Ranking the AFC East backfields

[Ring 6]

Just counting RBs
Pats 421-1965 4.67
Jets 371-1768 4.77

So ALL SEASON LONG on those 371 rushes the Jets gained an extra 37 yards, yet over and above that the Pats ran 50 times for 197 yards.
Additionally they converted over 3 extra first downs....wait, you mean the rushing average may be lower because we were getting 2 on 3rd and 1 while the Jets were passing? Hmmmmmmm.
Now if we take out one of the 2 extra long runs, then the Jets drop to
370-1709 4.62

So we are to believe the team that ran less for fewer yards, fewer first downs, fewer TDs, fumbled more than twice as much was better because of ONE PLAY ALL SEASON.
Sorry, no sale.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

No, because we had a QB who ran 70 times and brought down the average.
Look at the last post with RBs only, and consider while the Pats are better across the baord in every stat, except 0.1 yards per rush, that the Jets 0.1 advantage is less than one play all season.
Yes it is simple if you understand it.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

So, first downs is spin?
Comparing RBs with RB only stats is spin?
Gaining more yards is not important in football?
Picking up 3rd and short by gaining 2 yards and lowering your precious average is a bad thing? But throwing incomplete or a Favre Int instead means you have a better running game?
Its 145 to 94 in first downs, clearly that means you cannot compare averages as apples to apples.
Subtract one long run (the Jets had 2 more 40+) and the Pats RBs had a higher average.
So if all we want to count is average, the Pats were better for all but 1 play of the season??

 

[Deus Irae]

So, first downs is spin?
Comparing RBs with RB only stats is spin?
Gaining more yards is not important in football?
Picking up 3rd and short by gaining 2 yards and lowering your precious average is a bad thing? But throwing incomplete or a Favre Int instead means you have a better running game?
Its 145 to 94 in first downs, clearly that means you cannot compare averages as apples to apples.
Subtract one long run (the Jets had 2 more 40+) and the Pats RBs had a higher average.
So if all we want to count is average, the Pats were better for all but 1 play of the season??

When you apply them the way you have, yes, they are spin. You asked a question "So running for the most yards means what?" and were given an answer. However, because the answer didn't comport with what you meant to get across, you've followed it up with spin attempt after spin attempt. You can spin all you want, but it won't change the initial answer.

Sometimes there are just realities you have to accept. Like it or not, the Jets had a better ypa than did the Patriots. If it makes you feel better, the Patriots were #2 in the division at 4.4, because the Dolphins and the Bills each averaged 4.2. Arguing that YPA isn't the end all/be all is a different argument and cartainly has some validity, but that's not what I responded to.

 

[feldspar]

No, because we had a QB who ran 70 times and brought down the average.
Look at the last post with RBs only, and consider while the Pats are better across the baord in every stat, except 0.1 yards per rush, that the Jets 0.1 advantage is less than one play all season.
Yes it is simple if you understand it.

You can spin it any way you want to, buddy. Stats are like that. That's the bottom line. You are trying your hardest to put the Patriots on top of the rushing attack. That's one thing. But to consider your RBs the best in the division would be foolish at this point. There are so many other variables in an offense to consider when you gauge a player's success. That's why I brought up Randy Moss' lack of success in Oakland, which you didn't seem to understand. Randy Moss wasn't a below average receiver there, as his numbers would suggest; he was just playing on a piss-poor team. It's all relative, in other words.

Stats don't tell the entire story, something you don't seem to understand.

Who IS the featured back in New England anyway? If you can name him, would you trade him for another AFC East's featured back? If you can name your #2 guy on your depth-chart, would trade him for another team's #2 in the AFC East? This is basically what we are talking about.

Maybe you didn't read the rest of the thread, because it was basically a given that there is a lot more to consider than the talent of the RBs when you consider the overall success of the running attack, and that's a major point you cannot escape. More success at a certain position doesn't necessarily mean more talent at that position. Another example would be this: if you have a poor pass-rush, your secondary is going to look worse than it is. Another would be, if your o-line can't protect your QB, you won't even get a chance to see how good he would be under different circumstances.

 

[Ring 6]

By the way, each team had an identical 186 first downs passing.
The Patriots had 356 1st down, to the Jets 308.
So lets not make the argument that the Jets chose to throw instead of run.
The Patriots stayed on the field by converting rushing first downs that the Jets could not.
145 to 94.
You can have the 59 yard run Thomas Jones had while losing 34-17 to Denver, because hey, if he didnt make it they would have lost 34-10 and their ypc by RBs would be less than the Pats.
Thats it I want to judge RBs by whether they can make a long run in a blowout loss.

 

[Ring 6]

When you apply them the way you have, yes, they are spin. You asked a question "So running for the most yards means what?" and were given an answer. However, because the answer didn't comport with what you meant to get across, you've followed it up with spin attempt after spin attempt. You can spin all you want, but it won't change the initial answer.

Sometimes there are just realities you have to accept. Like it or not, the Jets had a better ypa than did the Patriots. If it makes you feel better, the Patriots were #2 in the division at 4.4, because the Dolphins and the Bills each averaged 4.2. Arguing that YPA isn't the end all/be all is a different argument and cartainly has some validity, but that's not what I responded to.

No. Because you spun the original question. The original question said the Pats ran for the most yards. YOU said ypc was the end all--be all. YOU introduced it.

 

[feldspar]

No. Because you spun the original question. The original question said the Pats ran for the most yards. YOU said ypc was the end all--be all. YOU introduced it.

The original question was who has the best backfield in the AFC East.

The yards-per-carry stat, if you want to go by stats, suggests a greater success in carrying the ball than yards gained. Can you at least see how somebody can say that?

Please give up on the stats from last year as the end-all. It would help if you read and understood the rest of the thread, which you don't seem to have done.

 

[Ring 6]

You can spin it any way you want to, buddy. Stats are like that. That's the bottom line. You are trying your hardest to put the Patriots on top of the rushing attack. That's one thing. But to consider your RBs the best in the division would be foolish at this point. There are so many other variables in an offense to consider when you gauge a player's success. That's why I brought up Randy Moss' lack of success in Oakland, which you didn't seem to understand. Randy Moss wasn't a below average receiver there, as his numbers would suggest; he was just playing on a piss-poor team. It's all relative, in other words.

Stats don't tell the entire story, something you don't seem to understand.

Who IS the featured back in New England anyway? If you can name him, would you trade him for another AFC East's featured back? If you can name your #2 guy on your depth-chart, would trade him for another team's #2 in the AFC East? This is basically what we are talking about.

Maybe you didn't read the rest of the thread, because it was basically a given that there is a lot more to consider than the talent of the RBs when you consider the overall success of the running attack, and that's a major point you cannot escape. More success at a certain position doesn't necessarily mean more talent at that position. Another example would be this: if you have a poor pass-rush, your secondary is going to look worse than it is. Another would be, if your o-line can't protect your QB, you won't even get a chance to see how good he would be under different circumstances.

And I have said that subjective 'who is better' is flawed.
I don't care to participate in a discussion that is based on 'who is talented'. I find it foolish.
I am talking about who ran the ball best last year, because in the end, your opinion of talent means nothing compared to production.

 

[Deus Irae]

No. Because you spun the original question. The original question said the Pats ran for the most yards. YOU said ypc was the end all--be all. YOU introduced it.

Oh, for crying out loud, here it goes again.

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)

That was the answer. I gave the attempt numbers, the yards and the ypa. That's all I did. Are you really going to go down this road yet again?

 

[feldspar]

And I have said that subjective 'who is better' is flawed.
I don't care to participate in a discussion that is based on 'who is talented'. I find it foolish.
I am talking about who ran the ball best last year, because in the end, your opinion of talent means nothing compared to production.

Again, your idea of "production" is a little whacked out. Yards-per-carry is the main indicator there, not yards gained. All other rushing stats are relative to the attempts.

 

[Ring 6]

The original question was who has the best backfield in the AFC East.

Please give up on the stats from last year as the end-all. It would help if you read and understood the rest of the thread, which you don't seem to have done.

And what you dont understand is I am not interested in subjective, biased opinions of who is better than who.
I am talking about production. And there is no question the Patriot running game was more productive and that was with our best RB injured. Add Maroney healthy and Fred Taylor to that in place of Lamont Jordan and BJGE and its obvious the NE running game will be improved.

 

[Ring 6]

Again, your idea of "production" is a little whacked out. Yards-per-carry is the main indicator there, not yards gained. All other rushing stats are relative to the attempts.

Wait. You define PRODUCTION as average per carry? THAT is whacked out.
Take away QB runs. In fact look at all my posts. Tell me aside from 2 long runs what did the Jet RBs do better?
Do you totally discount a 145-94 difference in 1st downs from production?

 

[Deus Irae]

Again, your idea of "production" is a little whacked out. Yards-per-carry is the main indicator there, not yards gained. All other rushing stats are relative to the attempts.

Now you're arguing something that's no better than Andy's argument. "Best results last season", which is really what you are both arguing, is going to vary here depending on which stats you use as the lynch pins.

 

[Ring 6]

Oh, for crying out loud, here it goes again.



That was the answer. I gave the attempt numbers, the yards and the ypa. That's all I did. Are you really going to go down this road yet again?

If you cannot admit you are wrong (again) then we probably are going down that road.

To recap:
I said what does most yards mean.
You said it means more carries and less per carry.
Then everything I said that disagreed with your narrow definition is spin????????????

See your issue is that you think since you introduced ypc then the discussion can only be about that.
I think its blatantly obvious the Patriots running game was better than the Jets.
Are you saying 0.1 per RB which is less than the impact of one inconsequential run makes the Jets running game better? YOU limited the discussion to a narrow stat that doesnt answer the question, not me.

We shall see here if you can ever admit you were wrong. I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Deus Irae]

If you cannot admit you are wrong (again) then we probably are going down that road.

To recap:
I said what does most yards mean.
You said it means more carries and less per carry.
Then everything I said that disagreed with your narrow definition is spin????????????

See your issue is that you think since you introduced ypc then the discussion can only be about that.
I think its blatantly obvious the Patriots running game was better than the Jets.
Are you saying 0.1 per RB which is less than the impact of one inconsequential run makes the Jets running game better? YOU limited the discussion to a narrow stat that doesnt answer the question, not me.

We shall see here if you can ever admit you were wrong. I won't be holding my breath.

Read my post. I wasn't wrong. You made a false assertion. Again.

 

[feldspar]

And what you dont understand is I am not interested in subjective, biased opinions of who is better than who.
I am talking about production. And there is no question the Patriot running game was more productive and that was with our best RB injured. Add Maroney healthy and Fred Taylor to that in place of Lamont Jordan and BJGE and its obvious the NE running game will be improved.

Stats can be twisted to serve your own purpose. You've just proven that. There is a huge bias in the way you've interpreted the stats. There is your objectivity vs. subjectivity. Just ask Apple Strudel...on second thought, better not.

You consider your best running back to be Maroney? Well, you do realize that he's almost 200 yards from a 1,000 yard season after three years in the NFL, right? All this on a dominant team? Don't base anything on potential; that's another subjective thing, and that includes Fred Taylor, who may or may not return to his previous form.

 

[Ring 6]

Now you're arguing something that's no better than Andy's argument. "Best results last season", which is really what you are both arguing, is going to vary here depending on which stats you use as the lynch pins.

As opposed to your 'strong' argument that you can post statistics of carries, yards and avg and ignore everything else?

There is absolutely no question that regardless of what stats you care to favor if you compare apples to apples the Patriot running game was better. Unless you have some #s that show otherwise.
Or did you give up once you realized that QB rushes were 90% of the difference in ypc?

 

[Ring 6]

Read my post. I wasn't wrong. You made a false assertion. Again.

You were wrong that the discussion was only about ypc. come on you can admit it, just once.

 

[Deus Irae]

As opposed to your 'strong' argument that you can post statistics of carries, yards and avg and ignore everything else?

There is absolutely no question that regardless of what stats you care to favor if you compare apples to apples the Patriot running game was better. Unless you have some #s that show otherwise.
Or did you give up once you realized that QB rushes were 90% of the difference in ypc?

I answered your question. That's all I did. You are the one who couldn't just leave it at that. This is the same thing that happened the last time.