Should we replace with Zeke with Marcel Reece?

[waldoputty]

the big difference between Marcel Reece and Zeke to me is the ability to run well as well as age.
we are back to the same argument again, though i am glad it is in this thread instead of the other thread

again, ypc is not a good statistics because it does not include other external factors including even the OL.
rushing efficiency is not a good statistics because it is dominated by external factors.

if you make a proclaimation that running well is not important to winning, you should be able to answer for it.

you said running well is not important, so i gave you a player that is as good as zeke in terms of blocking and pass catching, bigger and faster. so it appears the only difference is the ability to run well. that is as scientific as possible, and this player is even available if we want to pick him up.

so you said zeke is a better football player, how so, if you dont care about the ability to run well...

 

[dogunwo]

oh theres an argument.


floaty.

and Gabe.

 

[viman96]

Don't shoot the messenger.

So there is someone to shoot for this crap?

 

[waldoputty]

So there is someone to shoot for this crap?

you can shoot adam and me at the same time

 

[dogunwo]

you can shoot adam and me at the same time

You drew out Adam. LOL. You must have pissed him off. Normally he isn't baited.

 

[AdamJT13]

If you take the argument it doesn't matter how well you rush the ball to its logical absurdity, then you could have a 20 yard loss on every run, and it still wouldn't matter, because all that matters is passing the ball better than your opponent and defending his passing. Moreover, if passing defense is all that matters, the opposing team could score a touchdown on every run, but that wouldn't matter either. Somehow those points would magically not count. That is the only unicorn and butterfly passing world that I could see where running game was irrelevant.

The key phrase in your post is "logical absurdity." Within the realm of reality, however, overall rushing efficiency has a very low correlation to winning.

Obviously, no team has ever lost 20 yards on every run, and no team has ever scored a touchdown on every run. But within the realm of reality, we know that teams are essentially just as likely to win when they average less than 3.0 yards per carry (.452 winning percentage over the past five years) as when they average more than 6.0 yards per carry (.451 winning percentage) -- and the deciding factor is almost always whether they pass more efficiently than their opponent. This season, there have been 10 games when a team averaged 2.0 YPC or less, and those teams are 5-5. There have been 23 games when teams averaged 2.4 YPC or less, and those teams are 12-11. If YPC was important to winning, why does it never correlate to winning in the real world?

 

[waldoputty]

You drew out Adam. LOL. You must have pissed him off. Normally he isn't baited.

lol adam and i have been arguing about this for a while.
i started this thread to discuss this so the other thread is more argument free...

 

[MagicMan]

http://i283.***BLOCKED***/albums/kk314/Blkzx04/giphy_zpsjfixtzud.gif

This gif is quite appropriate being that he has been replaced as "the most interesting man in the world".

Oh, and this thread is

 

[waldoputty]

The key phrase in your post is "logical absurdity." Within the realm of reality, however, overall rushing efficiency has a very low correlation to winning.

Obviously, no team has ever lost 20 yards on every run, and no team has ever scored a touchdown on every run. But within the realm of reality, we know that teams are essentially just as likely to win when they average less than 3.0 yards per carry (.452 winning percentage over the past five years) as when they average more than 6.0 yards per carry (.451 winning percentage) -- and the deciding factor is almost always whether they pass more efficiently than their opponent. This season, there have been 10 games when a team averaged 2.0 YPC or less, and those teams are 5-5. There have been 23 games when teams averaged 2.4 YPC or less, and those teams are 12-11. If YPC was important to winning, why does it never correlate to winning in the real world?

how many times does one have to tell you YPC is a flawed stat.
you are clinging on to stats when external factors rule the day.

 

[Seven]

Alrighty then.........Now, let's go get a snack!!

 

[BrassCowboy]

I dont believe this applies on a message board. You chose to deliver this, you werent ordered to do so. And given that you have proven capable of polluting this place with this...you know what i have to do.

this:

 

[AdamJT13]

again, ypc is not a good statistics because it does not include other external factors including even the OL.

Yes, we both have agreed that YPC and every other statistical measurement of rushing efficiency are virtually meaningless.

if you make a proclaimation that running well is not important to winning, you should be able to answer for it.

The facts have been answering for it, week after week after week, year after year after year.

you said running well is not important, so i gave you a player that is as good as zeke in terms of blocking and pass catching, bigger and faster. so it appears the only difference is the ability to run well. that is as scientific as possible, and this player is even available if we want to pick him up.

so you said zeke is a better football player, how so, if you dont care about the ability to run well...

Do you honestly believe that any NFL scout, coach or GM would say that the only thing that makes Elliott better than Reece is his YPC?

 

[Proof]

And how.

works flawlessly with your avatar right next to it.

Waldo just went a bit too in-depth (too wordy) on a satirical or smart-alec post, thus drawing the consternation of the masses. His post borders on "is this for real, or is it a joke, or a combo of both?"

It takes finesse to make a long-winded satirical post work. Most of Alexander's and Risen Star's posts are short and sweet, and easily discernible. Going with a 250+ word post targeting satire requires literary flair. Waldo is a statistics guy, not a lit major

And Waldo isn't dumb, brotha

reminds me of one of my fist posts where after bailey missed a fg I called for him to be cut because he hadn't lived up to his contract, and was a thug for his altercation with demarco on the sideline last year. after it didn't go over well initially, I doubled down and tried to get more absurd to hammer the point home that it was sarcasm, and that went over even worse.

I'm still bummed over it.

 

[AdamJT13]

how many times does one have to tell you YPC is a flawed stat.

All stats are flawed in some way. But by any statistical measurement, how well you run the ball or stop the run within a game is virtually meaningless. But statistical measurements of passing efficiency are very meaningful, despite the flaws.

Does it matter if we average 3.4 yards per carry or 5.4 yards per carry in a game? Not really. It probably won't affect whether we win or lose, and it won't have much of an effect on how well we pass the ball. Just as it probably won't matter if we allow 3.4 yards per carry or 5.4 yards per carry -- what will matter is how well we defend the pass.

You obviously agree with everything I have said, but you continue to set up straw men for some reason.

 

[Cowboy172]

Don't shoot the messenger.

Some have suggested that rushing well does not matter when it comes to winning, and only passing efficiency matters.
So if you believe this, we can replace Zeke with Marcel Reece.

Who is Marcel Reece?
He is a top rated 4-time pro-bowl FB formerly with Oakland but is currently available.
He is also 250lb and runs a 4.42 40, so bigger than Zeke.
As a blocker, Reece can generate power as a runner and blocker, with low center of gravity and is natural at firing out low and hard.
He is also a top tier route runner with 4.42 40 speed, so faster than Zeke.
What is not to like...

Why? Perhaps we can save on salary cap $ and we can even trade Zeke for at least one 1st round pick or even a DE that we desperately need!
That is if you truly believe that running the ball well does not matter to winning (based on silly statistical analysis using data that is very flawed...)

What do you guys think would happen if we were to replace Zeke with Marcel?



Seriously, Marcel may not be a bad pick up... given the receiving threat as FB...

I could be wrong but me thinks some of us really need to keep away from that "Medicinal" stuff, he , he !

 

[Plankton]

Primer on how to use sarcasm, and have the meaning recognized by all.

Please identify the sarcastic line below:

• The Cowboys are America's Team.
• Nothing is better than watching the Steelers getting their butts kicked by the Cowboys on their home field.
• With Dak Prescott and Ezekiel Elliott, the Cowboys' future looks very bright.
• Jerry Jones is the brains behind the Cowboy football operation.

Use italics - it makes it easier to understand. Such as.....

I love reading threads about Dak vs. Romo. I always learn something new.

I love reading threads about Dak vs. Romo. I always learn something new.

Makes it easier, no?

Live it. Learn it. Love it.

 

[MRV52]

Now I know why they have this emoji in the lineup.

 

[Proof]

Primer on how to use sarcasm, and have the meaning recognized by all.

Please identify the sarcastic line below:

• The Cowboys are America's Team.
• Nothing is better than watching the Steelers getting their butts kicked by the Cowboys on their home field.
• With Dak Prescott and Ezekiel Elliott, the Cowboys' future looks very bright.
• Jerry Jones is the brains behind the Cowboy football operation.

Use italics - it makes it easier to understand. Such as.....

I love reading threads about Dak vs. Romo. I always learn something new.

I love reading threads about Dak vs. Romo. I always learn something new.

Makes it easier, no?

Live it. Learn it. Love it.

that's the equivalent of punctuating sarcasm with "OH BY THE WAY I WAS BEING SARCASTIC" there is zero fun in that, and helps those with less intelligence to blend it with the herd. I want them outed, I want to know who understands and likes my sarcasm. I want to see their names in my notifications so that I may remember them and agree with them blindly as repayment.

 

[Nightman]

New stat is - ANRY/A - Adjusted Net Rushing Yards per Attempt

Rushing Yards + (10xRushing 1st Downs) + (Rushing TDs x 40) - (Rushing Fumbles x 25)/ Attempts

I bet the correlation to winning is much greater than 45% when a team's ANRY/A is better than their opponents.......I can't run the data or test the numbers but I'm sure they can be tweaked to a point they will prove what we want to prove...

 

[Nightman]

The key phrase in your post is "logical absurdity." Within the realm of reality, however, overall rushing efficiency has a very low correlation to winning.

Obviously, no team has ever lost 20 yards on every run, and no team has ever scored a touchdown on every run. But within the realm of reality, we know that teams are essentially just as likely to win when they average less than 3.0 yards per carry (.452 winning percentage over the past five years) as when they average more than 6.0 yards per carry (.451 winning percentage) -- and the deciding factor is almost always whether they pass more efficiently than their opponent. This season, there have been 10 games when a team averaged 2.0 YPC or less, and those teams are 5-5. There have been 23 games when teams averaged 2.4 YPC or less, and those teams are 12-11. If YPC was important to winning, why does it never correlate to winning in the real world?

Did you apply the same criteria to those games that you do with ANYPA.......meaning that they also have to play better Rush Defense than the other team

It seems the more qualifiers you add the level of correlation increases...... if you add passing yards, TDs and subtract INTs and Sacks and then say you also have to play good Defense it stands to reason you will win most of those games