Pancake Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Just tooling around with some of the data on the past EOS articles (2005 and 2006) for RBs and came to the conclusion, again,(which might not be a revelation for some of you but definately not apparent from the articles) that the stud RBs will get their numbers regardless of their specific EOS. This should be used as a one of many factors (and not used with much weight) in deceiding between lower ranked RBs. The biggest factors to consider before using this data is who the RB is (stud or not stud), O-Line, Coaching Philosophy (i.e. RBBC or not), Supporting Cast at skill positions, and injury factor. After using all these factores you have a couple of RBs ranked very similar then you utilize the EOS. I might be stating the obvious and have been following this in the past, but wanted to work through the numbers again to verify what I have been doing in the past....so nothing new, just re-hashing the basics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major-tom Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Just tooling around with some of the data on the past EOS articles (2005 and 2006) for RBs and came to the conclusion, again,(which might not be a revelation for some of you but definately not apparent from the articles) that the stud RBs will get their numbers regardless of their specific EOS. This should be used as a one of many factors (and not used with much weight) in deceiding between lower ranked RBs. The biggest factors to consider before using this data is who the RB is (stud or not stud), O-Line, Coaching Philosophy (i.e. RBBC or not), Supporting Cast at skill positions, and injury factor. After using all these factores you have a couple of RBs ranked very similar then you utilize the EOS. I might be stating the obvious and have been following this in the past, but wanted to work through the numbers again to verify what I have been doing in the past....so nothing new, just re-hashing the basics. Have you decided then, throughout the respective positions, that the EOS is more relevent for QBs, WRs, or TEs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Have you decided then, throughout the respective positions, that the EOS is more relevent for QBs, WRs, or TEs? I have not run the numbers for other postions and would assume that the conclusion applies across the board to the other postions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I think EOS only becomes useful about midway through the regular season. At that point the defenses have pretty much shown their true colors and then it can be helpful for picking up Free Agents or making trades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I think EOS only becomes useful about midway through the regular season. Why I agree to some extent, I disagree with the notion that matchups in the first half of the season are entirely unpredictable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 In a book that is coming out in late Juy cough:pimp:cough, I wrote read that great players are bigger than their schedule (which sort of makes them great and all) and that the schedule is bigger than the average player. Figure Peyton Manning and Tom Brady has historically had two of the worst passing schedules in the league. But EOS works the most accurately for RBs since they are a constant factor in every game and have the most touches of anyone. As pointed out, the earlier part of the season is the most predictable part, especially for the rushing game. EOS matters for those middle tier or lower players where a really good schedule can pave the way for an average player to look great and a really bad schedule can make a decent player look much worse than he really is. EOS is just one of many factors to consider, but early season (Dorey Rule) for RBs is the most valuable part of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 So looking at the 2006 EOS - SF had the 3rd worst RB schedule yet F. Gore put up the FF points with a top 5 finish for RBs. Can he repeat in 2007? Now looking at the 2005 EOS - OAK had the 2nd worst RB schedule yet LaMount surprised with a top 10 showing for RBs at the end of the year.....then 2006 happened...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 So looking at the 2006 EOS - SF had the 3rd worst RB schedule yet F. Gore put up the FF points with a top 5 finish for RBs. Can he repeat in 2007? Now looking at the 2005 EOS - OAK had the 2nd worst RB schedule yet LaMount surprised with a top 10 showing for RBs at the end of the year.....then 2006 happened...... The original EOS for RB's is here and \ it shows an EOS of +3 (9-6) for SF. Lamont Jordan didn't surprise so much as he just happened to catch a whole of passes for the first (and only so far) time. 2006 OAK is a great example why there are so many factors to consider with a player and the dynamics of the team around them are a lot more important than the teams they will face. OAK '06 is maybe the most extreme case I can think of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 We need more analysis on this. Take out the "studs" and...how did the "average" RBs do according to their respective EOS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PantherDave Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 I think EOS only becomes useful about midway through the regular season. At that point the defenses have pretty much shown their true colors and then it can be helpful for picking up Free Agents or making trades. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 (edited) We need more analysis on this. Take out the "studs" and...how did the "average" RBs do according to their respective EOS? DMD -- Can you share with us a little historical data on how the "non-studs" ended up performing in comparison to their preseason EOS rankings? Maybe, for instance, the top 15 EOS rankings of 2004 along with that year's top 15 FF RBs? Or is that info in the Handbook? Edited June 3, 2007 by Swiss Cheezhead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 DMD -- Can you share with us a little historical data on how the "non-studs" ended up performing in comparison to their preseason EOS rankings? Maybe, for instance, the top 15 EOS rankings of 2004 along with that year's top 15 FF RBs? Or is that info in the Handbook? The correlation between schedule and performance exists of course, but there are many other factors that have to be considered that have an equally or greater effect - ie. team dynamics, injuries, etc.. It has always been pretty good with running backs, but there's so much that goes on with them that you could not draw any definitive statements from it without really analyzing how each runner was affected by all the variables in his season and even then it would be subjective. 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.