tazinib1 Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) 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. I'll have to agree with you on this one Keggz. The title of the metric is somewhat misleading in terms of how it is generally defined. I like the RB+ compromise though. Maybe I should shoot that suggestion over to the powers that be. Edited July 6, 2012 by tazinib1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi 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. no, I'm not. Instead, I am reading the name of the stat YOU linked...."Most Elusive"....sorry, but I didn't see in the title of YOUR link where it stated Most YAC. Yards after contact does not mean elusive. Your link blows monkey-dick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 My point is that no matter how its calculated, clearly this list isn't an indication of the best backs in the league. Because of FFB, we all get so excited about breaking down statistics that we create metrics that don't tell us more than what our eyes can. So, don't insult any of us by saying we aren't reading the stats. Or instead maybe we could all just be intent on saying jstew is #1 on a tweaked meaningless list of RBs. Well, good for him. I'm sure I could somehow tweak numbers and make Felix Jones look like the best back in the league, but that doesn't mean its true. It's always good to look at at various levels of information. It's never good to use a single one of them to make definitive conclusions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 My point is that no matter how its calculated, clearly this list isn't an indication of the best backs in the league. Because of FFB, we all get so excited about breaking down statistics that we create metrics that don't tell us more than what our eyes can. So, don't insult any of us by saying we aren't reading the stats. Or instead maybe we could all just be intent on saying jstew is #1 on a tweaked meaningless list of RBs. Well, good for him. I'm sure I could somehow tweak numbers and make Felix Jones look like the best back in the league, but that doesn't mean its true. It's always good to look at at various levels of information. It's never good to use a single one of them to make definitive conclusions. Anything I can use to pimp Stew up in my mind, I will. Or have you guys not been paying attention the past 3 seasons Never-the-less, Stew is still the man and Swammi blows monkey dick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice1 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) What this report tells me is the NFC South doesn't tackle very well. 5 in the top 9...Hmmm makes one wonder. Edited July 6, 2012 by Ice1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 What this report tells me is the NFC South doesn't tackle very well. 5 in the top 9...Hmmm makes one wonder. Sure doesn't help that the Bucs and there 32nd ranked run defense is in the division. Or the Panthers and their 25th ranked run defense. Of course you have the Saints #12 and the Falcons #6 in 2011. In 2010 it was slightly better as the Bucs were a stout #28, the Panthers #23, the Saints #16 and the Falcons #10 2009 was more of the same for the Bucs who finished dead last again while the Panthers posted their best finish against the run in this 3 year span at #22. The Saints were a notch better at #21 and the Falcons had yet another top 10 finish at #10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Sure doesn't help that the Bucs and there 32nd ranked run defense is in the division. Or the Panthers and their 25th ranked run defense. Of course you have the Saints #12 and the Falcons #6 in 2011. In 2010 it was slightly better as the Bucs were a stout #28, the Panthers #23, the Saints #16 and the Falcons #10 2009 was more of the same for the Bucs who finished dead last again while the Panthers posted their best finish against the run in this 3 year span at #22. The Saints were a notch better at #21 and the Falcons had yet another top 10 finish at #10 are those stats based on yards per game or yards per carry? Because YPC is the only relevant stat in this argument and its not the number used in rating run defense typically. Since we are discussing misleading, semi-useless stats the way "total defense" is calculated is also misleading. Not really total at all and doesn't factor points allowed, turnovers, etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) are those stats based on yards per game or yards per carry? Because YPC is the only relevant stat in this argument and its not the number used in rating run defense typically. Since we are discussing misleading, semi-useless stats the way "total defense" is calculated is also misleading. Not really total at all and doesn't factor points allowed, turnovers, etc Actually, the stats I am using for rushing Defense factor in PPG,Fumbles,Yards per Game,TD's allowed, 1st downs and a few other nuggets. I can get you the YPC if you like. Was kinda done with this thread but you done dragged me back in!! NFC South YPC 2009-2011 (seems it won't let me go past 2011 for some reason....) Panthers: 2011: 4.6 (#16) Redskins: 2011: 5.0 (Tied for 31st) Falcons: 2011: 4.2 (Tied for 16th) Saints: 2011: 5.0 (Tied for 31st) Edited July 6, 2012 by tazinib1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boltnlava Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I'm pretty sure the most elusive has been knowshon. I don't know. Even I know where he'll be during the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papajohn Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 My point is that no matter how its calculated, clearly this list isn't an indication of the best backs in the league. Because of FFB, we all get so excited about breaking down statistics that we create metrics that don't tell us more than what our eyes can. So, don't insult any of us by saying we aren't reading the stats. Or instead maybe we could all just be intent on saying jstew is #1 on a tweaked meaningless list of RBs. Well, good for him. I'm sure I could somehow tweak numbers and make Felix Jones look like the best back in the league, but that doesn't mean its true. It's always good to look at at various levels of information. It's never good to use a single one of them to make definitive conclusions. Nah, I dont think that's possible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Hey Taz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) Hey Taz p.s....you spelled ghey wrong Edited July 9, 2012 by tazinib1 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.