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!
I'm on your side, as you know, but Dan Marino had the quickest release ever and rarely took shots, and he tore his ACL simply dropping back to pass in Cleveland. I'll never forget that because I had a bet on the Brownies that day.
Not really.He only passed the halfway mark last year, and he's nearing 30 (years-old).
ok the Otto Graham streak will never be broken. different era. 26 consecutive losses, set that one in stone.29 yrs for Landry! not likely to be broken in this day and age.and i'll add one that might rile some folks up. Emmitt Smiths' 18355 rushing yds. it might be broken, but guys that look promising seem to break down too soon to challenge. and more and more teams are going RBBC instead of having one workhorse RB.
I'd point out that Sanders would likely be the recordholder if he had not walked away, so clearly there are others besides Smith who are talented enough and can find the right situation... it's just exceedingly rare.Of active players who have a track record of at least a few years, Portis, Tomlinson, and James appear to be the only contenders at this point, and calling Portis and James contenders is a stretch. Portis was hurt a lot by his injuries in 2006... he probably lost around 1000 yards there. He could add 5000+ rushing yards over the next 4 seasons, putting him around the 13000 mark... but then he'd be entering the next season having just turned 31. Hard to see him getting another 5400 yards from there.James' shot was blown with his ACL. He probably lost about 1500 yards in 2001 & 2002. He will be 30 entering this season. Like Portis, he could be around 13000 entering next season, when he has just turned 31. But I can't see him getting another 5400 yards from there.LT is definitely in better position. Assuming he remains healthy (and is unaffected this year by last year's playoff injury), he could reach 15000 yards after 3 more seasons, at which point he would enter the next season having just turned 31. If he could be productive in that 31 year old season, he could then hang around a la Emmitt and pick up the rest. Still, he's far enough away that is has to be considered very unlikely.If nothing else, Emmitt's record will eventually fall after the league expands its season beyond 16 games, and a very talented RB plays his entire career getting extra games each year. If LT had been playing 18 game seasons, he'd probably have another 1200-1500 yards today, and would be in position to potentially claim the record with 4 more good seasons... he wouldn't necessarily have to hang around past his year at age 31.Andy Herron said:
More teams have workhorse RBs than ever before. Since 1960, there have been 52 cases of an RB getting 350 carries in a season; 23 of those (almost half) have been within the past 10 years. Emmitt's record is very high, but trends in the NFL are towards more carries and longer RB careers; both of those suggest that Emmitt's record will fall.Manster said:
I just ran that through the Historical Data thingy and it is pretty interesting that 350 carries was never hit until 1979.
Interesting post.
workhorse RB may have been the trend up through the last few yrs. but seems to me most teams are going to a mult. back system. looks like the trend will keep increasing. my main point about 18355 being very hard to break is the fact that backs cant put on that much mileage and stay healthy.
Thank you, Chase.I almost made a call out to you to bring your numbers, but figured you'd show up here soon enough.
Try reading the rest of the post.Where?
I don't know that this is true.The money offered and the media exposure to the game today is such that the potential player pool is a much wider audience than it was say 30 years ago. You can actually make the argument that records set back in the day were against inferior competition...teams tended to be composed of players from similar backgrounds, sources and even ethnic stock.I think the differences in today's player physically as compared to players from bygone eras is attributable to not just science and technology but also the wider gene pool players are drawn from.As for the records...The coaching records are going to be toughest to beat...at least the ones requiring longevity.The game is more "win championships now" than it used to be. This impatience is directly proportional, IMHO, to the amount of money owners invest in the teams. The more money involved, the more pressure on the coach to get the owner a return on that investment and the less time to show that return.Coaches aren't going to ever get that chance to stick with one team that long. Unlike with players, everytime a coach leaves, he may experience a lay-off of a season or two. So it is unlikely a coach can even reach those numbers without spending long tenures with one single team.
Maybe, but for the most part, the teams switching to committees are the teams with marginal talents or non-durable RBs- basically, the guys who no shot at Emmitt's record, no matter what. So even if more and more teams go to committees, the only RBs who will be affected are the ones with no legitimate shot. The Tomlinsons, Petersons, Larry Johnsons, Steven Jacksons, Clinton Portises, Edgerrin Jameses, and Jamal Lewises of the world will keep on getting a bigger and bigger and bigger load, which makes the environment more and more conducive to Emmitt's record falling.Not that I think it'll be an easy record to topple. All career records are extremely hard to topple- just think, out of all the players to play that position, only ONE managed to reach that career plateau, so it's a very elite accomplishment. I'm just saying that there's no way Emmitt's mark should be considered "unbreakable". Not with the way the NFL is currently trending.
Oh, I did, and it made even "less" sense.Try reading the rest of the post.Where?
O.K., so 23 have had 350 carry (single) seasons in the past 10 years. So where are they now?And how does the trend dictate that RBs are moving towards more carries and longer careers? It's just the opposite.Give us names. Who's accomplishing these feats and continuing to be their team's "workhorse?"
The NFL is currently trending towards the passing game.
The NFL as a whole, but if we look at the top 10-20% of NFL RBs (i.e. the guys with a prayer of breaking Smith's record), the trend is for them to get more carries than the workhorses in years past.Proof? Sure thing. Here's the average number of carries posted by the top 5 RBs in the league in terms of carries over the past 20 years.
O.K., but we're talking about an "individual" record here, not the top 5 backs every year for the past 20 years. I understand your point as to "carry trends," but your numbers are indicative of multiple backs and not just "one." There's got to be a guy that rides this trend "himself" over multiple years. The odds are not in that favor.As Chase pointed out earlier, as hopeful a case as LT may present, his odds are only roughly 26%. Not a betting or likely number.
On the other hand, it's very likely that someone will break Emmitt's record. It's just a question of who. No RB has a good chance, though, until very late in his career. But the field, does.
That's easy to say, but a whole nother thing to achieve. We'll see...Like I said, I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.
RBs are trending towards longer careers as feature backs. Since 1960, there have been a total of 40 RBs age 30 or older who have had 250+ carries in a season. 35 of those are since 1983. 23 have been in the past 10 years. That is, more RBs at age 30+ have had 250+ carries in the past 10 years, than in the entire previous history of the NFL.
My favorite radio guy Pat Kirwan had an interesting stat about this on Sirius today. He said that in most seasons, the number of teams who run more than they pass is either zero or one. In 2007, that number was (I believe) seven. Those teams include Oakland, Minnesota, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville and Miami. If there was in fact a seventh team, I don't recall who it was off the top of my head. His point was that more teams are getting back to the old-school mentality of pounding the rock.
I hope Pat didn't say that.Yes, 7 teams ran as many or more times than they passed last season, sacks excluded. That happened 8 times in '06, 11 times in '05, and '10 times in '04. From 1994 to 2003, the average # of teams with as many or more rushes than passes was 5.5.
Wow. He definitely said it. In fact, he said it two days in a row, and there was no room for misinterpretation.I should call him and quote those numbers to him.Chase Stuart said:
Dude, you're already dropping from 350+ carries to 250+ carries all of a sudden. This is what I'm talking about. Those "workhorses" don't exist anymore.And no, aside from LT, the names have NOT been mentioned. Where are all of these RBs that are chewing up yardage week by week? They simply aren't there. They don't exist. Again, give us all of these names that are climbing the yardage charts.CalBear said:
10 years?!? You claimed it wouldn't fall in your lifetime earlier, and said you just turned 45... I hadn't had time to respond to ask you how long you expect to live...
I'm not sure whether you're incapable of analysis, or just being disingenuous, but the point is that there are more of these workhorses than there have ever been before. That's what the numbers say. If LT plays as long as Emmitt did, he has to average just about 1000 yards per season. That's nothing these days.
