Ranking the AFC East backfields

[glm]

Until the Bills get Lynch back it goes...

Jets - Jones, Washington
Bills - Lynch, Jackson, Rhodes
Phins - Brown, Williams
Pats - Taylor, Maroney

C'mon now. Until Maroney can stay healthy, the Pats do not have an effective one-two punch.

What about Sammy Morris, Kevin Faulk, and possibly BenJarvus Green - Ellis?

 

[feldspar]

What about Sammy Morris, Kevin Faulk, and possibly BenJarvus Green - Ellis?

What about them? First of all, forget about BenJarvus Green-Ellis. Secondly, nobody can effectively utilize FIVE running backs in a single season. Usually you have a featured back that shares the load with a second guy...maybe a third guy will make some kind of impact, but four is stretching it hugely. Running back by committee only goes so far. It usually won't last either because, if you have two guys that should be the featured back, one of them is bound to go to a different team very soon.

The first thing you have to ask yourself is who your featured back?

So, I ask the question: who is New England's featured back? The only running back on your team that has ever even broken 1,000 yards in his career hasn't even played a down for you yet...of course, that's Fred Taylor, and he's 33 years old and going into his 12th season. Obviously, you picked up Taylor for a reason...maybe not to be the featured back, but then again, you haven't had one of those in a while. On the other hand, New England has got it done without great WRs either.

Also, the running backs in New England look better than they really are because the rest of the offense is so good IMO. You can't tell me they don't benefit from that. Granted, Faulk can catch the ball, and Morris is underrated, especially considering that not everybody knows who he even is, but they have been on a good team.

Imagine how the RBs from the other teams in the division would do on the Patriots team. All the other teams have a decent 1,2 punch in worse offenses.

 

[Wildo7]

What about them? First of all, forget about BenJarvus Green-Ellis. Secondly, nobody can effectively utilize FIVE running backs in a single season. Usually you have a featured back that shares the load with a second guy...maybe a third guy will make some kind of impact, but four is stretching it hugely. Running back by committee only goes so far. It usually won't last either because, if you have two guys that should be the featured back, one of them is bound to go to a different team very soon.

The first thing you have to ask yourself is who your featured back?

So, I ask the question: who is New England's featured back? The only running back on your team that has ever even broken 1,000 yards in his career hasn't even played a down for you yet...of course, that's Fred Taylor, and he's 33 years old and going into his 12th season. Obviously, you picked up Taylor for a reason...maybe not to be the featured back, but then again, you haven't had one of those in a while. On the other hand, New England has got it done without great WRs either.

Also, the running backs in New England look better than they really are because the rest of the offense is so good IMO. You can't tell me they don't benefit from that. Granted, Faulk can catch the ball, and Morris is underrated, especially considering that not everybody knows who he even is, but they have been on a good team.

Imagine how the RBs from the other teams in the division would do on the Patriots team. All the other teams have a decent 1,2 punch in worse offenses.

This is why I ranked them last, and it comes down to the same issue of semantics as the "rank the Pats most talented teams" thread. I think the Pats will be top 10 in rushing, but not because they have the best RBs.

 

[feldspar]

This is why I ranked them last, and it comes down to the same issue of semantics as the "rank the Pats most talented teams" thread. I think the Pats will be top 10 in rushing, but not because they have the best RBs.

Thank you.

Again, the line plays a big part, probably the most important one... and the passing game opens things up for the running game. The RBs are just another spoke on the wheel, part of a system. Also, the Patriots are great at setting up blocks for the screen pass to the RBs. I remember them absolutely killing teams with the screen pass even when everyone knew it was coming.

Although, I don't think the Patriots will be a top-ten rushing team this year. They'll be in the top half, but not the top ten. They weren't even in the top ten in 2007. I'm interested to see how much they use Taylor, if last year was an anomaly for him, or whether he's going downhill.

 

[Ring 6]

Until the Bills get Lynch back it goes...

Jets - Jones, Washington
Bills - Lynch, Jackson, Rhodes
Phins - Brown, Williams
Pats - Taylor, Maroney

C'mon now. Until Maroney can stay healthy, the Pats do not have an effective one-two punch.

Sammy Morris has done more than Washington, Jackson, and Williams--at least since a few of his suspensions.

Maroney broke a bone in his shoulder. How does that illicit such a comment. Are you saying he is the only player that could happen to? Other than that his health has been about normal for an NFL RB of his age/experience.

 

[Ring 6]

Thank you.

Again, the line plays a big part, probably the most important one... and the passing game opens things up for the running game. The RBs are just another spoke on the wheel, part of a system. Also, the Patriots are great at setting up blocks for the screen pass to the RBs. I remember them absolutely killing teams with the screen pass even when everyone knew it was coming.

So we had the best running game last year because of Matt Cassel? Imagine what it will be this year.
Does it really matter whether it is the line or the ball carrier? Isn't the success what matters? Trying to argue who the success gets attributed to introduces subjectivity and bias into the argument.

 

[feldspar]

So we had the best running game last year because of Matt Cassel?

You didn't have the best running game in the division last year. The Jets did. Without Favre and a half-way decent passing attack, that will change IMO. Cassel benefited from the rest of the team last year as well, defense included. The easier schedule didn't hurt, either. In 2007, when the Patriots had perhaps the most prolific offense in NFL history, their running game was still ranked only 13th (if you want to go by that), and they pretty much had the same RBs playing as they did last year.

Imagine what it will be this year.

This year, like I said, the running attack will post better stats than the actual talent suggests. Whether or not Fred Taylor has it is the only new variable.

Does it really matter whether it is the line or the ball carrier? Isn't the success what matters? Trying to argue who the success gets attributed to introduces subjectivity and bias into the argument.

Of course it matters whether it's the line, the ball carrier, or the benefit of an effective passing game when you are talking about which team has the best running backs. But, in the end, it's the success that matters...after all, football is the ultimate team sport.

You could say that Randy Moss was washed up and sucked if you look how he did in Oakland. If you compared him with other WRs during his time in Oakland, you wouldn't even put him in the top ten.

 

[Gunnails]

So we had the best running game last year because of Matt Cassel? Imagine what it will be this year.
Does it really matter whether it is the line or the ball carrier? Isn't the success what matters? Trying to argue who the success gets attributed to introduces subjectivity and bias into the argument.

=========================================================

Pats had the best running game last year compared to whom?

 

[Ring 6]

You didn't have the best running game in the division last year. The Jets did. Without Favre and a half-way decent passing attack, that will change IMO. Cassel benefited from the rest of the team last year as well, defense included. The easier schedule didn't hurt, either. In 2007, when the Patriots had perhaps the most prolific offense in NFL history, their running game was still ranked only 13th (if you want to go by that), and they pretty much had the same RBs playing as they did last year.



This year, like I said, the running attack will post better stats than the actual talent suggests. Whether or not Fred Taylor has it is the only new variable.



Of course it matters whether it's the line, the ball carrier, or the benefit of an effective passing game when you are talking about which team has the best running backs. But, in the end, it's the success that matters...after all, football is the ultimate team sport.

You could say that Randy Moss was washed up and sucked if you look how he did in Oakland. If you compared him with other WRs during his time in Oakland, you wouldn't even put him in the top ten.

So running for the most yards means what?
Let me get this straight? You think the Patriots run worse with Brady than with Cassel the Jets run better with Favre but worse without him, you denegrate the talent of the running game in 2007 when we set a record for scoring and oyu are saying we pretty much had the same RBs from 07 to 08 when the amount of carries was tremendously different?

So it doesnt matter if you run the ball well or not, it only matter if guys like you think the player is good????????

I have no clue what the Moss comment is about.
You are giving me a headache.

 

[glm]

=========================================================

Pats had the best running game last year compared to whom?

NFL Stats: by Team Category

 

[Deus Irae]

So running for the most yards means what?

It means that they ran the ball more than the Jets did, nothing more.

Jets ran 422 times for 2004 yards (4.7 ypa)
Pats ran 512 times for 2278 yards (4.4 ypa)

 

[Ring 6]

=========================================================

Pats had the best running game last year compared to whom?

The rest of the AFCE

 

[Ring 6]

It means that they ran the ball more than the Jets did, nothing more.

Jets ran 422 times for 2004 yards (4.7 ypa)
Pats ran 512 times for 2278 yards (4.4 ypa)

No, it means they ran for 13.7% more yards.

 

[BradyFTW!]

What about them? First of all, forget about BenJarvus Green-Ellis. Secondly, nobody can effectively utilize FIVE running backs in a single season.

There are these things called injuries, that happen, pretty much like clockwork, to running backs. There's also something to be said for rotating backs to keep them fresh for later in the season.

 

[Ring 6]

No, it means they ran for 13.7% more yards.

145 first downs to 94. Thats 54% better. More TDs. 21 to 20.. Fewer fumbles 4 to 9.

 

[Ring 6]

The difference in yards per carry is represented by the Jets having 4 40+ run and the Pats having 2. The 120 yards is the entire difference in ypc.
I will take the consistency of almost 14% more yards, over 50% more 1st downs, less than half the fumbles, over having 2 long runs in a season.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, it means they ran for 13.7% more yards.

No, it means that the Patriots ran more often, but didn't run for as high an average. That's what it means. The rest is just spin.

 

[feldspar]

There are these things called injuries, that happen, pretty much like clockwork, to running backs. There's also something to be said for rotating backs to keep them fresh for later in the season.

Is this why having four average running backs is a good thing? It doesn't matter who goes down or who is in there, because they are all basically average?

 

[Gunnails]

The rest of the AFCE

No, it means they ran for 13.7% more yards.

145 first downs to 94. That's 54% better. More TDs. 21 to 20.. Fewer fumbles 4 to 9.

The difference in yards per carry is represented by the Jets having 4 40+ run and the Pats having 2. The 120 yards is the entire difference in ypc.
I will take the consistency of almost 14% more yards, over 50% more 1st downs, less than half the fumbles, over having 2 long runs in a season.

==================================================



I see what your saying Andy. I look at the YPC.

That's the thing about stats we can spin them any way we want to support our argument.

FWIW, I think the Pats are without a doubt the most complete team in the Div.
Pats will be successful running the ball in 09, but wetherwehter are not they are going to be the best rushing team of 09 is yet to be seen and will be as hard to prove as the Jets having the best rushing game in the Div. in 08.

 

[feldspar]

No, it means that the Patriots ran more often, but didn't run for as high an average. That's what it means. The rest is just spin.

Exactly. Not that hard to figure out. The Patriots ran the ball 90 times more than the Jets, which is a lot. So it's not hard to understand why the Patriots gained more yards. But the Jets had gained more yards on average when they did run it.

Very simple concept.