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!
It's a little early to make any judgment on SOS. For example, the Jaguars have faced Alexander, Edge, Martin, the Denver RBs, Rudi Johnson and the Pittsburgh RBs. I'd wager that the Jags end the season ranked higher than 24th against the run.But your point is well taken, and so far it appears as though LT has had a tougher run schedule than Alexander.
That's true. Here are two more truisms:1) 12 is not less than 10.
LT's career numbers are dwarfed by Curtis Martin's, Marshall Faulk's and Jerome Bettis'.I think the last 22 games is a better bench mark.Only if your guage for measuring RBs is strictly rushing yards. If you look at the total yards, I think you'll find that LT is indeed the best RB in the NFL. Since 2001, LT has 8742 total yards, while SA has 7639 total yards. So LT has the advantage. Of course, if you throw in TDs, SA has a 82-71 advantage. (82-74 if you count passing TDs)Statistically LT isn't better than Alexander, and wasn't better than Alexander last year. Statistically, LT has never been the best RB in the league.really and truly some opinions are wrong and the same can be said for his- statistically wise LaDanian is the best back in the NFL and has been for some time now- there really should be no debate on it. I could very well think my house is bigger than the neighbor's and be awfuly wrong about it.OMG, write the press a NFL player thinks he is the best at his postition!I file this under the catagory of news that isn't news at all.he can claim hes the best back in the nfl- and be wrong about it.That there are still this many Willis haters.
BTW, who are any of us to disagree with his OPINION?
Looks like a lot of people should step down from that: :soap:
I was comparing the same timeframe with both backs. How does that equate to comparing LTs numbers to players with much longer careers? And why would you arbitrarily choose 22 games?LT's career numbers are dwarfed by Curtis Martin's, Marshall Faulk's and Jerome Bettis'.I think the last 22 games is a better bench mark.Only if your guage for measuring RBs is strictly rushing yards. If you look at the total yards, I think you'll find that LT is indeed the best RB in the NFL. Since 2001, LT has 8742 total yards, while SA has 7639 total yards. So LT has the advantage. Of course, if you throw in TDs, SA has a 82-71 advantage. (82-74 if you count passing TDs)Statistically LT isn't better than Alexander, and wasn't better than Alexander last year. Statistically, LT has never been the best RB in the league.really and truly some opinions are wrong and the same can be said for his- statistically wise LaDanian is the best back in the NFL and has been for some time now- there really should be no debate on it. I could very well think my house is bigger than the neighbor's and be awfuly wrong about it.OMG, write the press a NFL player thinks he is the best at his postition!I file this under the catagory of news that isn't news at all.he can claim hes the best back in the nfl- and be wrong about it.
BTW, who are any of us to disagree with his OPINION?
Looks like a lot of people should step down from that: :soap:
The last 22 games = the last year and a half. I think that's a better judge of who is better currently. I'll look something up in a second to show this point.I was comparing the same timeframe with both backs. How does that equate to comparing LTs numbers to players with much longer careers? And why would you arbitrarily choose 22 games?LT's career numbers are dwarfed by Curtis Martin's, Marshall Faulk's and Jerome Bettis'.I think the last 22 games is a better bench mark.Only if your guage for measuring RBs is strictly rushing yards. If you look at the total yards, I think you'll find that LT is indeed the best RB in the NFL. Since 2001, LT has 8742 total yards, while SA has 7639 total yards. So LT has the advantage. Of course, if you throw in TDs, SA has a 82-71 advantage. (82-74 if you count passing TDs)Statistically LT isn't better than Alexander, and wasn't better than Alexander last year. Statistically, LT has never been the best RB in the league.really and truly some opinions are wrong and the same can be said for his- statistically wise LaDanian is the best back in the NFL and has been for some time now- there really should be no debate on it. I could very well think my house is bigger than the neighbor's and be awfuly wrong about it.OMG, write the press a NFL player thinks he is the best at his postition!I file this under the catagory of news that isn't news at all.he can claim hes the best back in the nfl- and be wrong about it.
BTW, who are any of us to disagree with his OPINION?
Looks like a lot of people should step down from that: :soap:
Tominson played hurt last year.If you select any benchmark that doesn't overemphasize the single year in which Tomlinson was hurt, I don't think it's very easy to make Alexander look statistically better.
Season=16 games. 1.5 seasons=24 games.The last 22 games = the last year and a half. I think that's a better judge of who is better currently. I'll look something up in a second to show this point.I was comparing the same timeframe with both backs. How does that equate to comparing LTs numbers to players with much longer careers? And why would you arbitrarily choose 22 games?LT's career numbers are dwarfed by Curtis Martin's, Marshall Faulk's and Jerome Bettis'.I think the last 22 games is a better bench mark.Only if your guage for measuring RBs is strictly rushing yards. If you look at the total yards, I think you'll find that LT is indeed the best RB in the NFL. Since 2001, LT has 8742 total yards, while SA has 7639 total yards. So LT has the advantage. Of course, if you throw in TDs, SA has a 82-71 advantage. (82-74 if you count passing TDs)Statistically LT isn't better than Alexander, and wasn't better than Alexander last year. Statistically, LT has never been the best RB in the league.really and truly some opinions are wrong and the same can be said for his- statistically wise LaDanian is the best back in the NFL and has been for some time now- there really should be no debate on it. I could very well think my house is bigger than the neighbor's and be awfuly wrong about it.OMG, write the press a NFL player thinks he is the best at his postition!I file this under the catagory of news that isn't news at all.he can claim hes the best back in the nfl- and be wrong about it.
BTW, who are any of us to disagree with his OPINION?
Looks like a lot of people should step down from that: :soap:
True. If you actually use 24 games, I think Tomlinson probably comes out ahead . . . which shows how arbitrary any particular cutoff is.
We haven't played 8 games yet this year. I think it's pretty clear what's meant by the term "year and a half."Anyway, which WR would you rather have on your team right now?Season=16 games. 1.5 seasons=24 games.The last 22 games = the last year and a half. I think that's a better judge of who is better currently. I'll look something up in a second to show this point.I was comparing the same timeframe with both backs. How does that equate to comparing LTs numbers to players with much longer careers? And why would you arbitrarily choose 22 games?LT's career numbers are dwarfed by Curtis Martin's, Marshall Faulk's and Jerome Bettis'.I think the last 22 games is a better bench mark.Only if your guage for measuring RBs is strictly rushing yards. If you look at the total yards, I think you'll find that LT is indeed the best RB in the NFL. Since 2001, LT has 8742 total yards, while SA has 7639 total yards. So LT has the advantage. Of course, if you throw in TDs, SA has a 82-71 advantage. (82-74 if you count passing TDs)Statistically LT isn't better than Alexander, and wasn't better than Alexander last year. Statistically, LT has never been the best RB in the league.really and truly some opinions are wrong and the same can be said for his- statistically wise LaDanian is the best back in the NFL and has been for some time now- there really should be no debate on it. I could very well think my house is bigger than the neighbor's and be awfuly wrong about it.OMG, write the press a NFL player thinks he is the best at his postition!I file this under the catagory of news that isn't news at all.he can claim hes the best back in the nfl- and be wrong about it.
BTW, who are any of us to disagree with his OPINION?
Looks like a lot of people should step down from that: :soap:
By the way, over the last 22 games, it's basically a dead heat (2613-2597) for total yards.The last 22 games = the last year and a half. I think that's a better judge of who is better currently. I'll look something up in a second to show this point.I was comparing the same timeframe with both backs. How does that equate to comparing LTs numbers to players with much longer careers? And why would you arbitrarily choose 22 games?LT's career numbers are dwarfed by Curtis Martin's, Marshall Faulk's and Jerome Bettis'.I think the last 22 games is a better bench mark.Only if your guage for measuring RBs is strictly rushing yards. If you look at the total yards, I think you'll find that LT is indeed the best RB in the NFL. Since 2001, LT has 8742 total yards, while SA has 7639 total yards. So LT has the advantage. Of course, if you throw in TDs, SA has a 82-71 advantage. (82-74 if you count passing TDs)Statistically LT isn't better than Alexander, and wasn't better than Alexander last year. Statistically, LT has never been the best RB in the league.really and truly some opinions are wrong and the same can be said for his- statistically wise LaDanian is the best back in the NFL and has been for some time now- there really should be no debate on it. I could very well think my house is bigger than the neighbor's and be awfuly wrong about it.OMG, write the press a NFL player thinks he is the best at his postition!I file this under the catagory of news that isn't news at all.he can claim hes the best back in the nfl- and be wrong about it.
BTW, who are any of us to disagree with his OPINION?
Looks like a lot of people should step down from that: :soap:
How about the last one week? Last two weeks?Anyway, I think we glossed over a pretty impressive stat: Alexander's averaged no less than 4.8 ypc in any game this year, while Tomlinson's only hit that mark twice in six tries.
Yep. I wouldn't divide it into games, though; I'd look at the season YPC. Alexander's is 5.3 to Tomlinson's 5.0. They're both pretty good, but Alexander has the edge. (Tomlinson probably has more yards per touch, though.)
I'd probably use total yards instead of rushing yards, but I do think that slightly overemphasizes receiving yards. (Not that rushing yards is perfect either).I can't see why you'd choose to use VBD points over fantasy points when comparing two RBs, since you'll get the same results over the last four years.
I never use yards per touch since it stinks.Dividing it into games is an example of special pleading btw.
I think it's pretty obvious that career rushing stats don't really tell the story of who is the better current player, even if two players entered the league at the same time.
Why should we penalize SA for not being in an O that passes to the RBs as much?SA has proven over his career to do more with every touch of the football:
this thread?Please go back to talking about how awesome McGahee is.But the most recent numbers between LT and SA aren't lopsided at all. The bottom line is that these two guys are, without question, the best RBs in the league right now. As to who is #1, an argument can be made for either one. Due to his receiving skills, I'd take LT.
McGahee is a punk and is a fool for thinking he can compare himself to either LT or SA in any way.who
Please go back to talking about how awesome McGahee is.
I don't think it matters that the most recent numbers between LT and SA aren't lopsided. Either the stats from 2001 tell us who the better RB is or they don't. I'd say they don't.For what it's worth, I don't think much argument can be made for Alexander as #1. But the question was who is the better RB statistically, and right now I'd say most people would agree that's Shaun Alexander. (If you just looked at their stats and removed the names.)
Agree to here.
They're equivalent, so there's no such thing as choosing one over the other. Choosing one is choosing the other.
What do you mean by "indicator"? If you mean "predictor," then the fact that Tomlinson's stats were subpar (for him) last year due to injury is extremely relevant since using an injured guy's stats while he is injured to predict future stats when he is healthy is . . . well, not a good way to do projections.
You used rushing yards instead of yards, which seems strange. You also compared his career yards to those of Jerome Bettis which wasn't germane to CrossEyed's point. You're also using 22 games as a cutoff when it's pretty much the only cutoff (out of many reasonable ones -- just this year, the last three years, their careers, etc) that gives Alexander the edge. Even 1.5 seasons = 24 games would give Tomlinson the edge. I understand that you used 22 instead of 24 because it was easier, but the fact remains that using specifically 22 games is pretty much the only way to make Alexander look better by the most relevant criteria such as VBD/fantasty points.
We already did. Rushing yardswho
Please go back to talking about how awesome McGahee is.
McGahee is a punk and is a fool for thinking he can compare himself to either LT or SA in any way.who
Please go back to talking about how awesome McGahee is.
IMO, LT2 will go down as one of the best RBs of all time. But, Alexander clearly benefits from playing behind a strong offensive line and in a very productive offense with solid QB play. Put McGahee on the Seattle roster and he'd put up similar numbers. Put Alexander on the Buffalo roster and I think he would put up worse numbers than McGahee.
Why are you so anti-LT? You can even turn a McGahee thread into anti-LT. Did he hurt you personally or do you just not like the Chargers?One is a goal, the other is a statement of fact. He didn't say he was better than anyone else. If he runs 2000 yards in one year does that mean he is a better back than OJ? Where do you draw that conclusion? He didn't say that, YOU said that. IF he runs 2500 yards this year and breaks his back never to play again is he the greatest back of all time? McGahee said he was better than every other RB in football. Point me to somehwere where LT has said that... please.
Right. We got sidetracked on stats, but back to the original point in this thread . . . I think McGahee may be a top two RB in terms of talent. I think it's between McGahee and Priest for the #2 spot behind Tomlinson.
We already did. Rushing yardswho
Please go back to talking about how awesome McGahee is.
McGahee +11 carries < Curtis Martin
Willis hails from 'the U' and we all know nothing but boy scouts and the classiest of citizens come from there.McGahee is a punk and is a fool for thinking he can compare himself to either LT or SA in any way.who
Please go back to talking about how awesome McGahee is.
They're not exactly equivalent and they're not the same thing, but for the purposes of our argument they are. (Having twice as many VBD points is not the same as having twice as many FPs, but I don't know why we're even discussing this since we both know all of this.)
By indicator I don't mean predictor. I mean "analyzer". Tomlinson being hurt is irrelevant to analyzing which RB was better over the last year and a "half". If you put their stats in a vacuum for the last 22 games, who would you say is better statistically? That was my point. For what it's worth, I think the last 22 games is probably the best number of games you could pick for analyzing two RBs that have each played six games in a season. Do you disagree?
I believe most people would start comparing RBs by looking at the three categories I mentioned. Feel free to disagree. My comparison of Bettis was germane at the time, and after he refined his criteria, the Driver/Boston example was better.Back to my point from above: Knowing nothing else about two RBs, what benchmark would you use to determine which RB is better? By benchmark I mean number of games.
The LT obsession around here is absurd.
I never said I had a single problem with LT's claim for 2000+. Only used it as an example of how everything can be twisted as insulting. Which the Willis haters did with his meaningless claim. 
And you have apparently taken it upon your shoulders to be the anti-LT. At least we have gotten that straightened out.The LT obsession around here is absurd.
The double standard is rediculous.
HAGS,G
I'd probably look at several different benchmarks, but if I had to use just one, and we're comparing two guys who have each been full-time starters for a while and still are, I'd go by VBD points over the time that both guys have been full-time starters. (If one guy has missed games, maybe I'd use VBD points divided by games.)
I don't know what talent means, but I'd say McGahee is certainly in consideration for being the second best RB in the NFL. Of course, I'm still not convinced to this day that McGahee is the best RB from his class.
That's true, but it could lead you to conclusions that Kurt Warner is better than Drew Brees and that Daunte Culpepper is better than anyone.If you look at just this year, you'd think Drew Bledsoe is better than Peyton Manning. I think at this point in the season, and the last and a half* is probably better than anything else.
I haven't seen any stat post. I'm guessing you wrote it while I was posting. You are pretty consistent in your LT bashing across a myriad threads. It seemed strange that you would spent so much time focusing on one player. Now I know why.How did I know that those stats I provided swould get the LT bandwagon's panties in a bunch.
It happened, Chaser
Statistically, I think those statements are accurate. Warner's and Culpepper's stats are better than Brees's stats.
Statistically, he is (this year).If you want to know who the better player is (as opposed to who has better stats), that's an entirely different question, and has nothing to do with the whole LT-Alexander sidetrack.
If placing SA in the same fantasy catagory as LT is "bashing" then yes, guilty as charged. Why this continues to anger so many of you LT backers is beyond me though.I haven't seen any stat post. I'm guessing you wrote it while I was posting. You are pretty consistent in your LT bashing across a myriad threads. It seemed strange that you would spent so much time focusing on one player. Now I know why.How did I know that those stats I provided swould get the LT bandwagon's panties in a bunch.
BJ Askew
.
