Ray Rice

[TheCount]

looks great

he did really well against winning teams, ok against top 25 teams, and seemed to be consistent throughout games, actually, he was, 653 yards and 5.8 ypc in the 1st half w/ 8 TDs, and 770 yards for a 6.3 ypc average w/ 9 TDs in the 2nd half of games

thanks

:laugh2:

Real subtle there, Bob.

It also says he had a 4.38 YPC average against ranked teams.

4.93 per carry against NON-winning teams and 4.28 at home games?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

:laugh2:

Real subtle there, Bob.

It also says he had a 4.38 YPC average against ranked teams.

4.93 per carry against NON-winning teams and 4.28 at home games?

I'm not trying to be subtle

I said he did OK against ranked teams and FYI it was a better average than what Rice had against top 25 teams

the more impressive stat and most noteworthy one, is what a player does against top competition, since you know, the NFL is going to be a big leap in the level of competition

 

[TheCount]

I'm not trying to be subtle

I said he did OK against ranked teams and FYI it was a better average than what Rice had against top 25 teams

the more impressive stat and most noteworthy one, is what a player does against top competition, since you know, the NFL is going to be a big leap in the level of competition

I'm not comparing the two. Simply pointing out that every back can be cast in a certain light when you're selective about the numbers.

In the same breath you say he's better than Rice against top 25 teams, I can say Rice had a better average against winning teams in general. Which is silly.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'm not comparing the two.

it was simply an aside

Simply pointing out that every back can be cast in a certain light when you're selective about the numbers.

I asked for the splits, and I pointed out the ones that were most interesting to me, and the most noteworthy ones, he was a consistent runner and receiver throughout games who did very well against winning teams and OK against top-25 ones

it's your problem, not mine, that I was being "selective"

In the same breath you say he's better than Rice against top 25 teams, I can say Rice had a better average against winning teams in general. Which is silly.

it is silly, because success stat against top-25 teams > success stat against winning teams

 

[TheCount]

it was simply an aside

I asked for the splits, and I pointed out the ones that were most interesting to me, and the most noteworthy ones, he was a consistent runner and receiver throughout games who did very well against winning teams and OK against top-25 ones

it's your problem, not mine, that I was being "selective"

it is silly, because success against top-25 teams is better than success against winning teams in general

It's not a problem you're being selective, just humorous. It's a common tactic employed on this board when someone wants to make an argument to only look at the bad (or good) to help bolster their point.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It's not a problem you're being selective, just humorous. It's a common tactic employed on this board when someone wants to make an argument to only look at the bad (or good) to help bolster their point.

not really, as a poster in this thread had the splits of one back, and I asked if he had them on another back

unless you wanted me to start another thread about Chris Johnson to get the information that I got much easier in this thread

and now I have a link to find splits of other backs, holy usefulness, batman!

 

[TheCount]

not really, as a poster in this thread had the splits of one back, and I asked if he had them on another back

unless you wanted me to start another thread about Chris Johnson to get the information that I got much easier in this thread

and now I have a link to find splits of other backs, holy usefulness, batman

Good night.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

lights owt

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'm not comparing the two. Simply pointing out that every back can be cast in a certain light when you're selective about the numbers.

In the same breath you say he's better than Rice against top 25 teams, I can say Rice had a better average against winning teams in general. Which is silly.

5.04 is better than 6.89?

hmm, yeah, I think it's a good idea that you get to bed

 

[TheCount]

5.04 is better than 6.89?

hmm, yeah, I think it's a good idea that you get to bed

Nice to see your attention to detail is in tact.

What I meant was that Chris Johnson played poorly against non-winning teams, but that wasn't even the point. The point was that picking and choosing numbers is pointless, and here you are going back over old posts to find mistakes in the numbers.

I'd be happy with either CJ or RR in the draft. In the second round. Neither player is flawless.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Nice to see your attention to detail is in tact.

What I meant was that Chris Johnson played poorly against non-winning teams, but that wasn't even the point. The point was that picking and choosing numbers is pointless, and here you are going back over old posts to find mistakes in the numbers.

we went through this already, success against better competition is more noteworthy and more important to point out, as the NFL is a big leap in competition

what you're doing is just hating, do you go around pointing out Ray Rice's negatives? I don't think so, don't know why you're holding me accountable to do the same for CJ

 

[TheCount]

we went through this already, success against better competition is more noteworthy and more important to point out, as the NFL is a big leap in competition

Ya think?

But I bet you if I wanted, I could go find you a bunch of good NFL players that weren't always lights out against top competition in college.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Ya think?

But I bet you if I wanted, I could go find you a bunch of good NFL players that weren't always lights out against top competition in college.

huzzah for hindsight!

your point? that just means that they fulfilled their pro potential, which by the way, CJ has out the ***

seriously, going to bed now is your best move

 

[TheCount]

huzzah for hindsight!

your point? that just means that they fulfilled their pro potential, which by the way, CJ has out the ***

Fulfilled what pro potential? By your logic, they would be inferior NFL players right out the bat because they didn't do stellar against top ranked competition.

You have the benefit of hindsight, but choose not to use it. Is that my fault?

Oh, and for the record, since I know you love your numbers.

Ray Rice vs Ranked Competition over his career: 3.89 YPC
Chris Johnson vs Ranked Compeition over his career: 3.20 YPC

Oh Noes! CJ is doomed to failure!

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Fulfilled what pro potential? By your logic, they would be inferior NFL players right out the bat because they didn't do stellar against top ranked competition.

no, it means they got drafted more on their pro potential, than on college production, and fulfilled it in the NFL

the logic that you attribute to me isn't mine, it's just stupid

You have the benefit of hindsight, but choose not to use it. Is that my fault?

it makes no sense to use hindsight here, these are potential rookies, we look forward, not backwards

Oh, and for the record, since I know you love your numbers.

Ray Rice vs Ranked Competition over his career: 3.89 YPC
Chris Johnson vs Ranked Compeition over his career: 3.20 YPC

Oh Noes! CJ is doomed to failure!

so is Ray Rice, under 4 ypc is not good

 

[TheCount]

no, it means they got drafted more on their pro potential, than on college production

...ok?

it makes no sense to use hindsight here, these are potential rookies, we look forward, not backwards

You're right. Let's forget past pros when discussing future pros.

so is Ray Rice, under 4 ypc is not good

Yup, they both should go undrafted.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

...ok?

drafted more on pro-potential than college production, and fulfilled that potential in the pros

it's not hard when you think about it

You're right. Let's forget past pros when discussing future pros.

what past pros? you haven't thrown any out there for me to discuss

just answer me this, which stat is more important to note when evaluating prospects, success against winning teams, or non-winning teams?

deleted for lameness

take that childish crap somewhere else

 

[TheCount]

drafted more on pro-potential than college production, and fulfilled that potential in the pros

it's not hard when you think about it

No, it's not.

what past pros? you haven't thrown any out there for me to discuss

Discuss for what? You said the past is irrelevant when discussing soon-to be rookies. I replied sarcastically because the statement was absurd.

just answer me this, which stat is more important to note when evaluating prospects, success against winning teams, or non-winning teams?

Neither. Because numbers mean nothing without context. Which is my point. You disagree?

take that childish crap somewhere else

Yes, Grandpa.

 

[dbair1967]

Like Emmitt?

Seriously though, if Ray Rice is the second coming of Emmitt Smith, the Cowboys of all teams should know this and should take him.

With Emmitt, he was rated as a top-10 pick...nobody expected him to still be on the board where he was at

I dont know that any team would have Ray Rice rated anything higher than a early to middle 2nd rounder

David

 

[Bob Sacamano]

No, it's not.

good then

Discuss for what? You said the past is irrelevant when discussing soon-to be rookies. I replied sarcastically because the statement was absurd.

the past has no effect whatsoever on what these backs are going to do in the NFL

Neither. Because numbers mean nothing without context. Which is my point. You disagree?

we've been discussing numbers within a context, the rushing stats of CJ against winning and top-25 teams

Yes, Grandpa.