NBC: Darren McFadden feels like a rookie again

[Idgit]

Not really.
1. Small sample sizes make backups look good. Joseph Randle has a 6.7 ypc compared to Murray with a 4.7 ypc.

2. When Latavius Murray started the final 3 games of the 2014 season, he has a 4.0 ypc while McFadden as the backup in those games had a 5.33 ypc.

Yeah, it's not enough to just have the same OLs. There's enough variation in how backs are used within an offense and, as you say, the sample sizes for backups are typically not large enough to give a good picture. You really have to look at the tape and see how he performed in the downs/distances/defenses he was facing.

 

[xwalker]

Jennings had plenty of carries and opportunities to support his numbers being accurate. The 'starter vs. backup' hokum you keep trying to perpetuate is embarrassing.

Joseph Randle had a 6.7 ypc as the backup.

DeMarco had a 4.7 ypc as the starter.

Was Randle better than Murray?

 

[Stash]

Joseph Randle had a 6.7 ypc as the backup.

DeMarco had a 4.7 ypc as the starter.

Was Randle better than Murray?

Were Randle and Murray's respective number of carries anywhere close?

Were Randle's number of carries anywhere near what Jennings ran for in 2013?

 

[Stash]

Yeah, it's not enough to just have the same OLs. There's enough variation in how backs are used within an offense and, as you say, the sample sizes for backups are typically not large enough to give a good picture. You really have to look at the tape and see how he performed in the downs/distances/defenses he was facing.

I fully agree with on most instances regarding sample size. But that's not what happened in the case I'm making. Jennings had more than enough work to clearly show that his numbers were no fluke but rather clear an indicator of better performance.

 

[xwalker]

Yeah, it's not enough to just have the same OLs. There's enough variation in how backs are used within an offense and, as you say, the sample sizes for backups are typically not large enough to give a good picture. You really have to look at the tape and see how he performed in the downs/distances/defenses he was facing.

It is interesting that of the 5 players currently listed as starters for the Raiders, only 1 was with the team in 2013.

Fuzzy pointed out that when L. Murray started in 2014 that it was not the same set of 5 OL that were in place when McFadden was starting. I think they were also moving players around on OL in 2013.

The bottom line is that it's difficult to make much from stats for a bad team. Reviewing the game footage is really the best way to evaluate players, especially RBs.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Joseph Randle had a 6.7 ypc as the backup.

DeMarco had a 4.7 ypc as the starter.

Was Randle better than Murray?

Ahhh..... The butterfly....errr... I mean the Hambrick effect lol

 

[Stash]

The bottom line is that it's difficult to make much from stats for a bad team. Reviewing the game footage is really the best way to evaluate players, especially RBs.

It's only 'difficult' when those stats clearly show you something that you don't want to see.

 

[CyberB0b]

It's only 'difficult' when those stats clearly show you something that you don't want to see.

There's a reason why he jumped at his 200k guaranteed contract.

 

[xwalker]

Were Randle and Murray's respective number of carries anywhere close?

Were Randle's number of carries anywhere near what Jennings ran for in 2013?

No, that's the point. Stats for backup RBs are meaningless. It's not just sample size. There are multiple other factors involved when comparing backups to starters. Fatigue. Starter are normally going to be in for 3rd and short which normally reduce their ypc. Starter are more likely to be in for short yardage approaching the goal line. With 1 yard to go at the goal line, the best that RB can do on that play is 1 yard. There are multiple other factors. When you have the starter vs starter stats, why not use them?

McFadden had a 5.33 ypc in 2014 when he was the backup. That's better than DeMarco Murray 4.6 ypc or Marshawn Lynch 4.7 ypc.

Take out the backup stats and compare Jennings to McFadden.

As starters in 2013:Jennings 3.8 ypc
McFadden 3.6 ypc

You can't add together a set of meaningless stats to achieve a set of meaningful stats. The Raider's backups from 2012 to 2014 had a 5.53 ypc. That would indicate that the Raider's rushing attack with their backups was better than the very best NFL team's rushing attacks. I don't think anybody, anywhere believes that the Raider's rushing attack with their backup RBs was better than the Cowboys or Seattle's rushing attack.

 

[xwalker]

There's a reason why he jumped at his 200k guaranteed contract.

If I were in his situation having made about 60M is his career, I would either retire or go to the team where I thought I could have the most success. For a guy that has been stuck in that hell hole in Oakland and that has been called a bust, it's likely that proving himself is more important than money, considering that he had already made a huge amount.

 

[Idgit]

There's a reason why he jumped at his 200k guaranteed contract.

I'm not holding out huge hope for McFadden myself, and you're correct that his market value was not high this offseason. That's the best measure of league-wide estimation of his ability. But xwalker's right that YPC is not the best way to compare DMC's effectiveness relative to the rest of that OAK backfield.

 

[Stash]

No, that's the point. Stats for backup RBs are meaningless. It's not just sample size. There are multiple other factors involved when comparing backups to starters. Fatigue. Starter are normally going to be in for 3rd and short which normally reduce their ypc. Starter are more likely to be in for short yardage approaching the goal line. With 1 yard to go at the goal line, the best that RB can do on that play is 1 yard. There are multiple other factors. When you have the starter vs starter stats, why not use them?

Starters are also getting most of the carries and getting the opportunity to get in a rhythm too. I can easily admit that clear backups who receive a fraction of the starter's number of carries can skew the numbers. But when that supposed 'backup' is getting over 100 carries and far and away out-producing the purported 'starting running back', that's not an aberration, that's a fact.

When Jennings has a career year under these same 'adverse conditions' people are trying to use to make excuses for McFadden's ineptitude, it destroys their case.

McFadden had a 5.33 ypc in 2014 when he was the backup. That's better than DeMarco Murray 4.6 ypc or Marshawn Lynch 4.7 ypc.

And yet his usual, pathetic 3.3 yards per carry when all is said and done.

Take out the backup stats and compare Jennings to McFadden.

As starters in 2013:Jennings 3.8 ypc
McFadden 3.6 ypc

You can't add together a set of meaningless stats to achieve a set of meaningful stats. The Raider's backups from 2012 to 2014 had a 5.53 ypc. That would indicate that the Raider's rushing attack with their backups was better than the very best NFL team's rushing attacks. I don't think anybody, anywhere believes that the Raider's rushing attack with their backup RBs was better than the Cowboys or Seattle's rushing attack.

Nor do I. But plenty of people can see for themselves that when comparing McFadden to 'the other guys' operating with the same supporting cast, 'the other guys' win, hands down.

 

[Nightman]

I love all the excuse making.

If the "McFadden is very good but never had a line" theory is proven true this year, then literally ANY RB can be placed this OL.

If Drew Henson was just given this line and these WRs he would have been awesome.

 

[Vinnie2u]

There's a reason why he jumped at his 200k guaranteed contract.

Could be Run behind this line for a year.. get about 1,500 yards.. Then get paid.. Not saying its going to happen, but he bet on himself..

 

[YosemiteSam]

Feels like a rookie again huh? Alright *****, you're buying the team dinner.

Guys, steaks are on this dumb*** rookie!

 

[xwalker]

Starters are also getting most of the carries and getting the opportunity to get in a rhythm too. I can easily admit that clear backups who receive a fraction of the starter's number of carries can skew the numbers. But when that supposed 'backup' is getting over 100 carries and far and away out-producing the purported 'starting running back', that's not an aberration, that's a fact.

When Jennings has a career year under these same 'adverse conditions' people are trying to use to make excuses for McFadden's ineptitude, it destroys their case.



And yet his usual, pathetic 3.3 yards per carry when all is said and done.



Nor do I. But plenty of people can see for themselves that when comparing McFadden to 'the other guys' operating with the same supporting cast, 'the other guys' win, hands down.

1. I'll give you props for coming up with Jennings. In the other thread about this subject, I was waiting for somebody to respond that Jennings had a 4.5 ypc. When nobody responded, I knew that nobody was trying hard.

It is much better comparison than Sturm's nonsense of trying to add together a bunch of small sample sizes of backups in an attempt to make his numbers valid.

2. We have the averages for both Jennings and McFadden as starters. That is the best comparison. When we have the more accurate numbers, then we should use them. If we only had their seasons totals, then that might be an interesting comparison, but we have the more specific stats with them as starters, so that is the more valid comparison.

3. Last time I said I would avoid calling out people's lack of education and whatnot, if you would try to be calm and more logical.

Nothing that I'm pointing out about the stats is illogical. The most logical comparison is their ypc as starters. Jennings still wins so I'm not sure what your problem is with the more accurate stats.

4. As I said before, McFadden is not really a pet cat for me. He has injury issues that cause me not to expect him to be the Bell Cow RB regardless of what he did or didn't do in the past.

My primary issue is the incorrect usage of stats.

My secondary issue is that I did think that his 2014 game footage showed that he still has some talent. That is not proof that he will be good, but there is also no proof that he can't be good.

5. The bottom line is the only relevant comparison in his Raider years is:
2013 ypc as a starter:
Jennings 3.8
McFadden 3.6

 

[Stash]

1. I'll give you props for coming up with Jennings. In the other thread about this subject, I was waiting for somebody to respond that Jennings had a 4.5 ypc. When nobody responded, I knew that nobody was trying hard.

So it's a 'test' for you now? Again, I'll advise that's not a good route to take as I can pretty much guarantee that other posters won't appreciate that approach.

It is much better comparison than Sturm's nonsense of trying to add together a bunch of small sample sizes of backups in an attempt to make his numbers valid.

I think we've both made our cases on that subject and will leave it at that.

2. We have the averages for both Jennings and McFadden as starters. That is the best comparison. When we have the more accurate numbers, then we should use them. If we only had their seasons totals, then that might be an interesting comparison, but we have the more specific stats with them as starters, so that is the more valid comparison.

Them being 'more accurate' is your opinion, and not any sort of fact. You prefer them because they support your position. I think the body of work for the season is a better indicator, as long as the overall attempt numbers are in the same ballpark.

3. Last time I said I would avoid calling out people's lack of education and whatnot, if you would try to be calm and more logical.

Judging by your 'test' mentioned above, I think that needs more work.

Nothing that I'm pointing out about the stats is illogical. The most logical comparison is their ypc as starters. Jennings still wins so I'm not sure what your problem is with the more accurate stats.

My issue is with your selective interpretation of the numbers. You like them just fine when they agree with your position, but then attempt to poke holes in them when they don't. You're not alone, happens all the time in politics.

4. As I said before, McFadden is not really a pet cat for me. He has injury issues that cause me not to expect him to be the Bell Cow RB regardless of what he did or didn't do in the past.

My primary issue is the incorrect usage of stats.

And my issue is with your selective use of stats to support your claims while discrediting their use when it doesn't.

My secondary issue is that I did think that his 2014 game footage showed that he still has some talent. That is not proof that he will be good, but there is also no proof that he can't be good.

I won't deny that he has physical talent. But I won't deny that his talents and potential has thus far gone unfulfilled. And I won't argue anyone that this is far and away his best opportunity, but I will not assume he can get the job done when all evidence shows that he hasn't. I am not giving him any benefit of the doubt based on his track record.

5. The bottom line is the only relevant comparison in his Raider years is:
2013 ypc as a starter:
Jennings 3.8
McFadden 3.6

In your opinion.

The full body of work for both for the 2013 season says

Jennings 4.5 yds per carry
McFadden 3.3 yds per carry

 

[xwalker]

So it's a 'test' for you now? Again, I'll advise that's not a good route to take as I can pretty much guarantee that other posters won't appreciate that approach.



I think we've both made our cases on that subject and will leave it at that.



Them being 'more accurate' is your opinion, and not any sort of fact. You prefer them because they support your position. I think the body of work for the season is a better indicator, as long as the overall attempt numbers are in the same ballpark.



Judging by your 'test' mentioned above, I think that needs more work.



My issue is with your selective interpretation of the numbers. You like them just fine when they agree with your position, but then attempt to poke holes in them when they don't. You're not alone, happens all the time in politics.



And my issue is with your selective use of stats to support your claims while discrediting their use when it doesn't.



I won't deny that he has physical talent. But I won't deny that his talents and potential has thus far gone unfulfilled. And I won't argue anyone that this is far and away his best opportunity, but I will not assume he can get the job done when all evidence shows that he hasn't. I am not giving him any benefit of the doubt based on his track record.



In your opinion.

The full body of work for both for the 2013 season says

Jennings 4.5 yds per carry
McFadden 3.3 yds per carry

Again you just repeat this because it emotionally seems relevant to you; however, anyone involved in statistical analysis would consider starter vs starter stats to be more specific than just season totals.

Selective intrepretation would be if I tried to omit certain games or that type of thing. Just using the most specific stats of when they were starters is not gerrimandering.

 

[LatinMind]

No doubt about that.

That's where most of my faith comes from.

mine too. Thats why i trust the team in what theyre doing, if thats with mcfadden then i can run with it and cheer for him

 

[guag]

The way I see it, McFadden probably lost all interest in football the last 3 or so years after having playing around a dumpster fire of a roster for his entire career. I think that could explain why the younger RBs were having more success than him -- they're actually hungry and haven't been on the Raiders long enough to sink into a depression yet.

Can't say I blame him, but then again... if it is the case that he lost interest, is that really someone we'd want anyway? In any case, the Cowboys are a change of scenery (and much more successful one at that), so maybe that's all he needs to be rejuvenated.