Worst football argument (1 Viewer)

[jafo]

Take away that 1 run and RB X only has X yards per carry.

The last time I checked all runs count the same in fantasy football. So, unless your league penalizes each RB and takes away their longest run before calculating the points, give it a rest. Oh, and you won't see the NFL taking away anyone's runs either.

The argument is old and tired.

 

[ImTheScientist]

 

[Keys Myaths]

I am going to bump this thread at least 100 times this year.

 

[TJ-Raider]

Along the same lines....

Player X had X yards from scrimmage called back on penalties.

 

[amnesiac]

Take away that 1 run and RB X only has X yards per carry.The last time I checked all runs count the same in fantasy football. So, unless your league penalizes each RB and takes away their longest run before calculating the points, give it a rest. Oh, and you won't see the NFL taking away anyone's runs either. The argument is old and tired.

is it your contention that this is NEVER an appropriate way to help evaluate a performance, or that is it simply overused and often inappropriate?

 

[JohnnyU]

Chris Brown runs too upright

 

[H.K.]

Worst:

Removing an RB at the GL to save on the pounding. No statistical data shows RB's get injured more in GL situations.

Second Worst:

All a QB has to do is manage the game. If it were that simple, everyone would do it.

 

[joffer]

it's a weak argument, but most don't use to debate a RB's fantasy value, but rather their effectiveness as a runner, thereby leading to more future opportunity and potential value. and there is a difference in effectiveness of RB A that goes 6, 9, 5, 8 and RB B that goes 1, 1, 26, 1

 

[Utter Chaos]

How about "[insert team name] has a bunch of wins and hardly any losses whenever they carry the ball 30 times or more"

 

[shredhead]

it's a weak argument, but most don't use to debate a RB's fantasy value, but rather their effectiveness as a runner, thereby leading to more future opportunity and potential value. and there is a difference in effectiveness of RB A that goes 6, 9, 5, 8 and RB B that goes 1, 1, 26, 1

Yeah, one ran for 28 yds and the other had 29 yds.

 

[jafo]

Take away that 1 run and RB X only has X yards per carry.

The last time I checked all runs count the same in fantasy football. So, unless your league penalizes each RB and takes away their longest run before calculating the points, give it a rest. Oh, and you won't see the NFL taking away anyone's runs either.

The argument is old and tired.

is it your contention that this is NEVER an appropriate way to help evaluate a performance, or that is it simply overused and often inappropriate?

IMO it has been overused. I agree that it can sometimes be an appropriate way to evaluate the performance of a player, but I think you also have to look at why they had that big run in the first place. If the defense player tripped and fell down for example, that doesn't make the RB a stud because he ripped off an 80 yarder. Running an 80 yarder in the NFL still requires speed to not get caught from behind though, regardless how the hole was opened.

 

[amnesiac]

Take away that 1 run and RB X only has X yards per carry.

The last time I checked all runs count the same in fantasy football. So, unless your league penalizes each RB and takes away their longest run before calculating the points, give it a rest. Oh, and you won't see the NFL taking away anyone's runs either.

The argument is old and tired.

is it your contention that this is NEVER an appropriate way to help evaluate a performance, or that is it simply overused and often inappropriate?

IMO it has been overused. I agree that it can sometimes be an appropriate way to evaluate the performance of a player, but I think you also have to look at why they had that big run in the first place. If the defense player tripped and fell down for example, that doesn't make the RB a stud because he ripped off an 80 yarder. Running an 80 yarder in the NFL still requires speed to not get caught from behind though, regardless how the hole was opened.

it is probably overused, i agree.seems like there are certain times where it can be helpful in evaluating players.

 

[jon_mx]

You know if you took away all of Barry Sanders 20 yards or more runs, he averaged less than 3 yards a carry.

 

[BoulderBob]

Maybe overused, but nowhere close to worst.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Second Worst:All a QB has to do is manage the game. If it were that simple, everyone would do it.

Not everyone has the Bears' defense.

 

[AbidingDude]

Maybe overused, but nowhere close to worst.

It would be the worst if you took out the times that it was appropriate.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Take away that 1 run and RB X only has X yards per carry.

The last time I checked all runs count the same in fantasy football. So, unless your league penalizes each RB and takes away their longest run before calculating the points, give it a rest. Oh, and you won't see the NFL taking away anyone's runs either.

The argument is old and tired.

is it your contention that this is NEVER an appropriate way to help evaluate a performance, or that is it simply overused and often inappropriate?

IMO it has been overused. I agree that it can sometimes be an appropriate way to evaluate the performance of a player, but I think you also have to look at why they had that big run in the first place. If the defense player tripped and fell down for example, that doesn't make the RB a stud because he ripped off an 80 yarder. Running an 80 yarder in the NFL still requires speed to not get caught from behind though, regardless how the hole was opened.

it is probably overused, i agree.seems like there are certain times where it can be helpful in evaluating players.

Often, the difference between an 80 yard run and a 30 yard run is just field position. If a running back breaks through the line and evades everyone in the secondary and has the speed not to get caught from behind, is the run better because his team had the ball on its own twenty instead of on its opponents thirty?This isn't an argument that we should throw out a player's longest run, but it is an argument that raw stats often don't tell the whole story. Sometimes a 30 yard run is just as impressive as an 80 yard run, and indeed sometimes a zero yard run (when he should have been tackled for a loss) is more impressive than a 20 yard run (through a hole so big that even Ron Dayne could run through it).

 

[Chaka]

Expect player X to have a big season because he is playing with a chip on a shoulder.

 

[secretid]

I fully expected to find

"USC could beat the 49ers"

when I clicked this thread.

 

[H.K.]

Second Worst:All a QB has to do is manage the game. If it were that simple, everyone would do it.

Not everyone has the Bears' defense.

Correct. In fact, only the Bears do.

 

[fornov]

Maybe overused, but nowhere close to worst.

It would be the worst if you took out the times that it was appropriate.

Good call

 

[5-ish Finkle]

It would be the worst if you took out the times that it was appropriate.

This post delivers.

 

[CalBear]

I think the issue is that it is sometimes correct to ignore outlying data points, but it's certainly not correct to discard all long runs, particularly from players who have an obvious tendency towards them (like a Tatum Bell).

Frank Gore's fourth-quarter 70-yard TD with his team down by 42 points and no starters left in on defense is an example of a run that should be discarded in evaluating a player's prospects.

 

[amnesiac]

Expect player X to have a big season because he is playing with a chip on a shoulder.

look for Chaka to have some awesome posts next week, cause he'll be posting with a chip on his shoulder.

 

[WhoDat]

Good call, as was JohnnyU's reference to the upright running style. Another favorite of mine from the draftnik crowd is...

Player A has the wrong physical measurements to play Position B in the NFL.

I am well aware there are baselines for height, weight and size for positions but for every player that has made it in the NFL, while fitting the success profile at a certain position, there is another player equally successful that does not fit the cookie cutter tangibles.

That maxim tends to get thrown around...often...and is not necessarily true.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Take away that 1 run and RB X only has X yards per carry.

This was used on Cadillac in last year's opener at Minnesota. Pretty weak."If you take away his vision, footwork, and cutback ability, Cadillac isn't a very good RB."

 

[Mordraken]

How about "[insert team name] has a bunch of wins and hardly any losses whenever they carry the ball 30 times or more"

That's the one that peaves me the most... Maybe they need to change that metric to:"[insert team name] has a bunch of wins and hardly any losses whenever they carry the ball 15 times or more in the 1st half".As for the "take out the long run" arguement... I can see it in this case when evaluating tallent:Week 1 - 65 yards, long 7Week 2 - 85 yards, long 10Week 3 - 55 yards, long 8Week 4 - 105 yards, long 8Week 5 - 55 yards, long 6Week 6 - 145 yards, long 75Week 7 - 65 yards, long 5Week 8 - 45 yards, long 3Clearly the week 6 75 yard run was an anomoly. Not that he's not capable of it, but if it's so rare that out of half a season he has one run of over 10 yards... you have to factor that into the equasion. If a RB has ONE long run every single week, then that makes him a stud .

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

It is what it is.

It is a valid stat. Value it as you see fit. With a small sample it has very little value.

 

[Munch]

I think the issue is that it is sometimes correct to ignore outlying data points, but it's certainly not correct to discard all long runs, particularly from players who have an obvious tendency towards them (like a Tatum Bell). Frank Gore's fourth-quarter 70-yard TD with his team down by 42 points and no starters left in on defense is an example of a run that should be discarded in evaluating a player's prospects.

If there were a Rush. Average that deleted the longest and shortest run for EVERY RB, then it would be a very good metric. However, as the OP stated, it's usually only used to discount RB X v. RB Y, when they don't delete RB Y's longest run either.

 

[CalBear]

If there were a Rush. Average that deleted the longest and shortest run for EVERY RB, then it would be a very good metric. However, as the OP stated, it's usually only used to discount RB X v. RB Y, when they don't delete RB Y's longest run either.

I don't really agree with this; discarding all longest and shortest runs would tend to overstate the value of chain-moving running backs, because the difference between their longest and shortest runs will tend to be less than the home-run hitters.

 

[corpcow]

Take away that 1 run and RB X only has X yards per carry.The last time I checked all runs count the same in fantasy football. So, unless your league penalizes each RB and takes away their longest run before calculating the points, give it a rest. Oh, and you won't see the NFL taking away anyone's runs either. The argument is old and tired.

BUT... it isn't totally irrelevant. If someone consistently breaks long runs, then it's valid. But isolated long runs are worth recognizing when looking at stats averaged out, the same way streaky play is worth looking at (i.e., someone had 3 30 pt games and then 5 pt games otherwise).

 

[Todem]

The joy of FF is watching the players play and judging the talent and making your own assesment.

When you start becoming a stat geek you will over analyze it and become a numbers guy instead of watching the game and forming a true opinion of "can the guy really play or not". Watch the players and stop reading just the box scores if you want to have a chance to win this game.

And I agree I can't stand that age old argument "well if you took away his 70 yard TD jaunt he would have had only 60 yards rushing". Blech, please spare me that nonsense. I want guys who bust long runs and are explosive. The great runners bust 25, 30 yard runs on there way to great games more often than not.

 

[jurb26]

How about "[insert team name] has a bunch of wins and hardly any losses whenever they carry the ball 30 times or more"

That's the one that peaves me the most... Maybe they need to change that metric to:"[insert team name] has a bunch of wins and hardly any losses whenever they carry the ball 15 times or more in the 1st half".

As for the "take out the long run" arguement... I can see it in this case when evaluating tallent:

Week 1 - 65 yards, long 7

Week 2 - 85 yards, long 10

Week 3 - 55 yards, long 8

Week 4 - 105 yards, long 8

Week 5 - 55 yards, long 6

Week 6 - 145 yards, long 75

Week 7 - 65 yards, long 5

Week 8 - 45 yards, long 3

Clearly the week 6 75 yard run was an anomoly. Not that he's not capable of it, but if it's so rare that out of half a season he has one run of over 10 yards... you have to factor that into the equasion. If a RB has ONE long run every single week, then that makes him a stud .

Of course the 75 yrd run is an anomily. Not seeing what the big deal with that is though, personally. This is the NFL, 75 yd runs are hard to come by. A 75 yd run maybe happens once a week among all the teams playing and is sure to wind up in the top 5 plays for the week. There is a reason for this, they are hard to come by and NFL defenses do their very best to eliminate the game changing play. There is a very large difference however between what is considered a big play in the NFL and a HUGE, 75 yrd play. Big plays happenmore frequently then I think most would care to acknowleged. I believe that in the NFL, a "big play" in the rushing game is a run of 20+ yds (though that might be a pass and rushes are 15+ yds). Take a look at this. Some of the names at the top of this list will more than likely surprise you.

 

[Munch]

The great runners bust 25, 30 yard runs on there way to great games more often than not.

But that's exactly the crux of the argument - it is usually used to discount a rare breakout run. If you were to delete the two most extreme outliers from a player's stats, you get a much clearer view of whether or not a runner has a tendency to break it, or if he just got lucky.

 

[secretid]

Expect player X to have a big season because he is playing with a chip on a shoulder.

LJ?

 

[Munch]

When you start becoming a stat geek you will over analyze it and become a numbers guy instead of watching the game and forming a true opinion of "can the guy really play or not". Watch the players and stop reading just the box scores if you want to have a chance to win this game.

Let me guess - you're a Yankees fan.

 

[bonesman]

The great runners bust 25, 30 yard runs on there way to great games more often than not.

But that's exactly the crux of the argument - it is usually used to discount a rare breakout run. If you were to delete the two most extreme outliers from a player's stats , you get a much clearer view of whether or not a runner has a tendency to break it, or if he just got lucky.

yea... if you subtract the longest... you have to subtract the lowest too. It's something that was taught in statistics class.... i'm not 100% sure... but i think it had to do w/ determining PROBABILITY.so when some player has a 100+ day and the bulk of that was w/ one carry... the probability of him having 100 on a consistant basis is low.

i think that's important info to take into consideration

 

[CalBear]

yea... if you subtract the longest... you have to subtract the lowest too. It's something that was taught in statistics class.... i'm not 100% sure... but i think it had to do w/ determining PROBABILITY.

so when some player has a 100+ day and the bulk of that was w/ one carry... the probability of him having 100 on a consistant basis is low.

i think that's important info to take into consideration

Some players are more likely to break long runs, and they shouldn't be penalized for that. If you're comparing, say, Antowain Smith and Vernand Morency, and you throw out their longest and shortest runs, with Smith you're likely to be throwing out a 0-yard and an 8-yard run, while with Morency you may be throwing out a 0-yard and a 40-yard run. You will always be throwing out longer runs for Morency than you do for Smith; therefore, throwing out the long run and short run understates Morency's value relative to Smith.

 

[bonesman]

Take a look at this. Some of the names at the top of this list will more than likely surprise you.

not really... Rudi and Droughns are a tad suprising... but the lists are headed by guys i'd expect

 

[jasvic]

Expect player X to have a big season because he is playing with a chip on a shoulder.

Baltimore Ravens

Strength:

Jamal Lewis is coming into this season with a chip on his shoulder. What happens when a running back with a chip on his shoulder faces a linebacker with a chip on his shoulder? Maybe they both just die right there from the force of the collision. Powerful things, those shoulder chips.

The Brushback 2006 AFC Preview

 

[Otis]

This may not be the worst.

One of the worst may be "he's too small to be an every down back" and/or "he's too small to stay healthy."

No, actually, he isn't. He is exactly the same size as many, many other top NFL backs. And no, bigger guys don't get hurt less. That's a myth.

 

[Munch]

Some players are more likely to break long runs, and they shouldn't be penalized for that. If you're comparing, say, Antowain Smith and Vernand Morency, and you throw out their longest and shortest runs, with Smith you're likely to be throwing out a 0-yard and an 8-yard run, while with Morency you may be throwing out a 0-yard and a 40-yard run. You will always be throwing out longer runs for Morency than you do for Smith; therefore, throwing out the long run and short run understates Morency's value relative to Smith.

Doesn't matter - Morency will still come out ahead, since as you say - he has a tendency for long runs. By deleting outliers, you're deleting the anomolies, not the tendencies.

 

[jafo]

Expect player X to have a big season because he is playing with a chip on a shoulder.

Baltimore Ravens

Strength:

Jamal Lewis is coming into this season with a chip on his shoulder. What happens when a running back with a chip on his shoulder faces a linebacker with a chip on his shoulder? Maybe they both just die right there from the force of the collision. Powerful things, those shoulder chips.

The Brushback 2006 AFC Preview

I heard LenDale White is expected to have a Doritos chip on his shoulder this year. He'll eat it when he gets hungry during the games though so I wouldn't worry.

 

[jurb26]

Take a look at this. Some of the names at the top of this list will more than likely surprise you.

not really... Rudi and Droughns are a tad suprising... but the lists are headed by guys i'd expect

McGahee, J. Lewis, F. Taylor, M. Anderson (being only 2 less than Bell) and J. Jones did not surprise you?Not to mention that many of these guys on that list had about 2 "Big Plays" in the running game per game. Thats a far bit more than I would imagin anyone expects.

 

[JohnnyU]

I fully expected to find"USC could beat the 49ers"when I clicked this thread.

Hell, they can't even beat Texas.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

Chris Brown Eddie George runs too upright [to be successful in the NFL]

fixed.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Chris Brown Eddie George Eric Dickerson runs too upright [to be successful in the NFL]

fixed.

I raise.

 

[AB in DC]

Worst football argument == "You only say you like player X because you have him on your fantasy team."

 

[CalBear]

Some players are more likely to break long runs, and they shouldn't be penalized for that. If you're comparing, say, Antowain Smith and Vernand Morency, and you throw out their longest and shortest runs, with Smith you're likely to be throwing out a 0-yard and an 8-yard run, while with Morency you may be throwing out a 0-yard and a 40-yard run. You will always be throwing out longer runs for Morency than you do for Smith; therefore, throwing out the long run and short run understates Morency's value relative to Smith.

Doesn't matter - Morency will still come out ahead, since as you say - he has a tendency for long runs. By deleting outliers, you're deleting the anomolies, not the tendencies.

That's incorrect. Take a simple theoretical example:Smith game 1: 4, 3, 0, 2, 6, 1, 5, 8, 0, -1, 3

Smith game 2: 1, 4, 2, 7, -2, 0, 5, 3, 4, 6

Morency game 1: 4, 3, 0, 2, 6, 1, 5, 35, 0, -1, 3

Morency game 2: 1, 4, 2, 38, -2, 0, 5, 3, 4, 6

If you throw out the worst and best, these two backs look equivalent.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

I fully expected to find"USC could beat the 49ers"when I clicked this thread.

Hell, they can't even beat Texas.

go bruins.