Will BenJarvus Green-Ellis Make the 53?

[RayClay]

If I had to take a stab at why, I'd say that it's people who tend to form their opinions of players based on a highly instinctive, emotional sense of playing the game 'the right way' and 'the wrong way'. Please don't take that as an insult, I'm not trying to use that as a slam or anything, although I admit that my approach couldn't be much further from it, so I don't really understand where you guys are coming from when you take it.

Anyways, among those types of people, who talk frequently in terms of guys having grit, or fire in their belly, etc. etc., it seems like BJGE has developed a very loyal following, as someone who plays the game the right way and has all of the drive in the world, whereas CJack, Maroney, and Watson earned the scorn of that crowd because they're perceived to be lazy/passive players without the eye of the tiger or whatever.

Maybe I'm just reading into it too much, and the same people just disappointed and a little mad when an extremely athletic first/second round pick doesn't pan out quite as hoped.

Could be totally off, I dunno, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that there's a distinct inverse correlation between how you feel about BJGE and Ventrone vs. how you feel about Watson and Maroney.

Maybe different people have different opinions depending on the player or situations. Whether that's true or not, I bet the threads would be a lot more interesting and less contentious if we assumed that.

 

[Kontradiction]

Maybe different people have different opinions depending on the player or situations. Whether that's true or not, I bet the threads would be a lot more interesting and less contentious if we assumed that.

Well we all have different opinions. I've been ridiculed time and time again for my manlove for Ryan Clark even though I know he's dirty and I know he's a member of a rival. I still love the way he plays the game though. Essentially, I think you just stated the obvious.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Maybe different people have different opinions depending on the player or situations. Whether that's true or not, I bet the threads would be a lot more interesting and less contentious if we assumed that.

Not denying that at all. But I think it's fair to say that, in sports in general, there's a pretty evident divide at every level (fans, management, coaches) between those who emphasize stats and those who emphasize intangibles. Realistically, you have to have a firm grasp on both to succeed--holding statistics as the end-all and ignoring them completely are both equally doomed to failure--but the relative weight placed on each seems to vary from team to team and sport to sport. Where a sport like baseball lends itself really well to the statistical inclination, which is why sabermetrics have gained such a foothold in MLB management/scouting, football isn't to that point.

The reasons why are pretty clear. First and foremost, baseball is a very easy sport to break down statistically, since it's basically a series of individual matchups. Football, OTOH, has far, far more hard-to-quantify variables at play, and the individual matchups rarely occur neatly within a vacuum, as they do in baseball. The open question, I guess, is this: are stats *incapable* of navigating this terrain, or are they simply not there yet (but moving in that direction)? I'm in the latter group, it's pretty clear from these types of threads that the majority is probably in the former, and that's fine. It is what it is, and ****, Ozzie Guillen led the White Sox to a WS in 2005 with that mindset (he has no use for statistics), so for me to sit here and claim that it's got absolutely nothing behind it would just be wrong.

I do think that it's useful to bear in mind, though, simply that that divide does exist. Everytime someone dismisses a statistical argument on the grounds that "yeah but stats don't tell the whole story", or "there's lies, damn lies, and statistics" or something like that--without actually discussing *why* they don't trust that statistic--I pretty much assume that they're part of the group that believes that stats *can't* provide a terribly compelling picture. That pretty fundamentally changes how I can engage them going forwards, and, in many cases, whether I can even engage them at all, or if I just chalk it up to "we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this".

Among people who rely more on what they see and feel in observing a player, I've noticed a definite tendency towards favoring the Ventrones and BJGEs over the Maroneys and the Watsons. Among the more sabermetrically inclined, the opposite seems to be true as a general trend.

 

[RayClay]

Well we all have different opinions. I've been ridiculed time and time again for my manlove for Ryan Clark even though I know he's dirty and I know he's a member of a rival. I still love the way he plays the game though. Essentially, I think you just stated the obvious.

That's all right as long as you realize that makes you stupid...

No offense.

 

[RayClay]

Not denying that at all. But I think it's fair to say that, in sports in general, there's a pretty evident divide at every level (fans, management, coaches) between those who emphasize stats and those who emphasize intangibles. Realistically, you have to have a firm grasp on both to succeed--holding statistics as the end-all and ignoring them completely are both equally doomed to failure--but the relative weight placed on each seems to vary from team to team and sport to sport. Where a sport like baseball lends itself really well to the statistical inclination, which is why sabermetrics have gained such a foothold in MLB management/scouting, football isn't to that point.

The reasons why are pretty clear. First and foremost, baseball is a very easy sport to break down statistically, since it's basically a series of individual matchups. Football, OTOH, has far, far more hard-to-quantify variables at play, and the individual matchups rarely occur neatly within a vacuum, as they do in baseball. The open question, I guess, is this: are stats *incapable* of navigating this terrain, or are they simply not there yet (but moving in that direction)? I'm in the latter group, it's pretty clear from these types of threads that the majority is probably in the former, and that's fine. It is what it is, and ****, Ozzie Guillen led the White Sox to a WS in 2005 with that mindset (he has no use for statistics), so for me to sit here and claim that it's got absolutely nothing behind it would just be wrong.

I do think that it's useful to bear in mind, though, simply that that divide does exist. Everytime someone dismisses a statistical argument on the grounds that "yeah but stats don't tell the whole story", or "there's lies, damn lies, and statistics" or something like that--without actually discussing *why* they don't trust that statistic--I pretty much assume that they're part of the group that believes that stats *can't* provide a terribly compelling picture. That pretty fundamentally changes how I can engage them going forwards, and, in many cases, whether I can even engage them at all, or if I just chalk it up to "we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this".

Among people who rely more on what they see and feel in observing a player, I've noticed a definite tendency towards favoring the Ventrones and BJGEs over the Maroneys and the Watsons. Among the more sabermetrically inclined, the opposite seems to be true as a general trend.

You obviously didn't understand my post. All posters don't line up on two sides, they can have a variety of opinion.

For instance, I have defended Maroney 95% of the time here against people that made what i thought were dumb claims. especially since he was injured and trying to play, a particular pet peeve of mine especially regarding Seymour and dillon in the past.

I also argued last year and all the way to about two weeks ago the BJ was an average back that did a nice job when called on. He's only a little more than that IMO, but he showed some consistency and effort enough for BB to try to hold on to him.

Maybe Maroney was getting into some habits due to a broken shoulder, or maybe half the world is hallucinating, but the point is it doesn't matter. The fact is, he was injured and he's our most talented young back (some props for Mr. Taylor).

Some people are loony, "Dillon's a bum, Seymour's a faker" etc. posters, but most people would actually like to discuss the relative styles of the running backs. I can see a lot of the best posters just stay out of these threads, because it's just thirty pages of 5-6 posters bashing each other over the heads.

 

[Deus Irae]

Keep talking that trash against BJGE. "There will be no reps for him". We'll see. Every time he gets a rep this season, I'll post just to let you know.

In return, can MgTeich ridicule any game BJGE is inactive?

Considering that it'll take at least 2 injuries for him to even make the active 45, you go ahead and do that...

"2 injuries"? Morris and Maroney? So whats your prediction? Week 4? or 5?

You misinterpreted my post. My point is if Green-Ellis is so good, we might as well cut Morris because there will be no reps for Morris.

To be clear, I expect Green-Ellis only to be active when needed for special teams, which would occur if there we have several injuries and in cases when two other running backs are out with injuries. Even then, any pair of two healthy running backs on the squad could take all but a couple of reps in a game.

I thought that, given the Maroney stuff still going on, and given how the BJGE situation has unfolded, this would be a good time to bump this thread.