Ranking the AFC East backfields

[Deus Irae]

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

I didn't say that the discussion was only about YPC. Why do you feel the need to keep posting blatant lies?

 

[feldspar]

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.

I really don't know where you invented this number. Show me how you arrived at this.

Matt Cassel had 3.7 yards per rushing attempt, a lot more than the 3.3 ypc your "best running back" had...meanwhile Favre had 2 yards per attempt. Seems like Favre's numbers would drag down the Jets numbers more than Cassel's numbers the Patriots.

How's that for twisting stats?

 

[atomdomb]

The Pats had most rushing yards last year in the AFCE. I think we have to decide this question by saying who would you rather have on your team. I personally would take Ronnie B in a slight edge over M. Lynch. I would trade any of our backs for either one of them. I am beginning to think that on pure talent alone Miami is #1 and Buffalo is 1A.

Imagine Ronnie or Lynch in our system. 1500 yards.

 

[Ring 6]

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

YOu said:
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)


Are you telling me that it is correct to say that running for more yards means NOTHING MORE than this?
It doesnt mean they converted more first downs? It doesnt mean they stayed on the field longer?
Could it mean they ran in different situations, like converting 3rd and short? Could it mean that more yards led to Matt Cassel passing for as many first downs as Brett Favre? Could it mean that Matt Cassel led the Patriots to more points scored, more yards, and an offense ranked 11 spots higher than Brett Favre?
Or does it only mean they ran the ball more times, and there is no other significance?

Come on. You said having the most rushing yards means NO MORE THAN THEY RAN THE BALL MORE.
Are you going to man-up and admit you were wrong?

 

[Ring 6]

I didn't say that the discussion was only about YPC. Why do you feel the need to keep posting blatant lies?

You said rushing for more yards meant they rush more NO MORE. And posted ypc stats.
And you said EVERYTHING else was spin.
EVERYTHING else can only be spin if you are saying the discussion is only about ypc. Get it?

 

[feldspar]

Are you telling me that it is correct to say that running for more yards means NOTHING MORE than this?
It doesnt mean they converted more first downs? It doesnt mean they stayed on the field longer?
Could it mean they ran in different situations, like converting 3rd and short? Could it mean that more yards led to Matt Cassel passing for as many first downs as Brett Favre? Could it mean that Matt Cassel led the Patriots to more points scored, more yards, and an offense ranked 11 spots higher than Brett Favre?
Or does it only mean they ran the ball more times, and there is no other significance?

Well, which of these things are true, Andy?

Did you evaluate every single play by every single team and come up with a definitive answer?

You've obviously got a raging, unbending bias here.

 

[Ring 6]

I really don't know where you invented this number. Show me how you arrived at this.

Matt Cassel had 3.7 yards per rushing attempt, a lot more than the 3.3 ypc your "best running back" had...meanwhile Favre had 2 yards per attempt. Seems like Favre's numbers would drag down the Jets numbers more than Cassel's numbers the Patriots.

How's that for twisting stats?

Are you fooling with me or really that ignorant? 73 rushes by Cassel have a bigger impact than 8 or wahtever Favre had.
I posted the rushing stats for all of the RUNNING BACKs.
Pats 421-1965-4.67
Jets 371-1768-4.77

The difference is 0.1

 

[Deus Irae]

YOu said:
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)


Are you telling me that it is correct to say that running for more yards means NOTHING MORE than this?
It doesnt mean they converted more first downs? It doesnt mean they stayed on the field longer?
Could it mean they ran in different situations, like converting 3rd and short? Could it mean that more yards led to Matt Cassel passing for as many first downs as Brett Favre? Could it mean that Matt Cassel led the Patriots to more points scored, more yards, and an offense ranked 11 spots higher than Brett Favre?
Or does it only mean they ran the ball more times, and there is no other significance?

Come on. You said having the most rushing yards means NO MORE THAN THEY RAN THE BALL MORE.
Are you going to man-up and admit you were wrong?

No, it doesn't mean that they converted more first downs and it doesn't mean that they stayed on the field longer. Both of those are possibilities any time you end up with more yardage, but neither is a guarantee. You clearly know this since you pointed out a perfect example of how this would come to pass when you noted the difference in big plays as a means of trying to discredit Feldspar's "production" assertion.

Rushing for more yards does, in fact, only mean that they rushed for more yards. In this case, because it took more attempts to do so, it only meant that they rushed for more yards on more attempts. The rest of the items you're pointing to (3rd down conversions/first downs/TOP) are explanations of why you think that they had a better running game despite needing more attempts to gain more yards at a lower rate. There's nothing wrong with making that argument, but that argument doesn't somehow change the answer I gave.

That's it. Why this should bother you is, frankly, a mystery to me.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, which of these things are true, Andy?

Did you evaluate every single play by every single team and come up with a definitive answer?

You've obviously got a raging, unbending bias here.

Right, instead I should assume any #s are apples to apples, right.
Shouldn't consider if you run a lot more its harder to run, huh?
Shouldnt consider the impact of converting 54% more first downs, right?
Shouldnt remove nonRB stats from a discussion about RBs right?
I mean when the non RBs dragged the avg of the Pats down by 0.3 and the avg of the Jets down by only 0.1 thats irrelevant right, we should look at just the raw #s.
Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[feldspar]

Are you fooling with me or really that ignorant? 73 rushes by Cassel have a bigger impact than 8 or wahtever Favre had.
I posted the rushing stats for all of the RUNNING BACKs.
Pats 421-1965-4.67
Jets 371-1768-4.77

The difference is 0.1

Again, where did you find these stats.

Favre had 21 rushes. Apart from one big run, he had 16 yards on 20 so-called carries. That seems to me like it would drag down the Jets average more than Cassel's would for the Patriots.

It doesn't matter anyway, because a bad player can find some sort of success on a great team, a fact you choose to ignore. Not that the Patriots RBs are bad, but there is a point here...one you refuse to concede to for some reason.

I'm not even going by the stats, anyway...you are.

 

[Deus Irae]

You said rushing for more yards meant they rush more NO MORE. And posted ypc stats.
And you said EVERYTHING else was spin.
EVERYTHING else can only be spin if you are saying the discussion is only about ypc. Get it?

I get it. You're wrong again. I posted attempts, too. Using your bizarre logic, that must mean that the discussion was only about attempts. So, in other words, the discussion was only about YPC and it was only about attempts. It was "only" about 2 different things. "Only".

This is reminding me of a Russell Peters skit at this point.

 

[feldspar]

Right, instead I should assume any #s are apples to apples, right.
Shouldn't consider if you run a lot more its harder to run, huh?
Shouldnt consider the impact of converting 54% more first downs, right?
Shouldnt remove nonRB stats from a discussion about RBs right?
I mean when the non RBs dragged the avg of the Pats down by 0.3 and the avg of the Jets down by only 0.1 thats irrelevant right, we should look at just the raw #s.
Yeah, that makes sense.

How old are you?

 

[feldspar]

This is reminding me of a Russell Peters skit at this point.

It's reminding me more of a Monty Python skit:

YouTube - Argument Clinic

 

[Ring 6]

I get it. You're wrong again. I posted attempts, too. Using your bizarre logic, that must mean that the discussion was only about attempts. So, in other words, the discussion was only about YPC and it was only about attempts. It was "only" about 2 different things. "Only".

This is reminding me of a Russell Peters skit at this point.

OK, lets do this. Since you are the master of making comments that imply meaning, then backing off of the implicaiton when it is wrong, I will ignore the implicaiton.

I responded to 'the Patriots didnt have the best running game in the AFCE, the Jets did?
with "What does running for the most yards mean' To which you responded it means they ran more NOTHING ELSE.
That means that NOTHING ELSE says they there is no other reason for leading the division in yards that simple # of attempts. (The implicaiton I was responding to before was that ypc is the only yardstick, which is an obvious conclusion, but I digress)
So, the fact that rushing for the most yards means NOTHING MORE than having the most attempts, then all of the other factors that I have shown for why rushing for the most yards means more than simply trying more times cannot be considered because you have concluded that rushing yards mean nothing more than amount of attempts, IN THE CONTEXT OF WHICH RUNNING GAME WAS BETTER.
Therefore, in that context, you have said ignore all other factors the SOLE reason the Patriots led the division in rushing is more attempts.
That is completely wrong, and you know that.

 

[Ring 6]

How old are you?

Nice comeback. Do you have anything to add, or is that just your way of agreeing with me?