Jackass Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 This is partially in response to the "players to avoid" article that i just finished reading (excellent piece, btw). It's common knowledge by now that michael turner exceeded this magical # last year. What i'm wondering though is shouldn't playoff games be counted in this total and shouldn't there by a different # that includes these? Seems like those extra carries would have a huge impact as they could add 50+ carries to this #. just wondering if anyone's ever looked at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 well, in years where Alexander and Tomlinson went deep into the playoffs and had a large number of carries, they came back the next year with no juice at all... however, every team that made it at least to the divisional round used a RBBC system and that kinda throws a wrench into things.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Aaron Schatz was the one that first wrote about the curse of 370 - and he has now amended it to include 390 carries if playoffs are involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KordellStewartSucks4Life Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Aaron Schatz was the one that first wrote about the curse of 370 - and he has now amended it to include 390 carries if playoffs are involved. I have also read arguments that those affected by the 370 curse also had a lot of mileage in the past. Turner never even came close to 200 carries before. I am not dismissing the 370 curse and I have always avoided players except LT. He had a 370 + carry season and then had over 2300 yards the next season. Hopefully I will not have to make that decision when the draft comes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ts Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) Link below to a somewhat related article ... whether or not you agree with the "analysis", I found it a fairly interesting read. You'll need to click on the tables in the body of the article to expand them to full page size. http://kotitescorner.blogspot.com/2009/06/...otball-age.html Edited July 19, 2009 by ts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted July 19, 2009 Author Share Posted July 19, 2009 I have also read arguments that those affected by the 370 curse also had a lot of mileage in the past. Turner never even came close to 200 carries before. I am not dismissing the 370 curse and I have always avoided players except LT. He had a 370 + carry season and then had over 2300 yards the next season. Hopefully I will not have to make that decision when the draft comes. I thought about that as well, and this point definitely needs to be taken into consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 How Long Stud Running Backs Last is on the homepage now and has the number of touches that the stud RBs of the last ten years had. Players like Curtis Martin or Emmitt Smith had many year stretches of over 380 touches per season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 How Long Stud Running Backs Last is on the homepage now and has the number of touches that the stud RBs of the last ten years had. Players like Curtis Martin or Emmitt Smith had many year stretches of over 380 touches per season. There just aren't RBs getting as many carries as there used to be like that. I think we need to take a step back and look at the big picture. The days of the every-down back are becoming a fading memory. I think this is partially due to just the way the game has become more specialized over the years. And the fact that defenders are getting bigger and stronger, thus the cumulative effects of hits over the course of the season have a bigger impact on a RBs durability. I wouldn't poo poo this theory just because some "dinosaurs" (and in the NFL anything that happened over 5 years ago seems prehistoric) managed to pile up 370+ without immediate repercussions. I think the 370+ mark is way more relevant today than it was 10 years ago. 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.