To Be a Two Back System or Not To Be

[theogt]

Then just because you can have an argument doesn't mean you have to. Or do you want to argue the flip side of the coin now?

J1, your post confused me.

Well the numbers remain remarkably consistent over the short term past. if you want to believe there is a bevy of NFL backs that could accomplished the feat but the coaches just wont give them the oppurtunity then you go right ahead.

The 2-back system isn't new. Splitting carries isn't new. Whether it's a better idea to have a 2-back system or whether a player can "handle" 300+ carries are two totally different queries.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then just because you can have an argument doesn't mean you have to. Or do you want to argue the flip side of the coin now?

He wont. Hell just say that i made the assertion and he doesnt need to prove anything. Its like the twilight zone.

In the last ten years, less than 1% of NFL backs have accomplished the feat. But according to him that shows nothing.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

J1, your post confused me.

The 2-back system isn't new. Splitting carries isn't new. Whether it's a better idea to have a 2-back system or whether a player can "handle" 300+ carries are two totally different queries.

Now you want me to prove a causal relationship. Whatever theo. Youre desire to never be wrong is cute and all that.....

 

[theogt]

Now you want me to prove a causal relationship. Whatever theo. Youre desire to never be wrong is cute and all that.....

Yes, you'd have to prove causal relationship, because I think the stats are the result of something different. I think most use a 2-back system because they believe they can achieve better results than a 1-back system. That doesn't, necessarily, mean that most backs can't "handle" 300 carries.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, you'd have to prove causal relationship, because I think the stats are the result of something different. I think most use a 2-back system because they believe they can achieve better results than a 1-back system. That doesn't, necessarily, mean that most backs can't "handle" 300 carries.

It truly is the twilight zone. Maybe groundhog's day.

Like i said if you want to believe that there are a bevy of backs that could go 300/4.0 then you go for it. Very few guys have actually done it in the last decade.

 

[theogt]

It truly is the twilight zone. Maybe groundhog's day.

Like i said if you want to believe that there are a bevy of backs that could go 300/4.0 then you go for it. Very few guys have actually done it in the last decade.

My goodness.

Let me explain this a little better. You have player X and player Y who are RBs on the same team.

Some coaches may believe that you can achieve better results from split carries from X and Y.

That does not mean that neither X nor Y can achieve 300+ carries and 4.0+ YPC. It simply means that the coaches believe that X and Y, together, can produce better results than X or Y, individually.

Example 1: X and Y split carries for a combined total of 300+ carries and 4.5 YPC.

Example 2: X gets all of the carries for a total of 300+ carries and 4.1 YPC.

Why did they split? Not because the coach believed that X couldn't achieve 300+ carries and 4.0+ YPC, but rather because they could achieve better results splitting carries. Thus, showing that few players actually have achieved 300+ carries and 4.0 YPC, doesn't necessarily mean that few players actually can achieve the same.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My goodness.

Let me explain this a little better. You have player X and player Y who are RBs on the same team.

Some coaches may believe that you can achieve better results from split carries from X and Y.

That does not mean that neither X nor Y can achieve 300+ carries and 4.0+ YPC. It simply means that the coaches believe that combined, X and Y, together, can produce better results than X or Y, individually.

Example 1: X and Y split carries for a combine 300 carries and 4.5 YPC.

Example 2: X gets all of the carries for a total of 300 carries and 4.1 YPC.

Why did they split? Not because the coach believe that X couldn't achieve 300+ carries and 4.0+ YPC, but rather because they could achieve better results splitting carries.

I understand your position theo.

i just think its cute i have to do the impossible, prove a causal relationship, to have a compelling argument in your book.

 

[theogt]

I understand your position theo.

i just think its cute i have to do the impossible, prove a causal relationship, to have a compelling argument in your book.

Well, I disagreed with you. You attempted to prove your point. The evidence your provided didn't prove your point, so I was simply stating why.

When someone disagrees with you, it's not "cute" that you have to prove why you're right and they're wrong in order to convince them. You can't just expect people to agree with you simply because you say so.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, I disagreed with you. You attempted to prove your point. The evidence your provided didn't prove your point, so I was simply stating why.

When someone disagrees with you, it's not "cute" that you have to prove why you're right and they're wrong in order to convince them. You can't just expect people to agree with you simply because you say so.

Youre about as boring as Iceberg.

My arguments lend credibility to my stance. You at best mitigate, you dont completely disprove them. This is a concept in argumentation that you really need to learn. If i can show some proof to my case and you present nothing to the contrary beyond mere mitigation, I win.

According to you i have to prove a causal relationship which just isnt true.

I could talk about your stance not being mutually exclusive and what not but i really dont feel like wasting my time. But like i said before, if you want to believe that there are a bevy of RB that can go 300/4.0 then you go right ahead

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and i really like how you get to take one side of the argument and then judge it too. You really just love stacking that deck in your favor dont you.

 

[theogt]

Youre about as boring as Iceberg.

My arguments lend credibility to my stance. You at best mitigate, you dont completely disprove them. This is a concept in argumentation that you really need to learn. If i can show some proof to my case and you present nothing to the contrary beyond mere mitigation, I win.

According to you i have to prove a causal relationship which just isnt true.

I could talk about your stance not being mutually exclusive and what not but i really dont feel like wasting my time. But like i said before, if you want to believe that there are a bevy of RB that can go 300/4.0 then you go right ahead

You showed some stats. I explained the stats. You explained the stats. You think your explanation is the final one. Sorry, it's not. Your stats lend as much credibility to my stance as yours.

You need to learn that simply because you think you're right, doesn't make it so.

Oh and i really like how you get to take one side of the argument and then judge it too. You really just love stacking that deck in your favor dont you.

Explain.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You showed some stats. I explained the stats. You explained the stats. You think your explanation is the final one. Sorry, it's not. Your stats lend as much credibility to my stance as yours.

You need to learn that simply because you think you're right, doesn't make it so.

Explain.

The two arguments arent mutually exclusive. i actually grant that the two back systems in place would decrease the guys that do achieve that feat. I dont think a reasonable extrapolation would be that 7 or so of those guys you allude to could be added to the guys that have achieve that feat.

That does not disprove my stance that there are very few RBs in the NFL that can achieve 300/4.0.

As for the explanation. What youre trying to do is argue that i am wrong and then judge as to whether or not I have proven myself right. In genereal that is bad form for someone that IS willing to admit that they are wrong but you NEVER admit that you are wrong. In short, someone who has a stake in the argument doesnt judge the argument.

 

[theogt]

The two arguments arent mutually exclusive. i actually grant that the two back systems in place would decrease the guys that do achieve that feat. I dont think a reasonable extrapolation would be that 7 or so of those guys you allude to could be added to the guys that have achieve that feat.

That does not disprove my stance that there are very few RBs in the NFL that can achieve 300/4.0.

As for the explanation. What youre trying to do is argue that i am wrong and then judge as to whether or not I have proven myself right. In genereal that is bad form for someone that IS willing to admit that they are wrong but you NEVER admit that you are wrong. In short, someone who has a stake in the argument doesnt judge the argument.

What I'm doing is saying that I don't think you're right and while doing so I'm pointing out that you haven't shown anything to prove that you're right. It's pretty simple really.

I can't prove that you're wrong. I readily admit that. But you haven't said anything that indicates that you're right, so...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What I'm doing is saying that I don't think you're right and while doing so I'm pointing out that you haven't shown anything to prove that you're right. It's pretty simple really.

I can't prove that you're wrong. I readily admit that.

And you also readily state that the only thing i could do to prove myself right is to do the impossible. In short, this is pointless.

 

[theogt]

And you also readily state that the only thing i could do to prove myself right is to do the impossible. In short, this is pointless.

It's not pointless. You stated your opinion and I stated mine. We can go from there. You can offer circumstantial evidence and I can as well. Neither of us can prove to a certainty our opinions on the matter, but when you attempt to and fail, I'll say you failed.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's not pointless. You stated your opinion and I stated mine. We can go from there. You can offer circumstantial evidence and I can as well. Neither of us can prove to a certainty our opinions on the matter, but when you attempt to and fail, I'll say you failed.

No it becomes pointless when the only way you would think i didnt fail is to prove the impossible. It is impossible to prove without a shadow of a doubt that something causes another thing.

it really looks like you trying to put me in my place or something equally juvenile with all of your talk of how i cannot just say something and expect people to believe me. It really is boring. its not like im coming up with soem outlandish assertion. Its pretty much conventional wisdom that there are not many backs that can standup to that kind of workload and be successful.

Like i have said before, if you want to believe there are a bevy of backs that can accomplish 300/4.o then you go right ahead.

Im done with this thread. If you want to continue youll just be talking to yourself.

 

[theogt]

No it becomes pointless when the only way you would think i didnt fail is to prove the impossible. It is impossible to prove without a shadow of a doubt that something causes another thing.

You could offer other evidence. You didn't and expect me to just take your word for it. Sorry, I don't.

it really looks like you trying to put me in my place or something equally juvenile with all of your talk of how i cannot just say something and expect people to believe me.

Alternatively, it looks like we're discussing the virtues of the 2-back system and I disagree with your position.

It really is boring.

Then don't have the conversation.

its not like im coming up with soem outlandish assertion. Its pretty much conventional wisdom that there are not many backs that can standup to that kind of workload and be successful.

And I disagree.

Like i have said before, if you want to believe there are a bevy of backs that can accomplish 300/4.o then you go right ahead.

Ok.

Im done with this thread. If you want to continue youll just be talking to yourself.

Bye.

 

[burmafrd]

So someone with the time to spare needs to look at every back that had over 300 carries the last 5 years and see what they did AFTER carry #300 that season. Those results should lay the whole matter to rest.

 

[big dog cowboy]

|ESPN's Len Pasquarelli suggests that the two back system is on its way out. Pasquarelli points out several teams getting away from the two back system, such as Indianapolis and a few other former two back systems:

Addai, who led all rookies in rushing yards in 2006 despite not starting a regular-season game, also figures to tote a significantly heavier load in the offense this year.

Dominic Rhodes, the nominal starter in 2006, is gone, having defected to Oakland as an unrestricted free agent.

I was shocked Indy didn't sign or draft someone to replace Rhodes. Maybe when final cuts come along they will. Hard to imagine they go into the season with Addai flying solo.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And if you believe what you read coming out of Indianapolis, they have no intention of scrapping the two back set. They just plan to utilize players you have never heard of, like Dede Dorsey and Kenton Keith.

Yet the Rams took Brian Leonard. The Chargers hung onto Michael Turner for big money.

This is just Pasquarelli talking out of his backside.

and another thing is that alot of colleges employ the 2-back system, so most of the college backs coming out nowadays aren't used to shouldering a huge load, that's the main reason NFL teams switched to a 2-back system