Saquon mania vs. Ezekiel facts

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Where did I even mention that? Lmao
Your reading failed you

You dont think big plays make a difference? Yikes

That you didn't mention it just underscores my point about you lacking a clue. I'll help: the sigma in 3 sigma stands for standard deviation.

I never said big plays don't matter. Frankly you are too ignorant to intelligently discuss this topic. I've got better things to do.

 

[PoetTree]

25% to 23% isn't a huge difference.

I didn't say it was a huge difference. But you said Saquon was the most feared halfback in the league with putting an 8th-man in the box, and that was incorrect.

Why not compare Henry's at 32% with a better ypc and double the TD's of Elliott?

Because Henry (whom I love and believe is a generational talent) averaged close to 3 carries per-quarter. Until the end of the season the Titans rarely used Henry outside of short-yardage and/or goal-line situations. I gave reference to this in an earliest post in this thread regarding how Zeke's loaded-box percentage stacks up to backs who were used primarily in short-yardage scenarios.

But as I said here also, the fact remains that Zeke had the highest loaded-box percentage of every top-5 rusher in the league...

But let's make excuses for Elliott with the OL and coaching or whatever else posters can muster up because he's a Cowboy.

Strawman argument.

I'm not making excuses for anybody. I'm merely analyzing facts. When asked earlier about which back had the better o-line, I said it was probably close to a push and then provided some analysis that had the Giants o-line ranked higher in run-blocking than the Cowboys' unit.

I don't think either back had prodigious blocking last season, and I don't think the difference between them or their respective adversities plays any meaningful role in the outcomes these statistics reveal.

You give all 32 GM's and HC's their choice of RBs, do you think Elliott would come in 1st? I don't think he would come in any better than 4th.

Well, then I guess we disagree...

If all things are equal & Zeke's off-field stuff isn't considered, I think 10-out-of-10 GMs would select Zeke over any other back in a hypothetical draft.

It's like how Wayne Fontes, the Lions most successful coach during the Barry Sanders era, would openly say he wished Barry would run more like Emmitt sometimes & get the yards that were blocked, that they needed.

Or how Jimmy Johnson opined on the debate between them:

"Barry Sanders is incredible with the things he can do with the ball in his hands. So if I'm a fan and I want to watch someone run the ball, I'd want to watch Barry Sanders. But if I'm a coach and I want to win championships, then I'd want Emmitt Smith. He's the greatest running back I've ever seen in my life."

These metrics I've broken down in the original post here are not phantasmic. They are real. They tell a very real story. Zeke puts his team in a better position for success a vastly larger percentage of the time than Saquon Barkley does.

I guarantee you "real football guys" understand this all-too-well and know what it takes to flat-out WIN football games. The Lions didn't win a lot of games with Barry Sanders, and it wasn't because they didn't have great talent around him, despite the erroneous rumors; and the Giants didn't win many football games last year despite Saquon's impressive highlight-reel.

Style & consistently meaningful production are the biggest difference as to why.

I think you're wrong about how the football world sees Zeke, which I assure you is different than the average layman fan's perspective...

 

[jday]

The post was likely mind-numbingly dopey from the first word, but it got especially dopey starting from the idea that it makes any kind of sense to remove a running back’s longest run from every game...

Nice one Super!

Now can anyone else offer up examples of abject stupidity?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It's not dopey to remove outliers.

When a player consistently breaks long runs to arbitrarily remove their longest run each game is not dopey....True... It's mind numbingly stupid.

Let's try this.... If you go back 40 years in the stock market... A dollar invested in 79 has turned into 10 today. A 10x return. If you removed the 10 best days in the market... Just the 10 best INDIVIDUAL days... that dollar is only 5 dollars today. Return literally cut in half. If you remove the 50 best days.....that's 0.3% of days... That dollar from 79 today is....one dollar. Literally no return.

According to the analysis of the OP it'd be smart to say that there is no value in investing in stocks in the long run due to ... Waves hands and makes noises... Outliers.

 

[blueblood70]

Its Smith VS Sanders all over again.. both are great but in different ways, you cant discount any part of their game.

 

[CouchCoach]

I didn't say it was a huge difference. But you said Saquon was the most feared halfback in the league with putting an 8th-man in the box, and that was incorrect.




Because Henry (whom I love and believe is a generational talent) averaged close to 3 carries per-quarter. Until the end of the season the Titans rarely used Henry outside of short-yardage and/or goal-line situations. I gave reference to this in an earliest post in this thread regarding how Zeke's loaded-box percentage stacks up to backs who were used primarily in short-yardage scenarios.

But as I said here also, the fact remains that Zeke had the highest loaded-box percentage of every top-5 rusher in the league...




Strawman argument.

I'm not making excuses for anybody. I'm merely analyzing facts. When asked earlier about which back had the better o-line, I said it was probably close to a push and then provided some analysis that had the Giants o-line ranked higher in run-blocking than the Cowboys' unit.

I don't think either back had prodigious blocking last season, and I don't think the difference between them or their respective adversities plays any meaningful role in the outcomes these statistics reveal.




Well, then I guess we disagree...

If all things are equal & Zeke's off-field stuff isn't considered, I think 10-out-of-10 GMs would select Zeke over any other back in a hypothetical draft.

It's like how Wayne Fontes, the Lions most successful coach during the Barry Sanders era, would openly say he wished Barry would run more like Emmitt sometimes & get the yards that were blocked, that they needed.

Or how Jimmy Johnson opined on the debate between them:

"Barry Sanders is incredible with the things he can do with the ball in his hands. So if I'm a fan and I want to watch someone run the ball, I'd want to watch Barry Sanders. But if I'm a coach and I want to win championships, then I'd want Emmitt Smith. He's the greatest running back I've ever seen in my life."

These metrics I've broken down in the original post here are not phantasmic. They are real. They tell a very real story. Zeke puts his team in a better position for success a vastly larger percentage of the time than Saquon Barkley does.

I guarantee you "real football guys" understand this all-too-well and know what it takes to flat-out WIN football games. The Lions didn't win a lot of games with Barry Sanders, and it wasn't because they didn't have great talent around him, despite the erroneous rumors; and the Giants didn't win many football games last year despite Saquon's impressive highlight-reel.

Style & consistently meaningful production are the biggest difference as to why.

I think you're wrong about how the football world sees Zeke, which I assure you is different than the average layman fan's perspective...

You misunderstood the part about "most feared", Barkley is the most feared for the big play and big run plays come against those 8 in the box sets, Murray had his best runs against them.

Just a difference of opinion, I wouldn't take him over Barkley, Gurley (healthy) or Kamara but then I wouldn't run an offense in today's game through a RB and hope for ball control.

A team with a good OL can get by with a couple of good backs, they don't need great or to pay for that. If you are going to run an offense through a RB, that would be through a feast or famine one like Barkley that can at least knock of some big plays, that you don't seem to like and I love, and score some points.

When the Cowboys ran their offense through a RB back in the 90's, at least he was in double digits wit TDs 6 of his 6 years and hit 21+ twice.

When Elliott stops being a foreplay back and gets down to business doing what this game is all about, scoring point, I'll move him up. Backs between the 20's aren't a hot commodity.

 

[PoetTree]

According to the analysis of the OP it'd be smart to say that there is no value in investing in stocks in the long run due to ... Waves hands and makes noises... Outliers.

You spectacularly missed the point of my analysis...

 

[aria]

PFF rated the Giants' line @ 14 overall in terms of run-blocking.

They rated Dallas @ 18.

Saquon Barkley did not have significantly worse run-blocking. In fact, he had better run-blocking then Zeke. Elliott also faced a higher loaded-box percentage than Saquon. Which puts the fact that Barkley more negative runs in proper perspective...

This looks like a pretty significant difference to me.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When a player consistently breaks long runs to arbitrarily remove their longest run each game is not dopey....True... It's mind numbingly stupid.

Let's try this.... If you go back 40 years in the stock market... A dollar invested in 79 has turned into 10 today. A 10x return. If you removed the 10 best days in the market... Just the 10 best INDIVIDUAL days... that dollar is only 5 dollars today. Return literally cut in half. If you remove the 50 best days.....that's 0.3% of days... That dollar from 79 today is....one dollar. Literally no return.

According to the analysis of the OP it'd be smart to say that there is no value in investing in stocks in the long run due to ... Waves hands and makes noises... Outliers.

That is not what the OP is doing.

Try doing the same thing but instead compare two markets who end up at the same value where in one you have more consistent growth as opposed to the other with much more volatility and tell me which on you want to invest in.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

That is not what the OP is doing.

Try doing the same thing but instead compare two markets who end up at the same value where in one you have more consistent growth as opposed to the other with much more volatility and tell me which on you want to invest in.

Except Barkley and Zeke didn't end up "at the same value."

Nor did they have the same talent around them.

In fact Zeke was in a better situation and produced worse.

And that's why the OP had to distort reality to try and make Zeke "appear" better.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Except Barkley and Zeke didn't end up "at the same value."

Nor did they have the same talent around them.

In fact Zeke was in a better situation and produced worse.

And that's why the OP had to distort reality to try and make Zeke "appear" better.

He’s not bright enough to understand why his response to your analogy fails. Like you pointed out there are variables (e.g. play of the surrounding talent) that directly impact the individual results of the players being analyzed. The logic is fundamentally flawed.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Except Barkley and Zeke didn't end up "at the same value."

Nor did they have the same talent around them.

In fact Zeke was in a better situation and produced worse.

And that's why the OP had to distort reality to try and make Zeke "appear" better.

It's not precisely the same but we're talking 1434 yards at 4.7 ypc vs 1300 yards at 5 ypc. They are analogous.

I do like how you move the goalposts. Your example remains unworkable because your example is not comparing two datasets.

No one said that the OP was comprehensive. Of course there are variables that are not considered but that does not mean that said variables work to support your argument. For example PFF has the Giants having better run blocking performance. Normalizing for that supports the OP not your take.

If you want to show other variables and make an argument then great but mentioning that there are others and leaving it at that is little more than wishcasting.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It's not precisely the same but we're talking 1434 yards at 4.7 ypc vs 1300 yards at 5 ypc. They are analogous.

I do like how you move the goalposts. Your example remains unworkable because your example is not comparing two datasets.

No one said that the OP was comprehensive. Of course there are variables that are not considered but that does not mean that said variables work to support your argument. For example PFF has the Giants having better run blocking performance. Normalizing for that supports the OP not your take.

If you want to show other variables and make an argument then great but mentioning that there are others and leaving it at that is little more than wishcasting.

If one player is more explosive than another and you simply take out each players best run each game... Who does that hurt?

What point are you even making at that point?

Ohhh the one trying to make you feel better about your player that you're overly sensitive around. Got it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He’s not bright enough to understand why his response to your analogy fails. Like you pointed out there are variables (e.g. play of the surrounding talent) that directly impact the individual results of the players being analyzed. The logic is fundamentally flawed.

You do no more than claim victory with no basis. Oh and wishcast for variable that support your side of the argument.

Since your so concerned with relative intelligence, perhaps you should try to come up with an intelligent argument about your -to this point- undefined and undeclared variables. Given past experience I will not be holding my breath. I expect your usual appeal to emotion and ad hominem.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If one player is more explosive than another and you simply take out each players best run each game... Who does that hurt?

What point are you even making at that point?

Ohhh the one trying to make you feel better about your player that you're overly sensitive around. Got it.

The OP's argument concedes that Barkley is more explosive. No one is taking that away from him. The OP's argument is that Zeke is more consistent down in and down out which is besides the point you are seeking to make.

Nice appeal to emotion at the end though.

 

[Melonfeud]

What's funny is that you don't understand that outliers lie outside the 3rd sigma of a data set, in which 2.3% of his runs being 40+ yards makes them a non-outlier. These runs occur 8 times more often than outliers even.



Just take your L again

Barkley had the 3rd most 40+ yard plays in a season ever. Only behind one of Sanders seasons and Chris Johnsons career year. Calling it a skill instead of qk outlier would be the smart thing to dozl, but you're not exactly a smart thing kinda guy.

lmao
@yer' post

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and for the "muh variables" krew, the two that have been brought up in defensive fronts faced and run blocking both normalize in favor of Zeke.

Zeke had poorer blocking and faced more stacked fronts than Barkley.

FWIW, I would still take Saquon over Zeke if I ad my own team. Once you factor in passing game performance and reliability its an easy choice. OTOH, I wouldn't use him like Zeke or Barkley but instead like Martz used to use Marshall Faulk. For Dallas' offense Zeke does make more sense.

 

[Johnny23]

If this is the way we're doing things, when looking at Amari Cooper's stats, lets just take out his 180 and 217 yard games. Then he only averages 45 YPG. Lame.

Actually it's not lame it's a part of statistics. It's called,"regression to the mean". I know this because I took stats as my math class to graduate. You take out the outliers to get a feel for the most common occurrence. Saquon is still a fantastic player who is very explosive but what this study says is he is a boom or bust running back similar to Barry Sanders. 19 carries for 35 yards boom 85 yard touchdown run. 5 catches 20 yards.. boom 50 yard touchdown reception.

Death by a thousand cuts or being blitzkrieged you're still getting killed.

 

[Melonfeud]

Listen, I get it, Saquon Barkley is a freak athlete, a really nice guy, and a big-play waiting to happen. I think he proved himself as the best big-play specialist in the NFL last year and I suspect that will continue into 2019. But, as I have been for this very same reason since he was in college, I'm tapping the brakes on crowning him the best running back in the league --as much of the rest of the sports world is already doing.

I did a breakdown after the season, as I had done for their respective college seasons before Barkley went pro, detailing what their stats look like when you subtract their single biggest run or play from each game of a singular season. Just one per contest. The results, factoring in receptions as well, confirmed my observation that Barkley is a back who lives & dies by the big-play --but is not the every-down runner yet (including collegiately) that you expect a "great" to be.

For this missive, I'll focus only on their rushing totals --although it's equally applicable to their receiving stats as well. But I've got a buddy who says, "Zeke is the best guy in the league to just turn around & hand the ball to." I think this breakdown demonstrates that quite clearly.

So, for posterity, Zeke & Saquon's "rushing" totals for 2018 were:


Saquon Barkley -- 261 carries, 1,307 yards, 5.0 yards-per-carry

Ezekiel Elliott -- 304 carries, 1,434 yards, 4.7 yards-per-carry


However, when you subtract their single biggest run from each game (as I've done for the following stats), this comparison turns very different:


Saquon Barkley -- 245 carries, 783 yards, 3.19 yards-per-carry

Ezekiel Elliott -- 289 carries, 1,199 yards, 4.14 yards-per-carry


The disparity is astonishing. Remove just 16 runs from Barkley's season (out of 261) and he drops a *WHOPPING* 524 yards from his total! Conversely, when you take away Zeke's longest run from each game, his total drops only 235 yards.

To put it another way:

Saquon averaged 32.75 yards on only 16 carries of the season.

And he averaged 3.19 yards-per-carry over the remaining 245!

Over the course of the season, without those 16 "long" runs Barkley's average plummets from a robust 5.0 to a paltry 3.19 per-carry (almost 2 full yards less). Zeke, on the other hand, minus his best run from each contest, falls from a 4.7-yard average to a still respectable 4.14 yards-per-carry.

For even greater perspective, if you subtract Elliott's best run from every game he still would have finished 3rd in the league in rushing. When you take away Barkley's longest runs, however, he drops from 2nd in the league in rushing all the way down to 23rd --

That is a precipitous plummet!


But while I believe those stats alone clearly distinguish Zeke as the better runner on a down-to-down basis, by a lot, and likewise demonstrate Barkley as the better big-play back, it's not until it's broken down on a game-by-game basis that the vivid difference in their contributions to their team's offensive success becomes perfectly clear. So we're going to take a more microcosmic look at this parallel to bear out the conclusion that Ezekiel Elliott remains, quite simply, the very best running back in the NFL.


So the way I'll do this for greatest visual appeal is to list their rushing totals per-week MINUS both back's single biggest run from each game. The effect is really quite eye-popping:


Week 1 --

Saquon: 17 carries, 38 yards, 2.23 YPC

Ezekiel: 14 carries, 52 yards, 3.71 YPC


Week 2 --

Saquon: 10 carries, 18 yards, 1.80 YPC

Ezekiel: 16 carries, 59 yards, 3.68 YPC


Week 3 --

Saquon: 16 carries, 58 yards, 3.62 YPC

Ezekiel: 15 carries, 101 yards, 6.73 YPC


Week 4 --

Saquon: 9 carries, 16 yards, 1.77 YPC

Ezekiel: 24 carries, 111 yards, 4.62 YPC


Week 5 --

Saquon: 14 carries, 18 yards, 1.28 YPC

Ezekiel: 19 carries, 40 yards, 2.10 YPC


Week 6 --

Saquon: 12 carries, 80 yards, 6.66 YPC

Ezekiel: 23 carries, 85 yards, 3.69 YPC


Week 7 --

Saquon: 13 carries, 28 yards, 2.15 YPC

Ezekiel: 14 carries, 27 yards, 1.92 YPC


Week 8 --

Saquon: 12 carries, 29 yards, 2.41 YPC

Ezekiel: 16 carries, 44 yards, 2.75 YPC


Week 9 --

Saquon: 19 carries, 49 yards, 2.57 YPC

Ezekiel: 18 carries, 116 yards, 6.44 YPC


Week 10 --

Saquon: 26 carries, 119 yards, 4.57 YPC

Ezekiel: 22 carries, 99 yards, 4.50 YPC


Week 11 --

Saquon: 12 carries, 50 yards, 4.16 YPC

Ezekiel: 25 carries, 105 yards, 4.20 YPC


Week 12 --

Saquon: 23 carries, 96 yards, 4.17 YPC

Ezekiel: 22 carries, 54 yards, 2.45 YPC


Week 13 --

Saquon: 13 carries, 92 yards, 7.07 YPC

Ezekiel: 27 carries, 93 yards, 3.44 YPC


Week 14 --

Saquon: 13 carries, 14 yards, 1.07 YPC

Ezekiel: 17 carries, 63 yards, 3.70 YPC


Week 15 --

Saquon: 20 carries, 37 yards, 1.85 YPC

Ezekiel: 17 carries, 68 yards, 4.00 YPC


Week 16 --

Saquon: 16 carries, 41 yards, 2.56 YPC

Ezekiel: Did-Not-Play


So out of 15 games, side-by-side, subtracting their single longest runs from each contest, Zeke had a higher yards-per-carry than Saquon in 10 of those contests, outpacing Barkley by an average of: 1.48, 1.88, 3.11, 2.85, 0.82, 0.34, 3.87, 0.04, 2.63, and 2.16 yards-per-carry.

Accumulatively, those 10 games amount to --


Saquon: 142 carries, 469 yards, 3.30 YPC

Ezekiel: 168 carries, 759 yards, 4.51 YPC


Minus their one longest run from each of those games, it's clear that Zeke was the far more productive, effective, consistent back across 2/3rds of the season and a vaster number of carries. Conversely, in the 5 games Barkley outdid Zeke, the stats are:


Saquon: 87 carries, 415 yards, 4.77 YPC

Ezekiel: 108 carries, 358 yards, 3.61 YPC


So for 5 games out of the season, minus their big runs, Saquon averaged 1.16 yards-per-carry more than Zeke --out-rushing him by 57 yards across those 5 games.

For 10 games out of the season, minus their big runs, Zeke averaged 1.20 yards-per-carry more than Saquon --out-rushing him by 290 yards across those 10 games.

Over the course of the season, minus their big runs, that amounts to 457 more rushing yards for Zeke and nearly 1 full yard-per-carry (0.95) greater.


If we pit their 16th game of the season against one another (Week 16 for Saquon, Week 1 of the Playoffs for Zeke), again, subtracting their single biggest run from each game --


Saquon: 16 carries, 41 yards, 2.56 YPC

Ezekiel: 25 carries, 93 yards, 3.72 YPC


Consistently, Elliott demonstrates that he is the more productive runner, by quite a bit, across the far broader number and circumstances of their respective carries. Barkley may indeed be the better home-run hitter. But there's no question that Zeke is out there getting the dirty yards, the needed yards, Saquon is leaving on the field; and the fortunes of their teams in 2018 each reflect the natural result of that:


RECORDS --

Cowboys: 10-6

Giants: 5-11


This is also assessed in the fact that Zeke picked up 73 first-downs, to Saquon's 50, in one fewer game.

That's 69 more downs of offense that Zeke's legs provided for his team than Barkley did for his.


Saquon had 5 more runs of 20+ yards than Zeke (16-to-11) & 6 more runs of 40+ yards (7-to-1).

Which do you think a coach who wants to win would prefer, 11 more "explosive" plays on the season, or 69 more offensive snaps? And this whole query instantly makes me think of Emmitt Smith vs. Barry Sanders, because like I predicted before the season, the Zeke/Saquon rivalry is shaping up very much like the old debate between those greats!

Saquon, like Sanders (his idol), is the best big-play threat in the league.

Ezekiel, like Emmitt, is the best running back in the league.


Of course, this contest isn't remotely over. But in all the metrics we can currently assess, college & the pros, this is who these backs have proven themselves to be, consistently. It's extraordinary how much their college production mirrors their NFL performances. I strongly suspect this will continue, and I don't think we've seen either of their bests.

Athletically, this season should display the very best Ezekiel Elliott the world has ever seen. He is now a young 23 years old and is likely fully grown. Word is he's in the best shape of his life, has gone from 225lbs. in his rookie year (when he was the youngest player in the league) to a manly 230lbs. this offseason.

I believe we're about to see the biggest, strongest, and fastest Ezekiel Elliott there has ever been.

And it might just be a perfect storm regarding the physical maturation of his ability being paired with all the talent surrounding him. There's no question in my mind that Zeke is coming into the best situation for a running back in the NFL to produce at a big-time level. Barkley is certain to have more than 15-minutes of fame. But when, not if, Elliott leads the NFL in rushing again, maybe to unprecedented degrees, people are going to have to start acknowledging that #21 is the #1 runner in the league.


--yeah, even if Barkley has more "big-plays" on the season.

Take those away, and Barkley is over 40% less of a running back.

Kid's got to show me some things before he's in the same breath with Zeke...

I found this thread & the after action numbers fudgery in the O.P intriguing, if not fascinating,,, in the "what if"? Spectrum of thought,,, kinda' along the lines I often delve into, concerning my personal wonderment as say? if Dick Nixon would've become president if JFK's brain pan hadn't never been ballistically extracted?,,,hey! As it's not anymore off the scope of reality than arbitrarily removing/striking from the record hard fought for& honestly earned yardage a player had compiled,,,although O.P., your 'data fugdery' is pointedly intriguing, if not fascinating,,, er,,, as was previously stated .

 

[Sarge]

They’re both good. A-Doy!