a ####t about your FF team?Great...colston is TE eligible!

seriously people, come on.

 

[SlaX]

Can someone put together a list of the players who have been on the cover of Madden and how they did that season?

Here you go.Bottom of the page

don't you get that no one gives a ####t about your FF team?Great...colston is TE eligible!

seriously people, come on.

Calm down. No one said a thing about my FF team. I only answered his question.As far as my rosters, they're part of my sig and are there so to not have to repost. I never see anyone else with their team in their sig have anything said to them.

edit: Apparently there is some unwritten rule about putting your FF roster in your sig, so it's been removed. It's sad that someone has to derail a thread to point out that I have Colston on my team. Whoopdidoo!

As I already said, everyone here already acts so superior as it is, I'd hate to not be taken seriously simply because I have my freakin' FF rosters stuck in my sig.

Now that that has been said, let's get this thread back on topic...

 

[Coy Bacon]

Didn't read entirely through the retina-burning text involved in this thread, but the poll relsults have me questioning my faith in humanity. I mean really....you guys bet your lives every day on the fact that scientific principles can be determined and remain constant in our physical world (ie. crossing a bridge, entering a skyscraper, airline travel, etc.), yet believe in a "curse" from a freakin' video game? Having not read the entire thread, I'd be relieved to know that there was more discussion of the 370+ carry "rule" than the "curse".

 

[fornov]

Here is a look at all Super Bowl RB's over the past 10 years who have had carried a heavy load during their Super Bowl season. We list the time missed due to injuries for the following regular season.

'97 Curtis Martin - Missed 3 Games

'97 Dorsey Levens - Missed 0 Games

'98 Dorsey Levens - Missed 9 Games

'98 Terrell Davis - Missed 0 Games

'99 Terrell Davis - Missed 12 Games

'99 Jamal Anderson - Missed 14 Games

'00 Marshall Faulk - Missed 2 Games (Had previously started every game in his NFL career except for 1)

'00 Eddie George - Missed 0 Games

'01 Jamal Lewis - Missed 16 Games

'01 NYG RBBC Barber-Dayne - No heavy load

'02 Marshall Faulk - Missed 2 Games (Missed 5 Games the following year)

'02 Antowain Smith - Missed 0 Games

'03 Oak RBBC Garner-Wheatley - No heavy load

'03 Tam RBBC Pittman-Alstott - No heavy load

'04 Corey Dillon - Missed 1 Games

'04 Stephen Davis - Missed 14 Games

'05 Corey Dillon - Missed 4 Games

'05 Brian Westbrook - Missed 4 Games

'06 Shaun Alexander - Out indefinitely after 3 games

'06 Pitt RBBC Parker-Bettis - No heavy load

Over the past 10 years, Super Bowl RB's carrying a heavy load have missed a total of 84 games - out of 240 possible games, the following year. This means that over the past 10 years, Super Bowl RB's carrying a heavy load have missed over 30% of their teams games the following season.

Super Bowl RB's carrying a heavy load over the past 10 years have missed on average 5.6 games per season the following year. A very telling statistic...

At risk of having CAPS or bold print or s l o w w o r d s thrown at me, I'll put in my 2 cents...IIWII (can I abbreviate your name like this, please?) - I think this is exactly what SSOG has been trying to get you to do. If you want to look at SB RB's with a heavy workload, then evaluate all the SB RB's with a heavy workload.

First, decide how far back you want to go without arbitrarily picking a starting date that helps your argument. I'm not saying you are doing this, but it is more fair to select a year that is relevant to the argument (like you said about the expanded playoffs) than to look at the data and make the cutoff convenient with your position. Again, I'm not saying you did this, but this is an important step.

Second, define what your cutoff is for a "heavy workload." You listed the SB RB's and told us heavy workload or not heavy workload, but please define for us what a heavy workload is. Is it 300 touches? 350? 400? Again, decide on this before you run the data. Look at historical norms over the years included in the data set if you can't decide. Of course, you can always run the numbers with multiple cutoffs, and see if there is a point where the number of touches actually does make a difference, if at all.

Third, and this is very important, do the same analysis for the RB's who did not make the SB. This is an analogy here, so please don't say I'm putting words in anyone's mouth or twisting arguments. Tis is just for illustration purposes. If I told you that the San Francisco Giants hit .261 last year, does that sound good? It's hard to say, without knowing what the rest of the league did. In 1999, the league hit .268, so that wouldn't have been very good. In 1969, the league hit .250, so that would have been great. Last year, the league hit .262, so it was about average. Granted in baseball you have to take things like park factors into account, but I hope you get the point. The idea is that without a control group, you have no context for your numbers.

I am not good at actually doing statistical analyses, but I do know how to critique them. (Sort of like I don't know how to fix my car, but I can usually tell the mechanic what needs to be done). So the burden will have to remain on you. Your assertion is "Super Bowl RB's carrying a heavy load over the past 10 years have missed on average 5.6 games per season the following year." Please show us the significance of this data by comparing it to

A. RB's who have carried a heavy load and did not make it to the SB

or

B. RB's who made it to the SB, but did not carry a heavy load

or

C. both.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that having a heavy workload AND making it to the SB are co-factors in RB's getting injured the following year. Show us that by comparing equally burdened RB's and/or other SB RB's are not as injury prone.

Also, please take note of the importance of sample size. Your list includes 16 RB's who you are including as SB RB's carrying a heavy load. This is a fairly small sample size. There will need to be a large difference between this group's numbers and the control group's numbers to be statistically significant. This is what we talk about when discussing the power of a study: the larger your sample, and the fewer variables involved, the more likely the study will be able to detect a difference between the groups. A small difference between small groups is likely to be due to chance (p value).

I hope this helps. If not, I'll try to make sure to duck when the bullets whiz past me.

 

[fornov]

At risk of having CAPS or bold print or s l o w w o r d s thrown at me, I'll put in my 2 cents...

Why imply the above post is all my doing here? Obviously you contend to have read the posts in this thread, therefore you would realize that SSOG is the one who starting using CAPS as a point of emphasis. I in return used CAPS as well. And I often use bold print here within my postings, don't know why that would offend? Care to elaborate on that one? As for the slow words, I stated this once to SSOG because of his constant and redundant misrepresentation of what I have stated. Yet you put this all on me.You show your bias towards SSOG in the way you start out your post.

Sorry, I don't use the emoticons appropriately, I guess. This should help:

Also please note SSOG is the one who used caps. I was commenting on both styles, but really I don't care. I knew someone would have a problem with my intro, and I was right. So, I apologize, and I wish I hadn't done it. I'll take it down if you would like.

 

[SSOG]

Why would you use ALL 32 SB RB's since 1990 when I was very clear in my discussion point of ONLY USING SB RB's who carried a HEAVY LOAD? Again you mislead intentionally for the sole purpose of being argumentative.

Stop telling me what I'm doing or why. You aren't my buddy, you aren't my dad, and you certainly aren't my girlfriend. You don't know me. Turn the tool factor way down.I've made it perfectly clear why I'm arguing with you here. I feel that, while there is some correlation between SB RBs and missing time, correlation does not imply causation. I believe that there are lurking variables in your sample (most notably- the workload itself), and that that's where the true causal relationship lies. In order for you to convince me that SB RBs who carry a heavy workload are significantly more injury prone than normal RBs who carry a comparably heavy workload, you're going to have to compare the two groups. You'll also have to define some of the terms a bit, and refine the study. What about backs that play in the championship game? Are they 100% fine, it's just that if their team had gotten one more win they would fall apart? What defines a heavy workload? 300 carries? 400 carries?

I'm not misleading, I'm questioning your conclusions. There's a big difference.

Oh, and as to why I used *ALL 32 SB RBS*... I'm trying to determine if SB RBs behave any differently than normal RBs. The two ways to do that are to compare all SB RBs to all normal RBs, or to compare all heavy-workload SB RBs to all heavy-workload normal RBs. I've done both in this thread.

Maybe because we disagreed on me saying Javon Walker would outproduce Rod Smith by far this year. Maybe because you missed badly on Ron Dayne being the lead Denver RB this year. As you claim to be the board's resident Denver Bronco expert. Did you downgrade Alexander out of the top 3 RB's as I did?

What? First off, you're making no sense. I'm hating on you for downgrading Alexander because I missed on Dayne? How on earth does that make any sense at all? Seriously, I *really* need you to explain that one to me. I'd also like you to tell me where I claimed I was the resident Broncos expert. Lots of other people have claimed that about me, but I've never made that claim about myself- in fact, I've said repeatedly that people could skip my posts entirely and just read the Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post and they'd be just as well off. Want me to find a link to prove that I've said that?Second off, you're flattering yourself. You think I'm hating on you because you thought Javon Walker would far outproduce Rod Smith? First, I don't care *WHAT* you think- you're welcome to have your own projections, and they're welcome to differ from mine. Why would I hate on your because your projections differed from mine? What fun would fantasy football be if everyone projected the same thing. Second off... you're REALLY flattering yourself if you think I had any clue who you were. Do you think this one time that I disagreed with your projection was so memorable that I actually pulled out my notebook and wrote "note to self: you hate "It Is What It Is", so be sure to give him a hard time"? I can vaguely recall disagreeing with a couple of people about Rod Smith and Javon Walker, but not only do I not recall if you were even one of them, I don't even recall what it was that I disagreed about.

Seriously, just because a lot of people go through the Shark Pool with an axe to grind (Limp Ditka, I'm looking at you) doesn't mean that I do. I'm never "out to get" anyone, I'm never "picking on" anyone, I'm never "hating on" anyone... and I think that anyone who does any of those things probably takes the internet a little bit too seriously.

By the way, as to where I had Shaun Alexander ranked... I didn't have him ranked. I gave Shaun Alexander a big "DND" (do not draft) and made sure if I was ever in a position where I'd be forced to grab him (such as drafting third and not expecting Tomlinson to fall) then I would trade down and get something extra in return. I did a similar thing with Edgerrin James and Cadillac Williams. I really don't see how any of that has any bearing on this conversation, though.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself here SSOG? You constantly misrepresent what I stated in your attempts to ruin my points about SB RB's who carry a heavy load. It is your contention to look SOLEY at a heavy workload. While it is my contention that a heavy workload combined with the extra games and practices played leading up to the SB = more punishment to the RB and less recovery time. How many times do I need to repeat this to you?

I'm not "attempting to ruin" anything here, and once again, you need to turn the tool factor down a little bit. You're calling something a causal relationship. I'm saying that there are lurking variables and that I believe those are responsible for the correlation, instead.If you want to prove that "a heavy workload combined with the extra games and practices played leading up to the SB = more punishment to the RB and less recovery time.", then you need to compare players with the heavy workload and NO extra games to players with an equally heavy workload who played in the Superbowl. That will isolate the variable that we disagree about (extra practices and games).

Again never said this anywhere. Why do you constantly misrepresent what I stated SSOG? My contention is that list you provided of fullbacks and backup RB's does not list how these players got injured. I know several of them got injured on special teams play. Many of them played as much or more on special teams as they did on offense.

So quit misrepresenting what I stated and read the posts

I *have* read the posts. Your contention is that Dodds' study overrepresented an RB's chances to get injured. My contention is that including FBs and backup RBs would actually *UNDERREPRESENT* the chances, and would actually HELP your arguement more than hurt it.

Show me where I claimed this SSOG. Never claimed this anywhere. Why are you being such a jerk about this? What is your problem with me here SSOG? So far everything you have replied to here has been nothing but one big lie about what I supposedly stated. My contention is that you CANNOT compare FB's and backup RB's as you do to my points about a featured RB

It has been my contention that FB's do not compare to feature RB's like Alexander. Read through the posts again to see this, but you already know this anyway. YOU are the one who felt the need to use FB's in comparison to my Alexander points.

I'm not being a jerk here, and I don't have a problem with you. I disagree with you. Am I not allowed to disagree with you anymore? Do I have to agree with everything you say, or else I have a problem with you?You say that FBs do not compare to feature RBs... but Drinen ran the numbers again with nothing but feature RBs and got pretty much exactly the same results. This suggests to me that the two groups are more comparable than you'd believe. Perhaps you'd know this if you hadn't just dismissed Drinen's second study out of hand like you dismissed his first one.

Why change the subject? You know that FB's and backup RB's are not comparable to feature RB's. Yet you insist on comparing them. And I have provided on two seperate occassions in these posts a list of these players who brought the injury number up, and you know this

I *DO NOT* insist on comparing them. I would be perfectly fine using the second study that Drinen did, the one he just ran whose results he just posted in this thread. You know, the one that only used ALL TOP-10 RBS since 1988. You know, the one that had the exact same results, which you just summarily dismissed out of hand. There were no backup RBs on that. There were no FBs on that. There were no special teamers on that. No Lars Tates. I'd be perfectly happy to use that data, too. Of course, that data says exactly the same thing again.

The list IS selective when you use it to compare it to my OP of SB RB's who carry a heavy load. Why do you insist on comparing FB's and backup RB's to Shaun Alexander SSOG? Absolutely ridiculous and the only reason why you do this is to argue in an attempt to ruin my valid points. Pathetic....

Read the list again. Find me ONE FULLBACK on that second list that Drinen ran and I'll go ahead and toss the entire list out the window. There is not a single fullback. The second list did not compare a single fullback to Shaun Alexander. It compared top-10 RBs (AND *ONLY* TOP-10 RBS) to Shaun Alexander. And seriously, turn the tool factor down.

It is SSOG's contention that all RB's who carry a heavy load get injured at the same rate. SSOG contends that playing extra games and practices on the way to the Super Bowl, combined with a month and a half less recovery time for Super Bowl RB's has no effect on the injury ratio. Now if SSOG will simply provide the information about NFL RB's who have carried a heavy load over the past 10 years, and their games missed the following year...then this thread hijack will be officially over.

Click the smiley, it's a link.

I agree with Limp Ditka here. SSOG simply has issues and it's blatanly evident by his weak attempts to misrepresent everything I have stated here, without quoting my posts. The reason SSOG constantly says "You said this" is because he doesn't have the quote to back it up. What a ruse.

...

To disprove this, the ONLY thing you could do is to show ALL NFL RB's with EQUAL WORKLOAD'S to my SB RB's listed. Thus far, you haven't done this anywhere. Instead you have only weakly and sneakily attempted to change the subject and alter the facts on my very valid points. This is very sad coming from somebody who has been on this MB a long time and should be representing this board far better. It's really ashame you continue to act like this with the sole purpose of ruining my discussion points with lies.

Alright dude, that's it, your tool factor has gone through the roof. This discussion is over.I'm out of here. You're more than welcome to have the last word.

 

[fornov]

I went back 10 years because that is a more than fair assessment in FF terms. If you go back longer than 10 years here, we are gonna start running into most of these RB's not even being in the NFL anymore.Heavy workload is pretty self explainatory. If you disagree with any of the players on my list that I defined as having a heavy workload, then the onus is on you to elaborate as to why you disagree. Just as the onus is on SSOG to prove his statement that all RB's carrying a heavy workload get injured at the same rate as Super Bowl RB's who carry a heavy workload. SSOG made this statement as his sole contention of disagreement to my Super Bowl RB post. Yet all SSOG has offered is a list of virtually any RB (Fulbacks and backups included) back to '88 (talk about being selective).I know I am correct in what I stated. You want to say otherwise and agree with SSOG, then the onus is on you to prove me wrong.

10 years is fine. That is where you want your cutoff, so be it.Heavy workload is indeed self-explanatory, but there are different degrees of heavy workload, right? I'd say 300 touches is probably a lot, but 350 is more, and 400 is really a ton. In your list you include player with as many as 417 touches Terrell Davis, 1998 season) and as few as 152 touches (Dorsey Levens, 1996 season). You exclude players with as many touches as 283 (Tiki Barber), 273 (Charlie Garner and Willie Parker) and 263 touches (Michael Pittman). You also included Corey Dillon, who played for the Bengals in 2003, not the Patriots. In your last sentence you state that you know you are correct in what you stated. How? You are forgetting the basic rule of statistical analysis regarding the null hypothesis: we have to assume there is no relationship between two variables until there is proof otherwise. I would be very interested in knowing if you are indeed correct, but you have not shown that to be the case yet. I have no agenda here, I don't care how this turns out one way or another. And yes, what you are saying makes sense, that the extra workload of the playoff games, combined with the decreased recovery time in the offseason, would lead to more injuries the following year. But in order for me to be convinced that you are correct, you have to show me that what you are saying is backed up by the data to a degree that chance cannot explain it (to a reasonable doubt - see the link on p value).If you are not interested in convincing me (or SSOG or anyone else for that matter), that is fine, maybe I'll look into it myself when I have more time. But just saying something is true does not make it true.

 

[fornov]

I went back 10 years because that is a more than fair assessment in FF terms. If you go back longer than 10 years here, we are gonna start running into most of these RB's not even being in the NFL anymore.

Heavy workload is pretty self explainatory. If you disagree with any of the players on my list that I defined as having a heavy workload, then the onus is on you to elaborate as to why you disagree. Just as the onus is on SSOG to prove his statement that all RB's carrying a heavy workload get injured at the same rate as Super Bowl RB's who carry a heavy workload. SSOG made this statement as his sole contention of disagreement to my Super Bowl RB post. Yet all SSOG has offered is a list of virtually any RB (Fulbacks and backups included) back to '88 (talk about being selective).

I know I am correct in what I stated. You want to say otherwise and agree with SSOG, then the onus is on you to prove me wrong.

10 years is fine. That is where you want your cutoff, so be it.Heavy workload is indeed self-explanatory, but there are different degrees of heavy workload, right? I'd say 300 touches is probably a lot, but 350 is more, and 400 is really a ton. In your list you include player with as many as 417 touches Terrell Davis, 1998 season) and as few as 152 touches (Dorsey Levens, 1996 season). You exclude players with as many touches as 283 (Tiki Barber), 273 (Charlie Garner and Willie Parker) and 263 touches (Michael Pittman). You also included Corey Dillon, who played for the Bengals in 2003, not the Patriots.

Just like your buddy SSOG, you misrepresent what I stated as well. In a very weak attempt to make me look stupid. Nowhere in here do I list Dorsey Levens from '96 or Corey Dillon from the Bengals.

Nice try though...

I respectfully submit that you did...Who played in the SB in the 1996-1997 season?

Denver and New England. Their starting RB's in that season were Dorsey Levens and Curtis Martin. You were evaluating their games played in '97, correct? So the number of touches we need to evaluate is for the 1996 season, right?

Who played in the SB in the 2003-2004 season?

New England and Carolina. Evaluating the starting RB's for these team would look at touches in 2003 and games played in 2004, right? That would be Antowain Smith and Stephen Davis.

BTW, SSOG is not my buddy, never met him. Just like I've never met you, and he's never met you. Again, I don't care which way this argument goes, but I would like to find out what is correct.

 

[fornov]

I know I am correct because I know NFL football and the numbers game.

That's cool. I'm sure you do know the NFL very well. But show me how. You keep saying you're right, without backing it up with data. I just cannot accept that as proof. If I tell someone that an antibiotic will kill a certain species of bacteria, that person might ask me how I know that is true. I could just say, "I'm a doctor, I know it's true," and some will believe me at that. Some people might be more skeptical and want to know about the mechanism of action and kill time and half-life and all other sorts of properties. Eventually, I might need to actually get out the original journal article showing the evidence of this antibiotic killing this species in x amount of time in y number of cases, compared to placebo. Consider me skeptical.If you don't want to, or don't have the means, or don't have the time, that's fine. I'll have to remain unconvinced. But if you absolutely know something is true and you've convinced yourself, you'll just have that advantage, right?

 

[BigRed]

lol @ believers in "the curse" out-numbering those who don't by over a 2-1 margin

I hope they put LT on there next year - I'll hype up the curse and maybe the other owners will freak so I get him cheap

 

[fornov]

I know I am correct because I know NFL football and the numbers game.

That's cool. I'm sure you do know the NFL very well. But show me how. You keep saying you're right, without backing it up with data. I just cannot accept that as proof. If I tell someone that an antibiotic will kill a certain species of bacteria, that person might ask me how I know that is true. I could just say, "I'm a doctor, I know it's true," and some will believe me at that. Some people might be more skeptical and want to know about the mechanism of action and kill time and half-life and all other sorts of properties. Eventually, I might need to actually get out the original journal article showing the evidence of this antibiotic killing this species in x amount of time in y number of cases, compared to placebo. Consider me skeptical.If you don't want to, or don't have the means, or don't have the time, that's fine. I'll have to remain unconvinced. But if you absolutely know something is true and you've convinced yourself, you'll just have that advantage, right?

SSOG is the one who brought the every RB who carries a heavy load into this, not me. Again, the onus is on SSOG to prove this, not me. What I said holds true. No offense but you seriously don't know NFL football if you believe that all heavy workload RB's average 5.8 games missed the following season, as the Super Bowl RB's that I showed did. I am not gonna waste my day running the stats to something that I already know the answer to. If you wanna remain unconvinced of this, then you run the numbers for yourself (or get SSOG to run them). Trust me, anyone who remains unconvinced of this needs to run the numbers to improve their knowledge of NFL RB's and injury trends.

OK. Very well then. It is obvious you either don't have the time, don't have the ability, or don't have the desire to do what I asked you to do. FWIW, I don't either. However, despite what you say, the burden of proof is on you, since you are making the claim. I'll say it again, I have no vested interest in which way the outcome of this argument points, and neither should you, frankly. It would be good to know if your theory is true, but it would also be good to know if it was false (good source of misinformation). Unfortunately, we will not get that information. The 5.8 is a large number, and something I will keep in mind, but I just don't have confidence that this is reliable with such a small sample size (n=14). If you could have shown that to me, then I would have believed you.Anyway, thanks for an interesting discussion.

 

[fornov]

Time and desire would qualify here.

Again, I already know the answer, and really you should too. Earlier within the posts I ran the numbers for the top 20 (22 including SB RB Dillon-Westbrook) RB's for 2005, this should give you a pretty good idea that the numbers are nowhere even close. Just look back to 2004 and pro-rate those numbers over a 10 year period.

And read my original post from back in March, it is linked throughout this thread several times.

Again it is pretty much common sense that the extra time spent in practice and in games, combined with the less recovery time for SB RB's, would result in a higher injury rate. Ask any NFL RB and he will tell you how difficult it is to stay healthy under these circumstances.

We're really beating a dead horse here, so I'm about finished. But I did want to bring this up since you said it once before.How in the world am I supposed to ask an NFL RB anything? I don't happen to know any NFL RB's. This may just be a piece of rhetoric from you, but since you said it twice about the same thing, I'm not sure. Are you able to ask these types of questions to NFL players? It would seem their opinions are well-informed; maybe you could conduct a poll for us.

 

[fornov]

I just noticed you edited my previous post. You really shouldn't do that. The proof is on you, and you have failed to provide it. SSOG was just offering counter-evidence.

 

[fornov]