Will BenJarvus Green-Ellis Make the 53?

[JackBauer]

BJGE has done well when call upon considering not getting alot of reps in real game situations. How well do you think LM would do if he sat the bench all season, only to be put in the game during emergency situations. Matt Cassel never played since high school and took him till mid season to improve. I believe if BJGE played more often as a starter, his numbers would improve vastly. He runs very hard and it takes more than 1 guy to bring him down. I am not saying he is better than LM but I am not impressed with the last 3 years. Sure he is injury prone, but everyone knew that coming out of college. You get what you get.

You'd think that if BB saw that kind of potential, he'd see what BJGE was capable of against starters (or, heck, even second stringers) during the preseason, wouldn't you?

But no, he's still relegated to garbage time carries. I wonder why that is?

 

[Deus Irae]

Just say you don't want to discuss it. BJ obviously briought no one anywhere in two games.

I think it's worth discussing whether a consistent but unspectacular back complements a passing game better than a hit or miss star.

It's a little bit complex, I guess.

The data has been pointed out time and time again: your argument is simply wrong. Heck, BradyFTW! just cracked some of it out, yet you're responding to me rather than to that. It's not "too complex". It's just tiresome having to repeat it on thread after thread after thread. I've had enough of the "Maroney loses yardage" nonsense to last a lifetime.

And "BJ" played more than 2 games.

 

[Deus Irae]

Do you have those numbers? I just looked up the Super Bowl carries on a hunch and he did not have one run of 3 or 4 yards. Obviously a small sample, but i do recall him getting a fair number of long runs and getting stuffed quite a bit.

If you have those numbers, as you imply, I'd love to see them.

Now it's on a 'by game' basis? Seriously?


People have just got to get a grip.

 

[Deus Irae]

Just as a "game by game" follow up.

Smith in 2001 Super Bowl:

18 rushes for 92 yards, with a long of 17 yards.

9
3
5
4
3
-3
6
11
4
-1
9
12
17
5
1
6
-2
3

3 carries for a loss
5 carries for 9 yards or more
5 carries of 3-4 yards

conference game

15 for 47 with a long of 19

0
3
3
4
0
4
3
3
6
1
0
0
2
-1
19

5 carries for negative yardage or no gain
Another 2 carries for fewer than 3 yards
6 carries of 3-4 yards
1 carry for 19 yards

As I said. Smith?

 

[RayClay]

Just as a "game by game" follow up.

Smith in 2001 Super Bowl:

18 rushes for 92 yards, with a long of 17 yards.

9
3
5
4
3
-3
6
11
4
-1
9
12
17
5
1
6
-2
3

3 carries for a loss
5 carries for 9 yards or more
5 carries of 3-4 yards

conference game

15 for 47 with a long of 19

0
3
3
4
0
4
3
3
6
1
0
0
2
-1
19

5 carries for negative yardage or no gain
Another 2 carries for fewer than 3 yards
6 carries of 3-4 yards
1 carry for 19 yards

As I said. Smith?

Maroney didn't have one carry of 3 or 4 yards. On a second and two he ran for one, then -2. The Patriots abandoned the run completely by the 4th.

 

[eagle eye]

Read the whole thread and the thing that stands out to me is that he has looked very good in preseason. My gut says we have to keep him because he done the job when needed last year, he will be picked up if we let him go and we have to be concerned with the injury prone nature of our other backs. So keep him and work him in on STs so that he is useful if the RBs ahead of him stay fit.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Just say you don't want to discuss it. BJ obviously briought no one anywhere in two games.

I think it's worth discussing whether a consistent but unspectacular back complements a passing game better than a hit or miss star.

It's a little bit complex, I guess.

Maroney is about as far from a hit-or-miss star as you can get, according to the numbers (aka reality). Yes, I have Maroney's 2007 game-by-game breakdowns- just gotta figure out how to insert a table to make it a little cleaner:

Date Opponent Attempts Loss NG to 1 2 to 3 4 to 5 6 to 7 8 to 9 10 to 14 15+ 15+ Amts.
9/9/2007 Jets 20 0 6 6 3 2 2 1
9/16/2007 Chargers 15 0 2 3 3 2 1 4
9/23/2007 Bills 19 3 0 3 3 6 2 0 2 19, 15
10/1/2007 Bengals DNP
10/7/2007 Browns DNP
10/14/2007 Cowboys DNP
10/21/2007 Dolphins 6 0 0 3 0 1 1 1
10/28/2007 Redskins 14 2 5 1 2 2 2
11/4/2007 Colts 15 1 3 3 4 1 3
11/18/2007 Bills 6 1 1 1 1 1 1
11/25/2007 Eagles 10 3 0 2 2 2 0 1
12/3/2007 Ravens 15 0 2 5 6 2 0 0
12/9/2007 Steelers 8 1 2 4 0 0 0 1
12/16/2007 Jets 26 0 3 9 10 1 2 1
12/23/2007 Dolphins 14 2 1 5 1 1 1 2 2 51, 59
12/29/2007 Giants 19 4 3 4 5 1 2
1/12/2008 Jaguars 22 2 5 4 2 4 2 1 2 22, 29
1/20/2008 Chargers 25 1 6 3 7 2 2 2 2 18, 20
2/3/2008 Giants 14 3 5 1 1 1 3 0

TOTALS 248 21 41 61 49 29 22 18 8

8.47% 16.53% 24.60% 19.76% 11.69% 8.87% 7.26% 3.23%

Anyways, since that's borderline unreadable as is, I'll break down the important part. Including playoffs, these were Maroney's 2007 rush percentage breakdowns:

Loss: 8.47%
NG to 1 yd: 16.53%
2 to 3 yd: 24.60%
4 to 5 yd: 19.76%
6 to 7 yd: 11.69%
8 to 9 yd: 8.87%
10 to 14 yd: 7.26%
15+ yd: 3.23%

In case you're not sure exactly what that means- it's exceptional. Really, really good. The reason why I brought up success rate and DVOA is because they address the exact point that you're trying to make (on steroids), and they both state conclusively that he was was extremely good.

In most debates, there's some room to disagree. There's some wiggle room for opinion. In this case, there really isn't. You're just wrong. Objectively, mathematically, provably wrong. There isn't even a legitimate debate to have.

 

[Rob0729]

BJGE has done well when call upon considering not getting alot of reps in real game situations. How well do you think LM would do if he sat the bench all season, only to be put in the game during emergency situations. Matt Cassel never played since high school and took him till mid season to improve. I believe if BJGE played more often as a starter, his numbers would improve vastly. He runs very hard and it takes more than 1 guy to bring him down. I am not saying he is better than LM but I am not impressed with the last 3 years. Sure he is injury prone, but everyone knew that coming out of college. You get what you get.

You can't compare a QB who hadn't started a game since high school to a RB. RB is probably the easiest position for a rookie to come in and make an immediate impact. The Pats have had two other RBs who had games similiar to what BJGE did vs. Buffalo when a week earlier they were street free agents and hadn't been with a team since preseason and signed by the Pats in an emergency. Neither player repeated their success again. Both Heath Evans and Mike Cloud were signed off the street to replace injured RBs and both had awesome first games when they got to the Pats and then never repeated their success.

Laurence Maroney had a five game stretch at the end of the 2007 season where the passing offense was slowing down where four of them, he did as good or better than BJGE did in the Buffalo game. If you conceed Maroney is better than BJGE cutting him to make room for BJGE makes no sense just because Maroney hasn't lived up to his draft hype.

I will say it again. If the Pats can keep 5 RBs, they will keep BJGE. If they only keep 4 and Morris' injury isn't worse than we think, then BJGE is gone.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm voting no just because I don't think the Pats can afford to carry 5 RBs due to needs to keep other players in other areas. If the Pats are planning to do more 4-3 and still staying with the 3-4 too, they will need to carry an extra LB or d-lineman or two.

I'm concerend because I see a lot of roster projections saying we will keep 3 QBs, 5 RBs, 6 WRs, 3 TE and only 8 OL.
We have a lot of NFL caliber OL, and OL is an injury prone position. I recognize that BJGE gets headlines and highlight reels if he gets on the field and gets to be the guy with the ball in his hands, but a lot would have to happen before he would even be active. To only have 8 OL would really, really concern me. I know we can put some on the ps, but we will absolutely lose better players than we are able to keep on the ps if that happens.
Personally, I'd rather have OCallahan or Yates ready to step in if there are injuries on the OL, than to have BJGE sitting on the inactive list for 16 games.
I voted No.

 

[Ring 6]

You are hung up on averages. You realize that a nine yard run and a stuff averages out to 4.5?

My point? consistent 3-4 yard runs move the chains, long runs and stuffs don't. Case in point, our Super Bowl loss to the Giants. Maroney did not have a single 3 or 4 yard run. That means a fair amount of 7 and 9 yarders offset by being stuffed 2-4 times in a row, Brady getting sacked and the Pats abandoning the run because we couldn't move the chains or keep out of 3rd and longs.

Check the pbp yourself. A few (2nd, 3rd qtr?) sacks immediately followed Maroney getting stuffed at least once or twice.

New York Giants vs. New England Patriots - Play By Play - February 03, 2008 - ESPN

Weak argument.
You say the higher average is worse because q long run plus a short run equals a good average, but fail to show that the 4.3 is built that way and the 3.7 isnt.
Both the 4.3 and 3.7 are based on that same phenomena so it doesnt make the 3.7 any better.

 

[Ring 6]

Of course I'm not kidding. We won two Super Bowls, one with a very limited offense with a new QB.

That's the only way I judge success.

Then I guess we need to get rid of our good WRs and bring back average players like Branch and Givens. Time to dump Wilfork because we didnt win a SB with him.
Lets go get Adrain Klemm and Brandon Gorin and Damien Woody and Tom Ashworth.
Clearly worse players make for a better team, because winning the SB is the only way to judge.
All 53 of our players in 2007 were worse than the ones we had on 2001.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Weak argument.
You say the higher average is worse because q long run plus a short run equals a good average, but fail to show that the 4.3 is built that way and the 3.7 isnt.
Both the 4.3 and 3.7 are based on that same phenomena so it doesnt make the 3.7 any better.

I'll take it a step further and say that I've proven that what he's claiming isn't the case. Maroney infrequently busts 10+ yard runs.

 

[Ring 6]

I'll take it a step further and say that I've proven that what he's claiming isn't the case. Maroney infrequently busts 10+ yard runs.

I guess its part of internet tough guy syndrome, but I simply cannot get over how many fans rip Maroney because of his running style, questioning his toughness and manhood, as if he is afraid to get hit. This argument presents itself like Maroney is a ****y trying to avoid contact and BJGE is an all-world tough guy who just likes running people over.
The reality is that every RB in the NFL is taught to be patient and let the hole develop, and to set up blocks, not just put your head down and run into the pile.
Maroney's running style instinctively seems like it would be the style that would produce long runs and losses, because it is a slower developing run style. In reality it is turning no gain into 4, 2 into 6 more than it is doing a Barry Sanders.
The bashers would like Maroney to run straight to the hole, and average 4 yards per carry and never be accused of 'dancing' rather than running with vision to add the other .3 to his average.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I went ahead and ran BJGE's numbers, just for the hell of it. He only had 66 carries, so I still have to caution that that's way too small of a sample size to get reliable numbers, but just as an abstract exercise, let's check it out:

To reiterate, this is Maroney's breakdown:

Loss: 8.47%
NG to 1 yd: 16.53%
2 to 3 yd: 24.60%
4 to 5 yd: 19.76%
6 to 7 yd: 11.69%
8 to 9 yd: 8.87%
10 to 14 yd: 7.26%
15+ yd: 3.23%

BJGE's, OTOH, is:

Loss: 2.70%
NG to 1 yd: 24.32%
2 to 3 yd: 31.08%
4 to 5 yd: 22.97%
6 to 7 yd: 6.76%
8 to 9 yd: 4.05%
10 to 14 yd: 9.46%
15+ yd: 1.35%

So this whole premise that Maroney has a higher YPC because he's more boom-or-bust is just incorrect. Their percentage of 10+ yard runs are virtually identical, with BJGE (10.81%) coming out slightly ahead of Maroney (10.48%)--though that's far from a statistically significant difference.

Similarly, if you consider 1 yard or less 'stuffed', then they're just about equal on that front too, with Maroney (25%) getting stuffed slightly less frequently than BJGE (27.03%). Once again, not statistically significant, so we can pretty much call it even.

So where is the difference? It's as I said before, in everything that's left: the 2 to 9 yard runs.

Where Green-Ellis was more likely to get 2-5 yard runs than Maroney (54.05% vs. 44.35%), Maroney was more likely to get 6 to 9 yard runs (20.56% vs. 10.81%).

They both 'boomed' with almost identical frequency, and they both 'busted' with almost identical frequency: Maroney was just more able to get a couple extra yards in the carries that fell in between boom and bust. Because he's a better running back in just about every conceivable way.

Once again, the analysis that I'm conducting is absolutely elementary. It doesn't account for opponent, down and distance, or anything like that. If you want those statistics, Football Outsiders absolutely knocks them out of the park, and concludes the same thing that I do: that a healthy Maroney is an exceptionally good RB, and BJGE is a textbook JAG.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Maroney's running style instinctively seems like it would be the style that would produce long runs and losses, because it is a slower developing run style.

Exactly, and that's the danger of instincts. I went into the analysis assuming that would be the case too, because that's the impression that you get from watching him. I was actually really surprised to find that, compared to guys like Morris and Green-Ellis, it just flat-out isn't the case. Maroney grinds out short-intermediate yardage better than either of them.

 

[Ring 6]

Maroney didn't have one carry of 3 or 4 yards. On a second and two he ran for one, then -2. The Patriots abandoned the run completely by the 4th.

Let me understand this.
Maroney ran 14 times for 36 yards, 2.6 per carry, 60% of his career average, and you are going to count the # of 3 or 4 yard runs in those 12 plays (2 were inside the 3 so couldnt count) to judge him as a hit or miss player? Given that he ran for 60% of his career average, do you feel the OL played well? Or are we just saying Maroney didnt want to run well that day?

The Patriots had 3 drives in the 4th quarter, (and it would be lidicrous to suggest anyone 'abandons the run with 1 minute left down 3 points) all while trailing.
The 2007 Patriots were the most prolific passing offense in NFL history, but you judge the fact that when trailing and needing to score they passed on those 2 drives was because they looked at how many 3 or 4 yard runs Maroney had and decided they were forced to 'abandon the run'???????
If you are going to try to fit facts to meet your perception, you need to come closer than you are for anyone to listen.

 

[Deus Irae]

Maroney didn't have one carry of 3 or 4 yards. On a second and two he ran for one, then -2. The Patriots abandoned the run completely by the 4th.

Great. So as long as you use an absolutely idiotic argument and base it on one game, you can jury rig the results. Congratulations!

 

[RayClay]

I went ahead and ran BJGE's numbers, just for the hell of it. He only had 66 carries, so I still have to caution that that's way too small of a sample size to get reliable numbers, but just as an abstract exercise, let's check it out:

To reiterate, this is Maroney's breakdown:

Loss: 8.47%
NG to 1 yd: 16.53%
2 to 3 yd: 24.60%
4 to 5 yd: 19.76%
6 to 7 yd: 11.69%
8 to 9 yd: 8.87%
10 to 14 yd: 7.26%
15+ yd: 3.23%

BJGE's, OTOH, is:

Loss: 2.70%
NG to 1 yd: 24.32%
2 to 3 yd: 31.08%
4 to 5 yd: 22.97%
6 to 7 yd: 6.76%
8 to 9 yd: 4.05%
10 to 14 yd: 9.46%
15+ yd: 1.35%

So this whole premise that Maroney has a higher YPC because he's more boom-or-bust is just incorrect. Their percentage of 10+ yard runs are virtually identical, with BJGE (10.81%) coming out slightly ahead of Maroney (10.48%)--though that's far from a statistically significant difference.

Similarly, if you consider 1 yard or less 'stuffed', then they're just about equal on that front too, with Maroney (25%) getting stuffed slightly less frequently than BJGE (27.03%). Once again, not statistically significant, so we can pretty much call it even.

So where is the difference? It's as I said before, in everything that's left: the 2 to 9 yard runs.

Where Green-Ellis was more likely to get 2-5 yard runs than Maroney (54.05% vs. 44.35%), Maroney was more likely to get 6 to 9 yard runs (20.56% vs. 10.81%).



They both 'boomed' with almost identical frequency, and they both 'busted' with almost identical frequency: Maroney was just more able to get a couple extra yards in the carries that fell in between boom and bust. Because he's a better running back in just about every conceivable way.

Once again, the analysis that I'm conducting is absolutely elementary. It doesn't account for opponent, down and distance, or anything like that. If you want those statistics, Football Outsiders absolutely knocks them out of the park, and concludes the same thing that I do: that a healthy Maroney is an exceptionally good RB, and BJGE is a textbook JAG.

I'd separate 2 and 3 yard carries. 3-4 yards gets the job done, while you need 5 - 2 yard carries for a first - not really the same.

I see Maroney 8.47% for loss BJ 2.7%.
That's a big difference, especially since we don't know how many yards lost.


60.89% Maroney, positive yardage to up to 5 yards

76.37% BJ, Positive yardage to up to 5 yards.

 

[RayClay]

Great. So as long as you use an absolutely idiotic argument and base it on one game, you can jury rig the results. Congratulations!

You haven't stopped flaming long enough to figure out my argument. You call anything that goes against the preconceived argument in your head idiotic.

 

[Deus Irae]

You haven't stopped flaming long enough to figure out my argument. You call anything that goes against the preconceived argument in your head idiotic.

You've ignored the data, just as you ignored the reality of the Steelers' drafts.

According to your logic, 2007 Brady < 2001 Brady

It's not that I haven't figured out your argument. It's that your argument sucks with the force of 1000 hurricanes.