DALLAS
Archer ESPN Dallas: “Running back Ezekiel Elliott will meet with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell in New York on Tuesday to discuss a May incident in Las Vegas, according to a source. Elliott was briefly detained by police, however a player can be subject to penalty under the personal conduct policy without an arrest. Elliott was suspended six games in 2017 under the personal-conduct policy, stemming from an alleged incident in 2016 involving a former girlfriend in Columbus, Ohio, but he was not arrested or charged by police.”
Jimmy Kempski (@JimmyKempski)
7/1/19, 10:12 AM
FYI, for what it's worth, here's what happened to the Cowboys in the first 3 games after Zeke finally got suspended in 2017 (though to note, Tyron Smith getting hurt and the Cowboys no longer being able to block anyone anymore had more to do with it)...
At ATL L 7-27
PHI L 9-37
LAC L 6-28
Easily.
Same people who want to put Russell Wilson as a HOF QB and conveniently forget how much Lynch meant to that team. And I think Wilson is a very good QB but the notion great RBs don’t make a huge difference is stupid
Zeke has to go to the Principal's Office. - ( New Window )
Gman11 : 11:17 am : link : reply
just don't make a difference. At least that was the opinion of a lot of people two drafts ago.
But what they don't take into account is when they are comparing an average RB to another average RB. An elite RB has a very distinct edge and the stats bear that out.
The rub is that if you did the same exercise for WR2 and WR3 to say that starters don't mean a lot and are fungible, it would be valid as well.
I have think the RB argument here was a lot of gum flapping bu people who desperately wanted to draft a QB, so they were going to use whatever information is at their hands to support it.
And some of those same morons lauded the Cowboys for picking Elliott.
Quote:
Running backs
Gman11 : 11:17 am : link : reply
just don't make a difference. At least that was the opinion of a lot of people two drafts ago.
But what they don't take into account is when they are comparing an average RB to another average RB. An elite RB has a very distinct edge and the stats bear that out.
The rub is that if you did the same exercise for WR2 and WR3 to say that starters don't mean a lot and are fungible, it would be valid as well.
I have think the RB argument here was a lot of gum flapping bu people who desperately wanted to draft a QB, so they were going to use whatever information is at their hands to support it.
And some of those same morons lauded the Cowboys for picking Elliott.
Devil’s advocate: They will say there was no star QB available at or near the top as with Darnold et al, when they took Zeke. Agree with your point, but, wait for it..Wait for it.
Quote:
just don't make a difference. At least that was the opinion of a lot of people two drafts ago.
Same people who want to put Russell Wilson as a HOF QB and conveniently forget how much Lynch meant to that team. And I think Wilson is a very good QB but the notion great RBs don’t make a huge difference is stupid
Lynch had to be every bit as good as he was for that few year stretch for the Seahawks to get to both Super Bowls.
Now of course Wilson is better than he was back then, but that offense was tougher to defend IMO with a younger Wilson with Lynch than it has been since he left.
If you go with a run-centric philosophy, then a top RB is needed. The Cowboys are currently that team, however while the OL is top notch, usually power rushing schemes can only do so much for average RBs.
If you want to "scheme RBs yardage", then usually you have to go to a good zone blocking scheme. That's how you get 1600 yards from a rookie Alfred Morris, an undrafted Matt Breida getting 5.0 ypc without great talent around him, and bringing back Gurley from the dead to MVP candidate. That's the recent work of Shanahan and McVay who not only know how to get receivers open but to get the most out of "lesser backs".
With Lynch, he was better suited to the zone scheme in Seattle than the run scheme he played in in Buffalo, so he was able to thrive very quickly with the Hawks. Terrell Davis walked into a perfect scenario of Shanahan zone blocking with Elway, and hence he got the huge rushing season.
His ACL healed and there was a better OL in front of him.
Yeah, maybe some Christmas cake from Tokyo. Goodell might like her.
Quote:
in that argument is that some posters think RB's are a plug and play position:
Quote:
Running backs
Gman11 : 11:17 am : link : reply
just don't make a difference. At least that was the opinion of a lot of people two drafts ago.
But what they don't take into account is when they are comparing an average RB to another average RB. An elite RB has a very distinct edge and the stats bear that out.
The rub is that if you did the same exercise for WR2 and WR3 to say that starters don't mean a lot and are fungible, it would be valid as well.
I have think the RB argument here was a lot of gum flapping bu people who desperately wanted to draft a QB, so they were going to use whatever information is at their hands to support it.
And some of those same morons lauded the Cowboys for picking Elliott.
Devil’s advocate: They will say there was no star QB available at or near the top as with Darnold et al, when they took Zeke. Agree with your point, but, wait for it..Wait for it.
Have “they” responded yet? Who are you all really waiting for to respond after only a season? Some guy who may have a weak point or lesser debate, or maybe a better position but just doesn’t articulate it well? Maybe the silence leads you to believe your right?
The self-righteous look is unbecoming...consider losing it
Wait
There most certainly were a ton of posts about the positional value of a RB.
Listen to bell troll, it tolls for thee...
Quote:
That's always nice when you're visiting someone.
Yeah, maybe some Christmas cake from Tokyo. Goodell might like her.
No, this isn't Jerry Jones we're talking about. Zeke should go with a classic:
Quote:
In comment 14488366 Klaatu said:
Quote:
That's always nice when you're visiting someone.
Yeah, maybe some Christmas cake from Tokyo. Goodell might like her.
No, this isn't Jerry Jones we're talking about. Zeke should go with a classic:
Back in the day when Entenman's was a local NYC area company, the Banana Nut Loaf and the Sour Cream and Chocolate Chips Loaf were the bombs. Breakfast cakes, we called them. 50 years ago...
Quote:
Running backs
Gman11 : 11:17 am : link : reply
just don't make a difference. At least that was the opinion of a lot of people two drafts ago.
But what they don't take into account is when they are comparing an average RB to another average RB. An elite RB has a very distinct edge and the stats bear that out.
The rub is that if you did the same exercise for WR2 and WR3 to say that starters don't mean a lot and are fungible, it would be valid as well.
I have think the RB argument here was a lot of gum flapping bu people who desperately wanted to draft a QB, so they were going to use whatever information is at their hands to support it.
And some of those same morons lauded the Cowboys for picking Elliott.
Now you are just plain wrong here about the stats. There has been plenty of analysis to show that in fact the more elite the RB the worse the team does overall. You can always find individual exceptions, but the trend is very much the opposite of what you state.
In Dallas' case somebody also noted that they were without Tyron Smith. Once he came back, the Cowboy's offense performed much better. Statistically speaking his return made a larger impact than Elliot's.
And since the Cowboy's offense has an average QB, average WR, a good TE and is focused on the running game, it stands to reason that an RB will have a bigger impact for a team built that way.
But here are the real facts. Tyron Simth was injured in the first of those 3 losses and missed the next 2 games. Here is what happened in the next 3 games with Smith but without Elliot:
Washington Redskins W 38–14
at New York Giants W 30–10
at Oakland Raiders W 20–17
Then Smith got hurt again early in the next game, and placed on IR afterwards. So Elliot was back but Smith was out.
Seattle Seahawks L 12–21
at Philadelphia Eagles W 6–0
With Smith out and Elliot in for those 2 games they managed 6 FG and 0 TD...
You can cherry pick stats to prove any inane point. Turns out, when you look at the larger picture, the point doesn't hold any water.
ANd, I was certainly the primary one posting stuff about RBs not being worth the resources that need to be put into the #2 pick in the draft. And to further bust your bubble, I was not sold on any QB (except Mayfield, but I didn't think he would work out in NY). I was in favor of trading down, and trying to build the line with the likes of Nelson, McGlinchey and Ragnow. My contention is that it is the OL that has a much larger impact than RB, or even WR for that matter.
And yes, there is some analysis to suggest that WR are getting overpaid/overdrafted. But, that analysis is somewhat fuzzy, certainly not as clear as RBs. Oh, and there is plenty of analysis done of elite RBs vs. average vs. replacement level players. The difference in offensive output is minimal. The analysis with regards to overall OL quality is striking though.
Unfortunately, some of the links don't work anymore...
https://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=567167
The more elite a RB, the worse the team does overall? In what fucking way?
The stats show when elite RB's miss time, their teams do not match the production. You mention cherry picking stats, yet use the absence of Tyrion Smith to refute that Dallas didn't match the production when Elliott was absent? I don't know what analyses you've seen on the subject, but I'll see if I can find the one where there is almost a 20% difference in performance when an elite back misses time.
I won't "cherry pick" stats, but I will give a couple examples.
Adrian Peterson and the Vikings. When he played in 2013, the Vikings had 2080 rushing yards. When he was out in 2014, they rushed for 1814. When he came back in 2015, they rushed for 2211. A significant difference.
And in 2016 when he was gone again, the team was near the bottom in rushing with 1205 yards. You can guess the only year that they outrushed their opponents. Maybe in some dark corner of analytics freaks they can argue there's some positive from a replacement, but among elite backs, it isn't often the case.
When Terrell Davis played a full season in 1998, the Broncos had 2468 yards rushing. With him only for 4 games the following season, they had 1864 yards. Easily replaced.
In Barry Sanders last season, the Lions rushed for 1998 yards. The next season? 1245.
Among elite backs, these aren't outliers. Look at it in a full season following a departure or in-season when the elite back is injured. The dropoff is significant
Quote:
There has been plenty of analysis to show that in fact the more elite the RB the worse the team does overall. You can always find individual exceptions, but the trend is very much the opposite of what you state.
The more elite a RB, the worse the team does overall? In what fucking way?
The stats show when elite RB's miss time, their teams do not match the production. You mention cherry picking stats, yet use the absence of Tyrion Smith to refute that Dallas didn't match the production when Elliott was absent? I don't know what analyses you've seen on the subject, but I'll see if I can find the one where there is almost a 20% difference in performance when an elite back misses time.
I won't "cherry pick" stats, but I will give a couple examples.
Adrian Peterson and the Vikings. When he played in 2013, the Vikings had 2080 rushing yards. When he was out in 2014, they rushed for 1814. When he came back in 2015, they rushed for 2211. A significant difference.
And in 2016 when he was gone again, the team was near the bottom in rushing with 1205 yards. You can guess the only year that they outrushed their opponents. Maybe in some dark corner of analytics freaks they can argue there's some positive from a replacement, but among elite backs, it isn't often the case.
When Terrell Davis played a full season in 1998, the Broncos had 2468 yards rushing. With him only for 4 games the following season, they had 1864 yards. Easily replaced.
In Barry Sanders last season, the Lions rushed for 1998 yards. The next season? 1245.
Among elite backs, these aren't outliers. Look at it in a full season following a departure or in-season when the elite back is injured. The dropoff is significant
LOL, gotta love this
Then you go on to cherry pick some stats...
I never said I wouldn't address you. I will certainly point out when i see you being a troll. And while I do not consider your post here trollish, it is in fact wrong.
First off, perhaps the single most meaningless stat you can provide is total yards rushing on the year. That is pointed out many times over in the articles linked in the my old thread.
Successful offenses are efficient offenses. For a running game, efficiency is defined as getting at least 50% of the yards necessary for a first down or TD (1st or 2nd down), or getting the first down or TD on any down. Yards per carry, and total yards have pretty much 0 correlation with winning.
the very first article I linked in the old thread discusses elite RBs...
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1081894-buyer-beware-nfl-running-backs-leading-rushers-equal-leading-losers
I think my earlier post dispelled that notion...
As I said - I didn't cherry pick stats. I gave three distinct examples - all using the same metric. I'm not sure what the gymnastics of Smith being out for the Cowboys had to do with the fact that when Elliott misses games, the Cowboys running attack is impacted. The degree to which this happens when an elite back is out has been historically 20% or more.
This isn't to deny if you replace an average or even an above average back with another average back that the difference is negligible. It is to compare elite backs to average replacements.
This isn't ground breaking stuff. Replace any great player with a lesser player and results are different. And we should all hopefully agree that Barkley is an elite RB.
Yes when it comes to wins, Elite RBs cost a ton more resources...
As I said - I didn't cherry pick stats. I gave three distinct examples - all using the same metric.
Uh... That is pretty much the definition of cherry picking stats...
The runnning game might be affected, IDK you haven't presented any information to show that the Cowboys running game was significantly affected or not. But lets assume that it is... In fact, it doesn't matter, total offensive output does matter, and that was not affected by Elliot, and was affected by Smith.
The degree to which this happens when an elite back is out has been historically 20% or more.
This isn't to deny if you replace an average or even an above average back with another average back that the difference is negligible. It is to compare elite backs to average replacements.
This isn't ground breaking stuff. Replace any great player with a lesser player and results are different. And we should all hopefully agree that Barkley is an elite RB.
Again, I can grant you whatever your point is here. It is still completely meaningless and worthless because the stats you are using are meaningless and worthless.
Total yards rushing means absolutely nothing. It has almost no correlation with winning.
And winning the only thing that really matters. Clearly offensive output, as in scoring points is highly correlated with winning and appropriate when discussing offensive players.
to be continued in the next post...
here is another article:
https://thepowerrank.com/2018/09/24/the-surprising-truth-about-passing-and-rushing-in-the-nfl/
How much better does your guess get knowing the rush efficiency for each team? To determine the correction, you plot wins as a function of team rush efficiency and draw a best fit line through the data. The bottom panel of the visual shows this relationship for all NFL teams from 1997 through 2016.
The regression line informs a new guess about the number of games a team will win. For example, suppose a team has a rush efficiency of 0.6 yards per carry. Instead of guessing 8 wins for this team, the line shows 8.7 wins for this team.
How much better are these new guesses? Not much. The error only drops from 3.08 wins to 3.01 wins. In technical jargon, rush efficiency explains only 5.0% of the variance in wins. (For a simple, visual explanation of the previous statement, click here.) You might as well guess at random.
The results of the guessing game get better with team pass efficiency, as the visual shows that better passing teams tend to win more games. The error in estimating wins drops from 3.08 to 1.95. Pass efficiency explains 60.2% of the variance in wins in the NFL.
Expected points added (EPA) is the expected points gained or lost from a play.
Mays had the ESPN analytics group look at the EPA for different types of plays. As a baseline, they first looked at rush plays based on data from the 2009 through 2013 seasons. On average, a rush play earns -0.04 EPA.
In case you missed the negative sign in front of that number, the average run play in the NFL loses points for the offense. That might be the biggest indictment of running the ball in the NFL yet.
In contrast, the average pass played earned a team +0.04 EPA. Throwing the ball moves a team in the right direction to score more points than the opponent.
And before you get uptight about how the rushing game affects the passing game...
A certain type of pass play does much better than the typical. The play action pass nets the offense +0.17 EPA. The deception of play action, a play in which the quarterback fakes a hand off before throwing down field, leads to a staggering increase in the point value of the play.
Should a team throw the ball on every play? No, since the lack of run plays kills the deception necessary for play action. Throwing on every down makes the offense predictable.
However, the study also found that a team doesn’t need to run the ball effectively to make play action work. Remember those 4 teams that had a positive EPA on run plays over the 5 seasons of the study? Only one of them had a top 10 EPA for play action. This team (New England) had a quarterback named Tom Brady.
During this period, Adrian Peterson of the Minnesota Vikings was the most dominant running back in the NFL. However, Minnesota never excelled at play action. The Vikings ranked 21st in EPA on play action. In 2013, Buffalo led the NFL in rush attempts but ranked last in EPA on play action.
The analytics suggest that a team doesn’t have to run the ball well to excel at play action. Despite the inherent deception, play action is a pass play whose success relies on a accurate pass down the field. A team needs a good quarterback to make that pass. In the study, the top play action teams (New England, Green Bay, Pittsburgh) had elite quarterbacks (Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, respectively).
The salary cap, and the draft are 0 sum games, in the sense that as you use resources on one position, that means you have less resources for other positions. So using resources on elite RBs, takes away resources that could be used on more impactful positions like say QB or OL. OL is not sexy, but more impactful. So an elite RB may produce more meaningless yards, but they also take resources away from other parts of the team.
To "ahem", use an example... The 2011 Giants were dead last in the NFL in total rushing yards. But they were 5th in passing. We all know how that worked out. See, I can use "examples" too.
Now, you don't have to agree with the analytics. But to say that the my opinion (also the opinion of many, many people) is "unfounded" is highly disingenuous.
Now, you don't have to agree with the analytics.
Thks
gud news fer uss simpel fohlk
.McL. : 7/2/2019 4:34 pm : link : reply
in fact Dallas' offensive output in 2017 aligns with Elliot being out vs. Tyron Smith being out?
I think my earlier post dispelled that notion...
What did it dispel? The Cowboys have had less production from their RB's when Elliott is out. There are other aspects at play. Who did the Cowboys play while Elliott was out and Smith played?
Washington
Giants
Oakland
What did those teams have in common? 3 of the worst defenses in the league.
When Elliott returned and Smith was out they played:
Seahawks
Philadelphia
Two top 5 defenses.
You go on about analytics all the time and miss the big picture so often because of trying to pigeon-hole things.
When an elite RB is replaced by a lesser back, the team has a significant drop in the rushing production. I quibble with what some of the analyses use as elite backs, but the downtick is historically at a 20% clip.
Can teams still thrive? Of course. They can rely more on the passing game. Or they might have a strong D. But there is a significant impact to losing an elite RB.
And I'll point out again, I'm not talking about losing guys like Matt Brieda or Isiah Crowell. I'm talking about losing Barkley, Elliott, Peterson, etc.
In the games that Zeke was out & they lost they played:
Philadelphia: 4th (pts allowed), 17th (yards allowed)
Atlanta: 10th (pts allowed), 12th (yards allowed)
LA Chargers: 3rd (pts allowed), 3rd (yards allowed)
So now you are making the point that their lack of offensive production (i.e. points) had to do with the defenses they faced. Which I would agree with, the defenses were a major factor. And in the end, had nothing to do with Elliott being in or out.
As you yourself said:
And that is what teams do, yards rushing is something for which teams can easily compensate.
Let me remind you of your ridiculous statements that started this discussion.
In comment 14488482 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Running backs
Gman11 : 11:17 am : link : reply
just don't make a difference. At least that was the opinion of a lot of people two drafts ago.
But what they don't take into account is when they are comparing an average RB to another average RB. An elite RB has a very distinct edge and the stats bear that out.
The rub is that if you did the same exercise for WR2 and WR3 to say that starters don't mean a lot and are fungible, it would be valid as well.
I have think the RB argument here was a lot of gum flapping bu people who desperately wanted to draft a QB, so they were going to use whatever information is at their hands to support it.
And some of those same morons lauded the Cowboys for picking Elliott.
So basically, you have completely walked back the argument that the Cowboy's deficiency in the 3 games posted in the OP had much to do with Elliot being out. It had more to do with the defenses. You also don't dispute that missing Tyron Smith (who you called Tyrion, this is football we are talking about not Game of Thrones...) may have also had a significant impact on their offensive production.
You have also stated that teams can "still thrive", by compensating with the passing game.
The only thing you are hanging your hat on, is total yards by a RB dips. To which, I say, yeah, so what... Total yards by a running back has virtually no impact on the outcome of a game.
And while these arguments are always difficult because analytics is talking bigger picture with larger data sets, and people like to talk individual games which we all know have many other factors, factors that get averaged out over larger data sets. Let's put that aside for a moment and look at their 6 games against the NFC East.
Wk Team Score YdR Players Out
1 W New York Giants 19 3 129
8 W Washington Redskins 33 19 169
11 L Philadelphia Eagles 9 37 112 Elliott & Smith
13 W Washington Redskins 38 14 182 Elliott
14 W New York Giants 30 10 122
17 W Philadelphia Eagles 6 0 129 Smith
Looking at those numbers it doesn't seem like either one of them missing time affected rushing yards very much. Against the Giants, neither missed time the second game the Giants D was in meltdown mode, but rushing was consistent. Against Washington, Elliott was out and rushing actually increased (as did points). Against Philly, Smith was out both times and Dallas struggled to score whether Elliott was there or not 17 more yards rushing (which seems pretty insignificant to me) but 3 fewer points.
The 2017 season it seems Dallas was Dallas whether Elliott was in or not. They struggled offensively with Smith out, which happened to coincide with playing better defenses, and it didn't matter if Elliot was playing against those better defenses or not.
One point I must make here. I am not going to argue against rushing production dropping when you replace an elite back with an average one. The argument is that those yards are not significant when it comes to determining the outcome of games in general. So your point about rushing yards dropping by 20% doesn't have much of an impact. You would have to correlate that 20% drop to a drop in points scored, and a drop in expected wins. The data does not support that contention. Those factors have been discussed in the 2 articles I have linked already. Of course I know you didn't look at them. Because you never look at information that contradicts your beliefs. Instead you rely on specious arguments, meaningless stats, bullying and belittling others.
And to be clear, I think we have the same definition of elite RBs.
I wasn't even arguing about Elliott's production, nor gave a fuck about Tyron Smith's participation. You interjected that. As usual, my position gets twisted when my opening post was that some of the same people who sneered at the Barkley pick, called the Elliott pick a good one.
There were two keys points to my original comment:
1)When comparing an average RB to an elite RB, the elite one has a very distinct edge and the stats bear that out.
2)Some of the same morons criticizing the Barkley pick, lauded the Cowboys for picking Elliott
How that prompted multi-paragraph responses, with links to past threads and articles that didn't even address those two points is unknown to me.
Christ, one of the articles you linked said that elite RB's aren't playing in SB's so you don't need one. Of course, they conceded this was just a recent thing as Emmitt, Terrell Davis, Walter Payton as well as others did indeed play in SB's (in their words "albeit long ago"). Articles like that are fairly benign as the Pats make up a large portion of SB teams in the past decade. That trend also seems to be changing a bit, if evidenced by some RB's that have gone deep into the playoffs or to a SB recently.
Quote:
So basically, you have completely walked back the argument that the Cowboy's deficiency in the 3 games posted in the OP had much to do with Elliot being out. It had more to do with the defenses. You also don't dispute that missing Tyron Smith (who you called Tyrion, this is football we are talking about not Game of Thrones...) may have also had a significant impact on their offensive production.
I wasn't even arguing about Elliott's production, nor gave a fuck about Tyron Smith's participation. You interjected that. As usual, my position gets twisted when my opening post was that some of the same people who sneered at the Barkley pick, called the Elliott pick a good one.
There were two keys points to my original comment:
1)When comparing an average RB to an elite RB, the elite one has a very distinct edge and the stats bear that out.
2)Some of the same morons criticizing the Barkley pick, lauded the Cowboys for picking Elliott
How that prompted multi-paragraph responses, with links to past threads and articles that didn't even address those two points is unknown to me.
Christ, one of the articles you linked said that elite RB's aren't playing in SB's so you don't need one. Of course, they conceded this was just a recent thing as Emmitt, Terrell Davis, Walter Payton as well as others did indeed play in SB's (in their words "albeit long ago"). Articles like that are fairly benign as the Pats make up a large portion of SB teams in the past decade. That trend also seems to be changing a bit, if evidenced by some RB's that have gone deep into the playoffs or to a SB recently.
Uhm...
This part, maybe!
The biggest hole..
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/1/2019 1:36 pm : link : reply
in that argument is that some posters think RB's are a plug and play position:
Which was you supporting the argument that Dallas' production suffered when Elliott was out, adding your spin on the RB position.
then there was this part also...
1)When comparing an average RB to an elite RB, the elite one has a very distinct edge and the stats bear that out.
No stats don't bear that out. Yes rushing yards drop, but points and wins are not significantly affected.
And this gem, which is what led to the links and various things I have posted here. None of which you have substantive argument to refute.
Elite RB's differ significantly from average RB's and their production is rarely if ever matched when they are out. That complaints about picking an elite RB high are unfounded and unsupported.
The fact that rushing production bears little on the outcome of games in general, leads to the conclusion that elite RBs are an unnecessary component of a team. If they are unnecessary it makes sense that people believe that using resources on them that can be used elsewhere is a poor use of resources.
You can simply state that you don't believe in the analytics on this subject, so you don't believe in the opinions of others. But to state that those opinions are unfounded and unsupported is pure unadulterated BS.
Then there was the fact that you attacked me for tying Dallas' struggles to Tyron Smith's absence, which you never refute, but you did add that they faced tougher defenses, which I actually agree with (It was a point I considered making myself, but didn't want to muddy the waters too much).
So, as usual you are trying to switch the argument into something else, since you can't substantively defend any your original statements.
Elite RB's are not a plug and play proposition. And elite RB's do differ significantly from average backs. To the tune of a 20% difference on average. And yes - there is an impact on points and wins too. Focus on the word "elite", Chief.
I'm only making two points. But your several paragraph assaults on subjects I'm not even broaching are probably amusing to, well, S&M enthusiasts.
When an elite RB is absent, production drops. That really shouldn't even be in question, but for some reason you keep having at it. You can keep lighting fake fireworks, I'm going to spend the next few days with real ones......
You still saying that using resources like high draft picks and the money that goes with it on an elite back vs. using it elsewhere is "unfounded and unsupported"
And I will remind you that you have not provided anything to support this.
While I have provided support for the other side.
On the surface, once a team has spent the resources on the elite RB, they are probably better with him than without. However there is some analysis (maybe in one of the 2 items I linked, if not then it's linked in the old post) that shows that teams with elite backs run the ball significantly more. Since running plays are less efficient than passing plays, teams that run more (even with elite backs), score less, and win less.
That said, I have never seen any analysis with regards to how well teams did before and after losing an elite RB. The analysis is between teams that have an elite RB and teams that don't and have spent those resources elsewhere. But again, you made the statement that the opinion held by some that picking elite RBs (with lets say the #2 pick in the draft...) is a poor use of resources, is "unfounded and unsupported".
Now you are trying to switch the argument to "Losing" an elite RB. Making a case that "Losing" an elite RB results in a drop in yards, points and wins is in itself specious, since the other side would say the team should not have picked that player and used those resources elsewhere. You are completely leaving out the fact that the resources spent on an elite RB can be used to help other parts of the team. You are not making an apples to apples comparison, chief.
So yeah, go focus on other things, and make false claims, with specious arguments to support them there...
But considering the opponent, all you had to do was withstand a “fuckstick” comment or the like and you were bound to succeed so let’s keep it in perspective...
Happy 4th!
McL - another several paragraph post and you still don't grasp the two points I addressed:
I tried to make it as basic as possible for you and you still post a multi-paragraph retort that keeps talking about points I'm not even addressing. You keep saying that you are providing proof and then say I've shown nothing. You've wasted a ton of bandwidth and still don't get what I've said.
You say I'm not making an apples to apples comparison and you are arguing about meat products! I'd love to slow it down and get you to focus on the point - so here it is again:
I think you really are stupid enough to think your refuting that.
Pithy two sentence remark to stay just ponderous enough to stay relevant for fukstck national posters...
McL - another several paragraph post and you still don't grasp the two points I addressed:
Quote:
Elite RB's are not a plug and play proposition. And elite RB's do differ significantly from average backs
I tried to make it as basic as possible for you and you still post a multi-paragraph retort that keeps talking about points I'm not even addressing. You keep saying that you are providing proof and then say I've shown nothing. You've wasted a ton of bandwidth and still don't get what I've said.
You say I'm not making an apples to apples comparison and you are arguing about meat products! I'd love to slow it down and get you to focus on the point - so here it is again:
Quote:
Elite RB's are not a plug and play proposition. And elite RB's do differ significantly from average backs
I think you really are stupid enough to think your refuting that.
And you refuse to admit that you took a swipe at anybody who uses analytics to inform their opinion about RBs. To use your words, an "unfounded and unsupported" swipe.
WHat you are too stupid to realize is that I don't give a crap about your argument about "losing an elite RB". It's a meaningless point. One could easily argue that take away any starter and use a backup and production will drop.
But you took a swipe at anybody who believes that RBs are not worth high picks. Now you try to change the subject to an absolutely stupid and inane point about losing a starting elite player.
I said that there were some posters who called the Barkley pick horrendous who lauded the Cowboys for taking Elliott.
I'm pretty sure a follower of analytics can't reconcile those differing takes.
You took it as a swipe at you. It wasn't. Frankly, I have no clue what your take was on Elliott.
And it most certainly is unfounded and unsupported to take that stance. You are going to hard pressed to show any metrics that call taking an elite player a bad move. And it will be judged in hindsight, because it isn't an exercise in mock drafting, it is an exercise in how valuable elite players are. We've already seen how valuable Rosen was to Arizona, and analytics will surely say that QB's trump everything else in positional value, right?
The Cowboys have been consistent because they drafted good players - not because of positional value. What you posted last year was that the team made an epic blunder in picking a RB. That will likely look more and more foolish as the years go on.
I said that there were some posters who called the Barkley pick horrendous who lauded the Cowboys for taking Elliott.
I'm pretty sure a follower of analytics can't reconcile those differing takes.
You took it as a swipe at you. It wasn't. Frankly, I have no clue what your take was on Elliott.
And it most certainly is unfounded and unsupported to take that stance. You are going to hard pressed to show any metrics that call taking an elite player a bad move. And it will be judged in hindsight, because it isn't an exercise in mock drafting, it is an exercise in how valuable elite players are. We've already seen how valuable Rosen was to Arizona, and analytics will surely say that QB's trump everything else in positional value, right?
The Cowboys have been consistent because they drafted good players - not because of positional value. What you posted last year was that the team made an epic blunder in picking a RB. That will likely look more and more foolish as the years go on.
C'mon dude, seriously..
The biggest hole..
FatMan in Charlotte : 7/1/2019 1:36 pm : link : reply
in that argument is that some posters think RB's are a plug and play position:
The only people who believe that RB is a "plug and play position" are people who believe in analytics.
Those of us who believe in analytics are not as dumb as you!
Stop pretending to be innocent.
And no, I am not saying taking any elite player is a bad idea... Just using those resources on elite RBs, is not as good as using them on elite OLs, ERs, and potentially QBs (but that was not last year)
And up to this point, as much as we all love Barkley as a player (I do too), the fact remains that he did not make the offense better. The improvement that the offense showed in the 2nd half of the year can be directly correlated to improved OL play. And that was my key argument. Trade down and use the resource to pick some really nice OL players that were available.
I don't think that argument will ever be proven bad. Frankly, I don't think there will be any way to prove it good or bad.
I have think the RB argument here was a lot of gum flapping bu people who desperately wanted to draft a QB, so they were going to use whatever information is at their hands to support it.
By your own admission you are well aware I was one of those who led the anti-RB argument.
In fact, I was probably the strongest anti-RB poster.
you also said
And some of those same morons lauded the Cowboys for picking Elliott.
That statement calls anybody who has argued against RB a moron. While noting that only some of the "morons" are hypocrites.
Face it, you took a pretty hard swipe.
Did the offense look any better in the first 8 games to you?
Sorry if that wasn't clear from my post. I noted that the improvement in the second half was correlated to the improved OL play, I thought the implication about the first 8 games was obvious.
Or is it just that when the minority opinion comes in you like to extrapolate it out over a fictitious larger population to be dramatically condescending with your posts?
And btw....the two picks are mutually exclusive in many ways, and opinions can vary as to one of those RBs being taken was a good idea and one not...
Zeke might be criminally charged - ( New Window )