Will BenJarvus Green-Ellis Make the 53?

[BPF]

I like him, he's a good little player -- kind of reminds me of Patrick Cobbs who we traded to the Steelers and who is now with the Dolphins. I don't know if there is enough room on the roster though.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Rushing yards 1,550
Average 3.7
Rushing Touchdowns 12

Can you say Reggie Bush and BJGE have equal talent at RUNNING the football?

Well, let's assume for a second that you can tell how good a RB is by YPC (not saying that that's the case, at all).

If that's the case, then what you're basically comparing BJGE's strength to what Bush's weakness, and they're coming out about even. Considering that Bush is, at best, a marginally above-average NFL player, that doesn't speak very well for BJGE.

 

[GullyFoyle]

OMG! Guys you have got to try this! Ive heard all the Maroney dances too much talk;And I am child of the seventies who remembers how stoners used to claim that you could sync up The Wizard of Oz with a Pink Floyd album. So I made a clip tape of all Maroneys runs his whole career with the Pats; and then after a long process of trial and error I found his sync match perfect! James Brown! Everytime time Maroney hits the hole; you hear: "Good God gonna kiss myself!" Followed immediately by "Jump back,AAAAAAAAAAHhh!" At the end of the compilation Ellis Hobbs drapes his jacket over a kneeling Maroney.

 

[Ring 6]

There are a few things that could have turned that around. Our defense near the end could have been better.

The greatest high flying offense ever? Not in that game, it was very tough going and their pass rush was just gaining confidence.

I'll put it this way, we managed to derail at least two of the top passing offenses in the Rams and Colts. Our strategy? Stuff the run, make them one dimensional. Knowing they had to pass gave us all sorts of advantages in turnovers and rushing.

Could we have hit a big pass, made a big play on D in thew bowl? Sure.

I do believe that establishing the run would let us throw the rhythm of the rush off, beat on the pass rushers and force them to play the run opening up passing opportunities.

Pretty basic football.

What does that have to do with Maroney?

 

[Deus Irae]

You do not understand the point I was making. I'd be happy to explain it if you get off the attack anyone who harms my binkie mode.

Hint, it has nothing to do with the relative talent of Smith and Maroney, Smith was a jag.

It does have a bit to do with the merits of a short yardage type runner in a passing offense.

I understood it completely, as I've stated multiple times. BradyFTW! has already pointed out, with data, just how wrong you are. I simply added a game-by-game comparison of their running numbers. See, that way we don't end up with the "he had more great games and more lousy games" as part of the argument.

 

[RayClay]

What does that have to do with Maroney?

I do believe that establishing the run would let us throw the rhythm of the rush off, beat on the pass rushers and force them to play the run opening up passing opportunities.

..................

 

[Deus Irae]

..................

Again, what does that have to do with Maroney? When did he become an offensive lineman?

 

[RayClay]

I understood it completely, as I've stated multiple times. BradyFTW! has already pointed out, with data, just how wrong you are. I simply added a game-by-game comparison of their running numbers. See, that way we don't end up with the "he had more great games and more lousy games" as part of the argument.

Smith has a lot more 3 yard carries, Maroney gets thrown for a loss more than BJ. I don't have all those statistics, but the ones that were suposed to support that Maroney is a positive gain, consistent runner didn't, and i didn't come up with the statistics.

You can read what you want from stats. If you think Maroney is a great positive yardage, short yardage back, then there's no problem. With his talent he could be headed to the hall of fame.

I myself, feel he needs to work on it. I imagine we've all seen him the same number of times, so it's just different perceptions, I guess.

 

[RayClay]

Again, what does that have to do with Maroney? When did he become an offensive lineman?

We need to replace the whole line? Again, why is it only when discussing Maroney that the line can't run block?

 

[Deus Irae]

We need to replace the whole line? Again, why is it only when discussing Maroney that the line can't run block?

And once again you go back to the fallacy. What a shocker.

 

[RayClay]

And once again you go back to the fallacy. What a shocker.

Which, that the line couldn't run block even with the Giants rushing every play? That's your fallacy.

 

[Ring 6]

..................

I didnt realize Maroney was calling the plays too.
I bet if he were alive then, you'd have him on the grassy knoll.

 

[Ring 6]

Rushing yards 1,550
Average 3.7
Rushing Touchdowns 12

Can you say Reggie Bush and BJGE have equal talent at RUNNING the football?

What are you talking about?

 

[BradyFTW!]

You can read what you want from stats. If you think Maroney is a great positive yardage, short yardage back, then there's no problem. With his talent he could be headed to the hall of fame.

Since you're clearly just going to misread my stats to say whatever you want them to say (and then compare them against a highly irregular and tiny sample to 'prove' your point), then let's just forget about them. My stats aren't as good as Football Outsiders' anyways.

If what you were arguing were true, then Maroney would not have a very good success rate. Success rate is defined on a play-by-play basis, so a player who busts a 15 yard run, followed by getting stuffed, will have a *worse* success rate than someone who rushes twice for four yards apiece. Under the premise that you've established, BJGE's value will be made apparent by the fact that, although Maroney has a higher DVOA, BJGE has a higher success rate. That's a valid premise, assuming that the facts back it up.

Success rate, after all, is measured as follows:

In general, a play counts as a "hit" if it gains 40% of yards on first down, 60% of yards on second down, and 100% of yards on third down.
If the team is behind by more than a touchdown in the fourth quarter, the benchmarks switch to 50%/65%/100%.
If the team is ahead by any amount in the fourth quarter, the benchmarks switch to 30%/50%/100%.

So if Maroney is what you say he is, then he'll have an average-or-worse success rate. But wait! In 2007, Maroney had the second best success rate in the NFL among running backs. He was one of the absolute best in the league at the very thing that you say he's no good at.

Seriously, just read this: FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Football Outsiders Almanac 2009

If you can read that, look at Maroney's success rate, and still conclude that he's not a good running back, then let me know so that I can go ahead and put you on ignore.

 

[Ring 6]

Smith has a lot more 3 yard carries, Maroney gets thrown for a loss more than BJ. I don't have all those statistics, but the ones that were suposed to support that Maroney is a positive gain, consistent runner didn't, and i didn't come up with the statistics.

You can read what you want from stats. If you think Maroney is a great positive yardage, short yardage back, then there's no problem. With his talent he could be headed to the hall of fame.

I myself, feel he needs to work on it. I imagine we've all seen him the same number of times, so it's just different perceptions, I guess.

Smith probably did have a lot more 3 yard carries. Problem is that Maroney replaces more of them with 4,5,6 than with 1,2, or 3.

You seem to want to judge an entire analysis by 2 or 3 runs that were a loss instead of 0 or 1. In reality is there a huge difference between -1 and +1, unless its on 3rd and 1?
We can all see you are doing it because it allows you to find 1 number to support you case, but even then you have to change your argument from lack of 3-4 yard runs to presence of - runs.

 

[Ring 6]

Since you're clearly just going to misread my stats to say whatever you want them to say (and then compare them against a highly irregular and tiny sample to 'prove' your point), then let's just forget about them. My stats aren't as good as Football Outsiders' anyways.

If what you were arguing were true, then Maroney would not have a very good success rate. Success rate is defined on a play-by-play basis, so a player who busts a 15 yard run, followed by getting stuffed, will have a *worse* success rate than someone who rushes twice for four yards apiece. Under the premise that you've established, BJGE's value will be made apparent by the fact that, although Maroney has a higher DVOA, BJGE has a higher success rate. That's a valid premise, assuming that the facts back it up.

Success rate, after all, is measured as follows:

In general, a play counts as a "hit" if it gains 40% of yards on first down, 60% of yards on second down, and 100% of yards on third down.
If the team is behind by more than a touchdown in the fourth quarter, the benchmarks switch to 50%/65%/100%.
If the team is ahead by any amount in the fourth quarter, the benchmarks switch to 30%/50%/100%.

So if Maroney is what you say he is, then he'll have an average-or-worse success rate. But wait! In 2007, Maroney had the second best success rate in the NFL among running backs. He was one of the absolute best in the league at the very thing that you say he's no good at.

Seriously, just read this: FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Football Outsiders Almanac 2009

If you can read that, look at Maroney's success rate, and still conclude that he's not a good running back, then let me know so that I can go ahead and put you on ignore.

I do not think in my entire life I have a statistic utilizes that answers a question better than what you just did.
This could be the most compelling argument ever on this board; that is that Maroney absolutely does not have a 'high rish, high reward' running style or that his ypc is skewed higher because of many longer runs, many short runs, and few 'good' runs.
Congratulations. This is probably the most lopsided argument victory I have ever seen on this board.

 

[Deus Irae]

Which, that the line couldn't run block even with the Giants rushing every play? That's your fallacy.

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

Look at all those plays that got stuffed, and the Patriots had only 4 first downs by rushing. 7 runs, out of 15, with fewer than 3 yards gained. 5 runs for no gain or a loss. Smith had no rushing touchdowns. Shockingly, the Patriots still won that game.

I know... this hurts your agenda, so you'll continue to ignore it.

 

[RayClay]

I didnt realize Maroney was calling the plays too.
I bet if he were alive then, you'd have him on the grassy knoll.

Obviously, they should have tried harder to establish the run. It seems that they did try somewhat. After an 8 yd reception in the second quarter, they had a second and 2

1,-2 (no first down) 0,-3 [halftime]. In the third quarter they alternated between 7,9,4 gains each followed by -2, 0, 2.

Then they gave up, running only once in the fourth. Oh well, it sure wasn't a high scoring game. I don't know if they really tried to establish the run or not. They didn't run very many times, considering the giants were just teeing off on Brady.

 

[RayClay]

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

Look at all those plays that got stuffed, and the Patriots had only 4 first downs by rushing. 7 runs, out of 15, with fewer than 3 yards gained. 5 runs for no gain or a loss. Smith had no rushing touchdowns. Shockingly, the Patriots still won that game.

I know... this hurts your agenda, so you'll continue to ignore it.

That is a lot of stuffs.

Six runs for 3 or 4 yards. 4 first downs rushing. That does keep the down and distance moving, depending on when those stuffs were. You don't understand what I'm saying, unless you were nice enough to post something that makes my point.



Do I have an agenda?

 

[Deus Irae]

That is a lot of stuffs.

Six runs for 3 or 4 yards. 4 first downs rushing. That does keep the down and distance moving, depending on when those stuffs were. You don't understand what I'm saying, unless you were nice enough to post something that makes my point.



Do I have an agenda?

The Super Bowl 2007 had 3 first downs rushing. That does keep the down and distance moving, according to your logic.

You've now gone and moved the goalposts for about the 4th time. yes, you clearly have an agenda. You pulled this same crap with the linebacker argument.