Bronco Billy Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 elusiveadjective1. difficult to catch, tricky, slippery, difficult to find, evasive, shifty Words that jump into my mind when I think of Pierre Thomas, not so much when I think of Darren Sproles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Most elusive backup RB evah!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverback Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Isn't this more about how crappy the D's are, as oppoosed to how elusive a RB is? Rice is in a very tough division, with some very good tacklers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) Most elusive backup RB evah!! Edited July 5, 2012 by tazinib1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 Isn't this more about how crappy the D's are, as oppoosed to how elusive a RB is? Rice is in a very tough division, with some very good tacklers. No. What about the other half of the schedule for 3 years? That's a season and 1/2 of inferior defense according to your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 [billMurray] Pardon me if I'm wrong Sandy, but wouldn't the elusive RBs be the ones who aren't getting hit? [/billMurray] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 [billMurray] Pardon me if I'm wrong Sandy, but wouldn't the elusive RBs be the ones who aren't getting hit? [/billMurray] That's definitely the question here, and IMO, the answer lies somewhere in the middle. First, I don't really see backs like Turner and AP as all that elusive. It's more that they have the speed and size to both run right through you or run right past you. I mean, yes, AP in particular can be shifty and make it even tougher to bring him down, but I don't know that elusiveness as much as being a power runner with speed characterizes their game. But I don't know that I'd call guys who just have straight-line speed that elusive either. You're not really eluding a tackle when you run straight past it. So my definition would definitely have a guy like LeSean McCoy at the top, having the ability to come this close to getting tackled, but shake them off with their moves.. Yes, this definition is every bit as subjective, and less quantifiable, but even if we use "elusiveness" as a blanket term, then yards after contact oversimplifies it even more, when elusiveness doesn't simply suggest yards after contact, but in my view, yards without contact is every bit as valid. Maybe what I'm calling elusiveness is more specifically "shiftiness" or something like that, but when I think of elusiveness, I think of the ability to shake tackles, and not so much the ability to run through or past them. I see those as different types of skills that are better described with other terms for their skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 And don't be pissing all over my Stew chest thumping just because your RB savior Moreno turned out to be a bust. Hopefully, Ronnie Tillman takes over mid season and all will be good in BB land. Hillman's "elusiveness" or shiftiness that I described in the above post, is why I REALLY like the kid.... I think he's a perfect example of not just speed or size that helps them get past tackles, but moves to shake them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) I personally wrote PFF's Sam Monson and he told me that the statistical definition of a Missed Tackle is "A tackle either broken or avoided". Interesting. Edited July 5, 2012 by tazinib1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 This thread made me LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I personally wrote PFF's Sam Monson and he told me that the statistical definition of a Missed Tackle is "A tackle either broken or avoided". Interesting. So I assume it takes into account if a tackle is attempted too (in other words, doesn't count it if the guy just blows past them)? If so, then it does seem to be a more useful metric, but I still think that the definition is a bit too general when a guy like McCoy is listed so low, and guys like Turner listed so high... I think it discounts the trait of being able to make guys miss, by lumping it in with the guys who are simply tougher to bring down or catch. I think it's a subjective thing, that you know elusiveness when you see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 If a defender is a ####ty tackler, does the RB lose elusivity points? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 If a defender is a ####ty tackler, does the RB lose elusivity points? Depends on if the tackler has some swagger when he misses the tackle. Does he get up with some panache, or does he meekly roll over on his knees to get up. If he has swagger, the RB still gets the elusivity points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Depends on if the tackler has some swagger when he misses the tackle. Does he get up with some panache, or does he meekly roll over on his knees to get up. If he has swagger, the RB still gets the elusivity points. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Words that jump into my mind when I think of Pierre Thomas, not so much when I think of Darren Sproles. Good answer. It's a funny symmetric and can be quite deceiving if you put too much stock into it. Pierre Thomas makes a prime example. In his role he excels at what he does. PT, quite honestly is probably one of the most elusive backs in the league when put in the right situation. Edit:again trying to post from my phone: To finish... Throw the guy a screen and put that offensive line in front of him and he can blow apart a defense. Shoot him a handoff when the defense is thinking pass then he's like;y going to make them pay. I believe that there is no more underrated situational runner in the league than PT, but give him the ball for the majority of the game and he is a non-factor. The same goeas for Sproles. Cover him like a reciever and he's toast. Put man coverage with a corner or safety and he can be negated. But the Saints are smart and throw him in where a deep reciever is warranted... or a short rush up the middle is needed. It's the epitome' of the situational back in NO. Edited July 6, 2012 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverback Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 No. What about the other half of the schedule for 3 years? That's a season and 1/2 of inferior defense according to your argument. Thank you for proveing my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) Thank you for proveing my point. Then by your point, the RB's facing the weaker non division defenses would have 1 1/2 seasons of bloated stats. Which is not the case. Edited July 6, 2012 by tazinib1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Good answer. It's a funny symmetric and can be quite deceiving if you put too much stock into it. Pierre Thomas makes a prime example. In his role he excels at what he does. PT, quite honestly is probably one of the most elusive backs in the league when put in the right situation. Edit:again trying to post from my phone: To finish... Throw the guy a screen and put that offensive line in front of him and he can blow apart a defense. Shoot him a handoff when the defense is thinking pass then he's like;y going to make them pay. I believe that there is no more underrated situational runner in the league than PT, but give him the ball for the majority of the game and he is a non-factor. The same goeas for Sproles. Cover him like a reciever and he's toast. Put man coverage with a corner or safety and he can be negated. But the Saints are smart and throw him in where a deep reciever is warranted... or a short rush up the middle is needed. It's the epitome' of the situational back in NO. If what you're stating is valid, then NO had no reason to burn a high pick on Ingram when it has so many weaknesses on D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 So elusive, he can't be found in the starting lineup. I say this somewhat jokingly because I think JStew is a very good RB, but throwing out this statistic is a poor basis. And as much as I think JStew is a very good RB, I still don't understand why he isn't dominating carries right now....(if he's the best RB in the league). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) If what you're stating is valid, then NO had no reason to burn a high pick on Ingram when it has so many weaknesses on D. On the contrary, NO does need a RB who can run between the tackles when it's obvious that there is no other choice. Ingram, as funny as it sounds, also offers a change of pace option to pound it out when Drew is not completely on his game or when the Saints need to close out a win by grinding it out at the end or when the defense is really keying on the passing game. ETA: Ivory really fit that role well, but the injuries to him, Bush & PT all made Ingram a neccessity because he is capable of doing almost all of their roles just as well. Edited July 6, 2012 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 So elusive, he can't be found in the starting lineup. I say this somewhat jokingly because I think JStew is a very good RB, but throwing out this statistic is a poor basis. And as much as I think JStew is a very good RB, I still don't understand why he isn't dominating carries right now....(if he's the best RB in the league). Now that John Fox is out of the equation, I wouldn't be surprised if he led the Panthers in carries this season. Will he be a 18-22 carry RB? D-Will turns 30 after this season so the Carolina backfield will be an interesting development to watch this year. . This is also a contract year and I fully expect him to have a career year. Will he be a Panther in 2013? Personally I hope he takes his talent elsewhere. And the statistic isn't poor basis if you actually look at it. There is a ton of information you can gather from those numbers if you know how to look. Not saying you don't...just say'n. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 So you think that list is a good representation of the best RBs in the NFL? If you were a GM and starting your own team, you'd use it to draft from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Believe it or not, McCoy is #21 and Sproles #39 And Turner Top-5 in terms of elusiveness? yeah, this metric is going to last Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 And Turner Top-5 in terms of elusiveness? yeah, this metric is going to last When you gain over 2,400 yds after contact, yeah. You guys are not reading the numbers are you..just the rankings. Figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 When you gain over 2,400 yds after contact, yeah. You guys are not reading the numbers are you..just the rankings. Figures. When a metric doesn't match the definition of the word it is using then there will be ridicule...the metric has merit but as long as it is titled "elusive" it just doesn't make sense. If anyone can make an argument that MICHAEL TURNER is elusive in the sense that everyone thinks of that term then please let us have it...if you can't then there you have why the metric is being question....i suggested they change the metric name to "RB+" if they did that then ppl wouldn't be questioning it the way they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.