AdamJT13 v. The Horde

[BourbonBalz]

If Ramsey turned out as good as any of those guys...man...

Instead we got a RB.

And if Elliott turns out to be a generational RB will you be so quick to post?. I'll await your response.

 

[WillieBeamen]

The difference between Romo and Rodgers is that often enough they had pass defenses that helped them win the passer efficiency battle. You do that and you win 4 of 5.

We didnt/still don't have that kind of pass defense. And when given the chance to get a generational type pass defender prospect..... We drafted a rb.

LOL

 

[BourbonBalz]

And Zeke isn't even the best rb prospect of the last 12 months...

That's nothing but opinion. You might end up being right, but there's just as good of a chance you'll be wrong. See how that works.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Dont

I remember back with Emmitt if he had 20 carries a game Dallas had an amazing win percentage, also when he rushed for at least 100 yards. I'll take ball control over the run and shoot of a pass 40 time's a game any day of the week.

Don't tell the genius statisticians on here that.

 

[jday]

Parcells always used to say that it didn't matter whether you ran the ball well or not, just as long as you ran it, which was basically another way of saying that committing to the run can open up the pass -- but what it also says is that the running game doesn't have to be particular effective or efficient as long as it is USED.

In basketball, you have the idea of a usage-efficiency curve. You take someone like Carmelo Anthony, who may not be the most efficient shooter, but still forces the defense to account for him, which opens up other players and makes them statistically more efficient. When Melo is out of the game, his teammates' productivity actually tends to drop.

I've seen all the numbers that suggest the most efficient passing team wins at the end of the day, but I've yet to see a single stat that suggests the running game can't influence that in any way. A team who is rushing for less than 4 yards per carry may be doing so because they've forced the defense to stack the box and utilize fewer DBs in favor of bigger, slower personnel. That opens up the pass, and -- guess what -- makes it statistically more efficient. And that team probably wins not because of the running game, but because of the threat the running game posed.

More basketball analytics stuff if anyone cares:
http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/03/06/diminishing-returns-for-scoring-usage-vs-efficiency/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2015/12/statistical-analysis-basketball

Parcells put together a great team but his x and o work was dated. He would try to sit on a 3 point lead...drove me nuts.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Exactly....now go look at the game log stats and tell me when the consistency started occurring.

Just looked it up, we were alive until we lost in week 15, which means 892 of his yards was not garbage and 191 were garbage, not sure if what point you're trying to make.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

That's nothing but opinion. You might end up being right, but there's just as good of a chance you'll be wrong. See how that works.

No. Zeke could turn out to have a better nfl career than Gurley.... Certainly he's in a better situation than Gurley is.

But pound for pound Gurley is the better rb prospect.

And I don't think it's particularly close.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

And if Elliott turns out to be a generational RB will you be so quick to post?. I'll await your response.

Nobody dislikes the player. I dislike using a first rounder yet alone the 4th overall pick on one.

Please understand the difference.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

No. Zeke could turn out to have a better nfl career than Gurley.... Certainly he's in a better situation than Gurley is.

But pound for pound Gurley is the better rb prospect.

And I don't think it's particularly close.

It's hard to make that argument when Gurley was coming off an acl, thus we never got to see Gurley has a finished product at the collegiate level.

 

[zrinkill]

But pound for pound Gurley is the better rb prospect.

And I don't think it's particularly close.

Good thing you are not a scout.

Todd Gurley draft grade 6.3
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/todd-gurley?id=2552475

Ezekiel Elliot draft grade 7.09
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/ezekiel-elliott?id=2555224

You are right about the not even close part ....... just wrong about which player.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Good thing you are not a scout.

Todd Gurley draft grade 6.3
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/todd-gurley?id=2552475

Ezekiel Elliot draft grade 7.09
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/ezekiel-elliott?id=2555224

You are right about the not even close part ....... just wrong about which player.

You do realize these random numbers assigned are impacted by Gurley's torn all right?

I still laugh at nfl's random numerical rankings you keep posting. I think this is the fifth time.

 

[zrinkill]

I still laugh at nfl's random numerical rankings you keep posting. I think this is the fifth time.

Of course you do because no one agrees with your assessment of their prospect coming out of college.

Gurley Weakness other than injury
"Vision is average. Still gaining feel as a zone runner. Too locked into looking for cutback lanes when play-side run is open. Can get better at setting up blockers in space. Average creativity in tight quarters. Patience and tempo as a runner can improve. Quick passing attack limited his protection opportunities but was very average when given the shot.

Elliotts weakness other than wear down concern
"Appears to be too willing to put himself through the meat grinder rather than avoiding certain collisions. Understanding when to attack and when to elude may take time for him. Can sharpen his pass routes a bit and has room for improvement as a pass blocker. On second level, gets on top of defenders before he has a chance to gather himself into a position to evade a tackle."

 

[Nightman]

Just looked it up, we were alive until we lost in week 15, which means 892 of his yards was not garbage and 191 were garbage, not sure if what point you're trying to make.

After 12 games we were 4-8 and Romo was out again

DMC had 680 yards in those first 12 games

In the next 4 games (which we were hoping to lose) he gained 402 yards and picked up his 300k bonus....that was 37% of his yards

The other teams were more than happy to allow DMC to run out the clock when KMoore wasn't throwing picks

 

[Idgit]

Again, Adam isn't saying running the ball has no effect. He says that running it well is irrelevant. It would help if you guys would address his actual arguments.

Addressing the argument requires understanding the argument. At which point there's really nothing to argue about, is there?

 

[Idgit]

When Pete Carroll was asked about the Seahawks' commitment to the run and to being a truly balanced team last November, he offered probably the best summation of his overall philosophy:

"It's the most consistent, proven championship formula in the history of this game," he declared confidently.

He followed that up by winning the Super Bowl.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/...hers-russell-wilson-cam-newton-marshawn-lynch

From your own article:

The Seahawks threw the ball fewer than any other NFL team this year, but finished sixth in yards per pass attempt (7.7) while only throwing seven interceptions - a number bested only by the Packers and Chiefs. During Seattle's six-game win streak to end the season, Russell Wilson averaged an absurd 9.02 yards per attempt - best among all quarterbacks during that stretch. The Seahawks don't put up gaudy numbers in the pass game, but "efficient" would be an accurate way to describe it.

This debate is never about the importance of or the situational use of the running game. It's never about the number of carries. It's always only about the judicial use of limited resources on a part of the game that gives you what you need to get from it pretty much without regard for what it costs you to put the pieces in place.

How that's not understood and agreed to by everybody after all the data and all the repetition of the argument is beyond me. But then we also still have people here who think CBs are a waste of limited resources, so I guess there's no lower limit on the ability to ignore the obvious.

It's mind-boggling, but it goes on no matter what evidence is presented, and it'll be going on long after this thread is forgotten somehow.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

After 12 games we were 4-8 and Romo was out again

DMC had 680 yards in those first 12 games

In the next 4 games (which we were hoping to lose) he gained 402 yards and picked up his 300k bonus....that was 37% of his yards

The other teams were more than happy to allow DMC to run out the clock when KMoore wasn't throwing picks

Murray gained more of his yards in garbage time in 2014 than DMC did in 2015.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Of course you do because no one agrees with your assessment of their prospect coming out of college.

Gurley Weakness other than injury
"Vision is average. Still gaining feel as a zone runner. Too locked into looking for cutback lanes when play-side run is open. Can get better at setting up blockers in space. Average creativity in tight quarters. Patience and tempo as a runner can improve. Quick passing attack limited his protection opportunities but was very average when given the shot.

Elliotts weakness other than wear down concern
"Appears to be too willing to put himself through the meat grinder rather than avoiding certain collisions. Understanding when to attack and when to elude may take time for him. Can sharpen his pass routes a bit and has room for improvement as a pass blocker. On second level, gets on top of defenders before he has a chance to gather himself into a position to evade a tackle."

http://***USER-BAN-INCOMING-IN-3-2-1***/scoutingreport2015tgurley.php
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...gurley-best-rb-prospect-since-adrian-peterson
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/2000877/todd-gurley

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Dude, give it up. Your post was bull****.

Non-sense.

Post was still applicable.

 

[ccb04]

The challenge in trying to use the 0-2/Derrick Lassic argument is the Cowboys played the prior one team that had participated in the past 3 Superbowls and the team that won the Superbowl, two seasons prior... Oh and was the Cowboys most hated rival.

You think the Bills and Commanders were motivated?

On top of that can anyone say Derrick Lassic was a quality back-up?

And the Cowboys were the defending super bowl champions. Back then, everyone was gunning for them. Additionally, when Emmitt returned, they reeled off 7 wins in a row...to include beating the 49'ers in an NFC Championship game rematch, & trouncing the Eagles, Giants, and the Brett Favre led Packers over that span. You think the Giants, Eagles, Packers, and 49'ers, were motivated?

As far as Lassic, he was selected by the Johnson regime to be just that...Emmitt's back up. Additionally, the Cowboys obviously had a wealth of talent at other positions. And as already mentioned, Washington was a 4 win team that season...hardly the team that won the super bowl. The score of the Bills game was 13-10.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

And the Cowboys were the defending super bowl champions. Back then, everyone was gunning for them. Additionally, when Emmitt returned, they reeled off 7 wins in a row...to include beating the 49'ers in an NFC Championship game rematch, & trouncing the Eagles, Giants, and the Brett Favre led Packers over that span. You think the Giants, Eagles, Packers, and 49'ers, were motivated?

As far as Lassic, he was selected by the Johnson regime to be just that...Emmitt's back up. Additionally, the Cowboys obviously had a wealth of talent at other positions. And as already mentioned, Washington was a 4 win team that season...hardly the team that won the super bowl. The score of the Bills game was 13-10.

Yep. It was only 13-10.