Jones averaging 4.1 yards per carry

[Jimz31]

Negative runs can also be equated to bad vision and poor reads of his blocking. Were there not such a dramatic difference between Barber and his production behind the same line, nobody would say anything.

I mean, wouldn't our line be more tired late in games and that lead to Barber stuggling? That's not the case. So either we have the most well-conditioned line that makes stupid errors early, but gets more stamina and plays better as the game goes along, or we have something that points to the runner also.

Again, go back and watch the blocking of the line between the 20's. They are not as good as the stats say. JJ made that 10 yard gain out of absolutely NOTHING last week. Once they get to around the 10, it seems as though they act like they have something to block for.

I've got just about every game on tape for the last 3 years (Didn't get last weeks game so had to watch it on Sopcast).

Watch the blocking this week when they are between the 20's as opposed to the red zone. Just watch. You will see guys make it into the backfield quite often.

 

[burmafrd]

And he is the starter. smile.

 

[Alexander]

So anything other than a 100-yard game is a "slump"? That's laughable.

Over half of a season being classified as a "slump" is equally laughable.

But if you have low standards and are willing to accept that, more power to you.

And if you have a back who is average to above-average during a "slump" and outstanding in one-fourth of his games, that's a pretty good player.

It's "pretty good" if they occasionally come up big against teams not playing in Houston or Tennessee. Look at who he else has been producing against: Seattle, a beat-up Chicago team minus Urlacher, a Carolina team minus Morgan and Jenkins, a New York team in the final game of the season. You can make all the excuses you want, but an upper echelon tailback sports a more impressive resume than that.

If not, it's average. And that's what he is right now.

 

[Jimz31]

Over half of a season being classified as a "slump" is equally laughable.

But if you have low standards and are willing to accept that, more power to you.



It's "pretty good" if they occasionally come up big against teams not playing in Houston or Tennessee. Look at who he else has been producing against: Seattle, a beat-up Chicago team minus Urlacher, a Carolina team minus Morgan and Jenkins, a New York team in the final game of the season. You can make all the excuses you want, but an upper echelon tailback sports a more impressive resume than that.

If not, it's average. And that's what he is right now.

What is Larry Johnsons average? He's looked at as a top echelon back, yet his average is?

Perhaps it's because his coach keeps feeding him the ball.

 

[AdamJT13]

Over half of a season being classified as a "slump" is equally laughable.

You don't know the definition of a slump, do you?

But if you have low standards and are willing to accept that, more power to you.

I don't have low standards, I just have perspective. Julius hasn't been running as well as he could be, but he hasn't been that bad, and he certainly has the talent to be better.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

so move the argument into another thread?

great

any new points being brought up in this one?

nope

 

[Alexander]

You don't know the definition of a slump, do you?

Maybe you should educate me. I will guarantee you it is not nine games long.

To me, in order to get in a "slump", you have to have established a baseline and dip sharply. From looking at the sum of his career, he is right at his typical level. You don't "slump" when your output is precisely where it usually is outside of a handful of outstanding performances.

I don't have low standards, I just have perspective. Julius hasn't been running as well as he could be, but he hasn't been that bad, and he certainly has the talent to be better.

Which is why he is average right now. Only an extremeist would point out he "sucks". A realist would see him for what he is performing at right now and not take the slant that half a season of mediocre play doesn't indicate a "slump". It might just be what he is.

Or we can all stand around, twiddling our thumbs and waiting for that next game when his talent "shines through" so everyone can feel good about him again.

 

[Alexander]

What is Larry Johnsons average? He's looked at as a top echelon back, yet his average is?

Perhaps it's because his coach keeps feeding him the ball.

I am very thankful you aren't calling the plays because we would have lost many more games than we have this season by "feeding" Jones the ball.

 

[RomoNow]

he is the same streaky back he has always been and he falls too soon and lacks vision. He looked a ton better earlier in the year, and his 77 yard run againt the saints helped his average quite a bit. He is a one dimensional back with little to no vision and he rarely runs with the kind of heart I want to see in the Starting running back of the dallas cowboys.

Here, here, I agree completely with your post.

 

[Rack]

And he is the starter. smile.

And MBIII is the Closer.

Huge smile.

 

[Bleu Star]

And MBIII is the Closer.

Huge smile.

Classic. (and so true..thankfully) :

 

[VA Cowboy]

Hey 2233, at least you got a warning and it's only temporary.

 

[yeaman]

Take out his 77 yard run and he is avergaing 3.81 YPC.

Other notable long runs:

LT 85
Gore 72
Parker 76
Dunn 90
F Tayor 76
Henry 70
C Taylor 95

Dont know if that helps any.

doesnt gore had like 12 runs or something over 40 yards so yes long runs help but good backs get long runs so i dont know why long runs make a dif. why discredit that run. would u take out a run for - yards?

 

[AdamJT13]

Maybe you should educate me. I will guarantee you it is not nine games long.

It certainly could be. By definition, any prolonged decline is a slump. Webster's says it's "an extended period during which a player ... is below normal in performance." Nine games is an extended period, wouldn't you say?

To me, in order to get in a "slump", you have to have established a baseline and dip sharply. From looking at the sum of his career, he is right at his typical level.

That's a load of garbage. Here's a comparison of Julius' first 24 career starts compared to his past nine starts --


YARDS PER GAME
First 24 = 94.75
Past 9 = 58.33

YARDS PER CARRY
First 24 = 4.14
Past 9 = 3.78

GAMES HIGHER THAN 3.83 YARDS PER CARRY
First 24 = 12 (50 percent)
Past 9 = 1 (11.1 percent)

RUNS OF 20-PLUS YARDS
First 24 = 11 (once every 49.9 carries)
Past 9 = 1 (once every 139 carries)

GAMES OF AT LEAST 80 YARDS
First 24 = 15 (62.5 percent)
Past 9 = 2 (22.2 percent)

GAMES OF AT LEAST 55 YARDS
First 24 = 22 (91.7 percent)
Past 9 = 4 (44.4 percent)

GAMES OF LESS THAN 35 YARDS
First 24 = 0 (0 percent)
Past 9 = 3 (33.3 percent)

If you think his past nine games have been the same as his "typical level," you're seriously misguided.

 

[kramskoi]

i'm thinking that the already high rate of 3rd down conversions would be even higher with the defense on their heels on third and short...not enough of these situations early for Romo...it's hard to say...he was spectacular against New Orleans, before Dallas shelved the running game...i really want this guy to succeed but the very fact that this RB controversy has persisted is proof that there may be more (important) people thinking it and not saying it...we'll see in time i guess...but there are two breeds of running backs IMO...one that tires players and the other, entire defenses...

 

[Alexander]

It certainly could be. By definition, any prolonged decline is a slump. Webster's says it's "an extended period during which a player ... is below normal in performance." Nine games is an extended period, wouldn't you say?




That's a load of garbage. Here's a comparison of Julius' first 24 career starts compared to his past nine starts --


YARDS PER GAME
First 24 = 94.75
Past 9 = 58.33

YARDS PER CARRY
First 24 = 4.14
Past 9 = 3.78

GAMES HIGHER THAN 3.83 YARDS PER CARRY
First 24 = 12 (50 percent)
Past 9 = 1 (11.1 percent)

RUNS OF 20-PLUS YARDS
First 24 = 11 (once every 49.9 carries)
Past 9 = 1 (once every 139 carries)

GAMES OF AT LEAST 80 YARDS
First 24 = 15 (62.5 percent)
Past 9 = 2 (22.2 percent)

GAMES OF AT LEAST 55 YARDS
First 24 = 22 (91.7 percent)
Past 9 = 4 (44.4 percent)

GAMES OF LESS THAN 35 YARDS
First 24 = 0 (0 percent)
Past 9 = 3 (33.3 percent)

If you think his past nine games have been the same as his "typical level," you're seriously misguided.

I have seen you put this argument through your statistical mumbo jumbo treatment and if that makes you feel better that's fine. You appear to love to use outliers as crutches.

The vast majority of his efforts are in the 70-80 yard range. Not this 95 yard number you throw out here.

Like most people who rely on numbers, you pick and choose when you want them to be significant. Sorry, I don't play that game.

If you want to subject his rushing efforts to a statistical test of variance, I believe you will see that your slant is decidedly unreliable. On a game by game basis, 95 yards is not typical of this player's performance on a game by game basis. If it makes you feel better to use a simple "average" as an indicator when he either rushes for 180 yards or 70, go right ahead.

And thank you for your Webster's definition of "slump" but I really don't find it relevant. A football season is decidely different from because of the opportunities as they are compressed.

This isn't baseball, despite everyone's attempts to apply numbers and terms like "slumps". In this game, you don't have time to allow players to eventually snap out of it. You have sixteen games to win and you put the best players out there to do it within that window. Quite simply, we don't have the time and shouldn't care to see if he can work his way out. He needs to do it or we should move on. I am saying it is time.

There is a reason why he is not utilized when the chips are down. And that is not because he is in a slump. He is not reliable.

You refered to LaDanian Tomlinson having similar "slumps" before. That's wrong and grossly misleading (I think you would call that "garbage") if you believe your own definition. He never had a nine game stretch where he averaged anything close to this type of production, much less when he was completely healthy as Jones is.

From my perspective, in football terms, a slump doesn't last over half a season. It occurs over a quarter of the season at most if the implication is that the player is anything but average.

 

[AdamJT13]

The vast majority of his efforts are in the 70-80 yard range. Not this 95 yard number you throw out here.

That's not correct. I already provided the stat that shows 15 of his first 24 starts resulted in AT LEAST 80 yards rushing. More of his first 24 starts resulted in 90-plus yards (10 games) than resulted in less than 80 yards (nine). So when you claim the "vast majority of his efforts" are 70-80 yards, you are wrong.

Anyhow, you make it sound like there's something wrong with a guy who getting at least 70 yards in almost every game (20 out of his first 24 starts). That's extremely consistent production. You won't find many backs with more than 20 70-yard games within a span of 24 starts. Even LaDainian Tomlinson has never had 20 in a 24-game span.

If you want to subject his rushing efforts to a statistical test of variance, I believe you will see that your slant is decidedly unreliable. On a game by game basis, 95 yards is not typical of this player's performance on a game by game basis. If it makes you feel better to use a simple "average" as an indicator when he either rushes for 180 yards or 70, go right ahead.

That's exactly why I posted the number of times Julius has had 35 yards or less, 55 yards or more, 70 yards or more, 80 yards or more, etc. Those have nothing to do with his per-game average and aren't skewed by outliers.

You refered to LaDanian Tomlinson having similar "slumps" before. That's wrong and grossly misleading (I think you would call that "garbage") if you believe your own definition. He never had a nine game stretch where he averaged anything close to this type of production, much less when he was completely healthy as Jones is.

You apparently struggle at reading comprehension. I never said Tomlinson has had a similar slump. What I said was that this was the first time that Julius ever had a streak of more than three consecutive games of less than 4.0 YPC apiece. His streak ended at seven games. He has never had another streak of at least four games. And I pointed out that Tomlinson has had multiple such streaks of at least four games with less than 4.0 YPC apiece -- including streaks of five games, four games, four games and four games just in the past three seasons.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Alex, decrying outliers in an average and not even showing one nor that the extremes are not one sided is pretty weak. When Adam includes data as to where the actual yardage figures fall, for you to make a comment like that just demonstrates you have no idea what your talking about. Just because you do not understand the significance of the statistics does not invalidate them.

You cannot respond to the statistical argument so you blow it off and go with your 'its not a slump, he just sucks argument.'

Alex: all vitriol and no substance.

 

[Jimz31]

I am very thankful you aren't calling the plays because we would have lost many more games than we have this season by "feeding" Jones the ball.

Nah, we would have had AT LEAST a much closer game than the blowout that we had against NO. I wouldn't have gone COMPLETELY away from the ONE GUY on this team that was hot that day. Sorry, but a 10-14 point deficit early in the game does NOT constitute an emergency.

Oh what a crime....to use the hot hand and not get away from it.

Guess what....we are going up against a team that is woeful against the run. How much do you want to bet that we will pass more than we will run. How many times the last 3 years have we seen BP and company gameplan TO an opposing teams STRENGHTS?

But oh yes.....NOBODY can game plan like BP.

 

[Alexander]

That's not correct. I already provided the stat

That is exactly what it is.

A number. A stat. And I can tell you are very fond of massaging them when it suits your purpose. That's what you do and that's fine. It just doesn't have much to do with football no matter how you utilize it.

I honestly don't think Coach Parcells is sitting around consulting charts, graphs and so forth. When the game is on the line, he gets the carries to the back that is producing consistently.

that shows 15 of his first 24 starts resulted in AT LEAST 80 yards rushing. More of his first 24 starts resulted in 90-plus yards (10 games) than resulted in less than 80 yards (nine). So when you claim the "vast majority of his efforts" are 70-80 yards, you are wrong.

Without the benefit of a slide rule, pardon my primitive analyses. And please note your 15 of first 24 starts statement as it completely ignores my assertion concerning the validity of a "slump". I stand firm by my assertion that a football slump certainly shouldn't last half a season. Do that over two seasons, you find yourself unemployed. This is a results driven business.

Anyhow, you make it sound like there's something wrong with a guy who getting at least 70 yards in almost every game (20 out of his first 24 starts).

Running backs have a very short shelflife in the NFL. A back can run for 1120 yards one year and be out of the league within two years. So honestly, what he did his rookie year doesn't mean much to me. Again, time is compressed. Slumps should not last nine games.

That's extremely consistent production. You won't find many backs with more than 20 70-yard games within a span of 24 starts. Even LaDainian Tomlinson has never had 20 in a 24-game span.

So what's the significance of the statistical flashcards here? Are you trying to sell that somehow Jones is even close to the level of Tomlinson in any way shape or form? Should we all be expecting a "blossoming"? Please, do tell, Adam.

His production is consistently average. It's not exceptional.

I never said Tomlinson has had a similar slump. What I said was that this was the first time that Julius ever had a streak of more than three consecutive games of less than 4.0 YPC apiece. His streak ended at seven games.

By virtue of one run. One.

How is that for an outlier.

He has never had another streak of at least four games. And I pointed out that Tomlinson has had multiple such streaks of at least four games with less than 4.0 YPC apiece -- including streaks of five games, four games, four games and four games just in the past three seasons.

At any rate, why drop Tomlinson into the discussion at all? To me, that's a pretty transparent attempt to name-drop in order to impress.

Sorry not buying.