PDA

View Full Version : Cutting down on Sacks


hizmi
04-28-2008, 08:39 PM
Much has been made of how often Big Ben has been sacked the last two years and the general inadequacy of our offensive line.

Surprisingly, an offensive linemen was not selected until the 4th round, and it doesn't appear as if Hills will compete for a starting job any time soon. Either the FO still believes this is a pressing need but refused to reach for a linemen early, instead choosing to take what the draft gave them OR they simply aren't as concerned as most fans (although I guess it could be a little of both).

I think they would have jumped all over Williams, Clady, or Albert had they fallen, but they were not desperate enough to trade up (which they have done in the past, see Polamalu and Holmes). The question is, why weren't they as desperate as the fans seem to be?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the FO thinks the O-line is average with the potential to improve on last year with health, continuity, and the addition of Hartwig/subtraction of Mahan. It certainly can't be much worse than last year, and we still managed to be one of the best teams in the NFL.

Some will contend that our offensive line is nothing short of terrible, and not making any major additions will result in Ben running for his life again.

My contention is that this is not necessarily true.

Our O-line is essentially the same as last year, but here is how I think the sack totals can (not saying they will) decrease significantly:

1. Big Ben's maturation--I don't think Ben's culpability concerning these high sack totals is emphasized enough. The problem here is that Ben's strength is being creative outside the pocket and making big plays, and this of course requires him to hold onto the ball longer than the O-line can be expected to block effectively. The solution? Ben gaining more experience and learning when to look for the big play and when to check down. Right now, the checkdowns are non-existant, but hopefully mewelde moore can help change this. I think it's very important that the coaches NOT try to change Ben's game and push a quicker passing game on him, but rather let him grow naturally.

2. A better running back--I know this is rather controversial, but hear me out. Willie Parker is simply not a very good running back. People will think this is crazy because of his impressive yardage totals and career average of 4.4 yds/carry. But dig a little a deeper, and you'll see why Parker is vastly overrated by Steeler fans especially. According to footballoutsiders.com his biggest problem is success percentage, where success on a given carry is defined according to down and distance. Last year Parker had a success rate of 42%, ranking him 42/56 (minimum of 75 carries required). The year before, Parker had a success rate of 44%, ranking him 35/53.

What does this mean? Quite simply, Parker has far too many carries where he gains minimal or negative yardage. His high yards/carry is inflated by his ability to hit the home-run, but the value of his big-plays are severely reduced because of his 1 yard gains and 2 yard losses. This puts enormous pressure on the passing game to convert 2nd and 3rd and long situations, thus contributing to the high sack totals that have plagued our offense.

The other major drawback with Parker is his propensity for fumbles. He has 14 fumbles in just 54 games which further cuts into his value as an every down back.

So as you can imagine, I was especially excited to see Mendenhall drafted. If he's as good as advertised, he will be a significant upgrade over parker and consequently help reduce our sack totals.

In conclusion, a more mature Big Ben and a more consistent running game (i.e. one with a higher success rate) would reduce the high sack totals despite the fact our offensive line is essentially the same as last year.

fansince'76
04-28-2008, 08:52 PM
Willie Parker is simply not a very good running back. People will think this is crazy because of his impressive yardage totals and career average of 4.4 yds/carry. But dig a little a deeper, and you'll see why Parker is vastly overrated by Steeler fans especially. According to footballoutsiders.com his biggest problem is success percentage, where success on a given carry is defined according to down and distance. Last year Parker had a success rate of 42%, ranking him 42/56 (minimum of 75 carries required). The year before, Parker had a success rate of 44%, ranking him 35/53.

What does this mean? Quite simply, Parker has far too many carries where he gains minimal or negative yardage. His high yards/carry is inflated by his ability to hit the home-run, but the value of his big-plays are severely reduced because of his 1 yard gains and 2 yard losses. This puts enormous pressure on the passing game to convert 2nd and 3rd and long situations, thus contributing to the high sack totals that have plagued our offense.

What did "footballoutsiders.com" have to say about Barry Sanders? Seems to me he had the same "problem." I guess he sucked too? And I suppose the OL had nothing to do with Willie being hit 2-3 yards deep in the backfield far too often? Our OL hasn't routinely blown other teams off the LOS in quite a while.

TackleMeBen
04-28-2008, 08:58 PM
What did "footballoutsiders.com" have to say about Barry Sanders? Seems to me he had the same "problem." I guess he sucked too? And I suppose the OL had nothing to do with Willie being hit 2-3 yards deep in the backfield far too often? Our OL hasn't routinely blown other teams off the LOS in quite a while.
:iagree:

tony hipchest
04-28-2008, 08:59 PM
I think it's very important that the coaches NOT try to change Ben's game and push a quicker passing game on him, but rather let him grow naturally.
nice post and totally agree although i think parker is better than described.

ben, parker, and all the o-line have little holes in their game that prevent them from being the 90's cowboys or todays colts offense.

ben is still a work in progress. its not like he has been studying defenses since the age of 5 like mannings or brady.

i think were getting better quicker than were getting worse, despite some thinking we made horrible moves in last weekends draft.

Steel_Bus_24
04-28-2008, 09:00 PM
What did "footballoutsiders.com" have to say about Barry Sanders? Seems to me he had the same "problem." I guess he sucked too? And I suppose the OL had nothing to do with Willie being hit 2-3 yards deep in the backfield far too often? Our OL hasn't routinely blown other teams off the LOS in quite a while.

Yeah Im far more concerned with our O-lines ability to run block....we've really fallen off in that regard since the 04 season....

Our Line is just going to have to find a way to get nastier in Training Camp...or else even with Mendenhall we won't see much improvement in the run game

hizmi
04-28-2008, 09:11 PM
What did "footballoutsiders.com" have to say about Barry Sanders? Seems to me he had the same "problem." I guess he sucked too? And I suppose the OL had nothing to do with Willie being hit 2-3 yards deep in the backfield far too often? Our OL hasn't routinely blown other teams off the LOS in quite a while.

Not sure what the numbers are on sanders...the stats don't go back that far, at least for non-premium members.

Did the O-line have anything to do with it? Well yeah, to some extent, but in this case not nearly as much as you think. For a comparison, Davenport had a success rate last year of 52% which ranked him 9/56. And his DVOA, which assesses performance on a per-play basis, ranked davenport 8/56, ahead of RB's such as Tomlinson, Peterson, and Addai. Parker ranked 44/56.

Now I'm not saying davenport is as good as LT, AP, and Addai, but he WAS more effective than parker last year running behind the same line.

Of course, you could argue he had more favorable situations in which to run (defense is worn down, draw plays on third down against nickel packages etc.). I'd be interested to check his stats when he was the starter and see if his production dropped as the feature back.

fansince'76
04-28-2008, 09:20 PM
Not sure what the numbers are on sanders...the stats don't go back that far, at least for non-premium members.

Did the O-line have anything to do with it? Well yeah, to some extent, but in this case not nearly as much as you think. For a comparison, Davenport had a success rate last year of 52% which ranked him 9/56. And his DVOA, which assesses performance on a per-play basis, ranked davenport 8/56, ahead of RB's such as Tomlinson, Peterson, and Addai. Parker ranked 44/56.

Now I'm not saying davenport is as good as LT, AP, and Addai, but he WAS more effective than parker last year running behind the same line.

Of course, you could argue he had more favorable situations in which to run (defense is worn down, draw plays on third down against nickel packages etc.). I'd be interested to check his stats when he was the starter and see if his production dropped as the feature back.

Davenport rushed 16 times for 25 yards against Jacksonville in the WC game, with a long run of 10 (which means he went 15 rushes for 15 yards the rest of the time). Parker went 14 rushes for 100 on the nose against the same D 3 weeks earlier, while Davenport went 1 for -4 yards in that game. Seems to me the more attempts you have behind an average-to-mediocre OL, the more that is going to skew those stats in a downward direction. However, since we couldn't seem to get OL, or weren't inclined to in the draft, I'll be happy to see Willie's carries cut either way - he won't last 2 more seasons if he has to carry the load as much as last year.

tony hipchest
04-28-2008, 09:23 PM
Of course, you could argue he had more favorable situations in which to run (defense is worn down, draw plays on third down against nickel packages etc.). I'd be interested to check his stats when he was the starter and see if his production dropped as the feature back.i looked this up several weeks ago.

davenport has virtually no experience as a starter in the league other than his game vs. the ravens and jax in the playoffs last year (i think it was 3 starts over his career).

on the flipside is mewelde moore who has 8 starts and capitalized in almost every one.

najeh got alot of yards and good plays when the defense was softened up from chasing willie the whole game. same principal as jerome getting stronger as the game wore on. he never did much unless he was coming off the bench. he really only had 1 good game as the featured back with the packers.

anyways, i dont know whats worse. giving up all the sacks we did on offense or coming away with as few as we did on defense. either way, neither side of the ball is due for a major overhaul. just some minor tweaking and adjustments.

hizmi
04-28-2008, 09:37 PM
Davenport rushed 16 times for 25 yards against Jacksonville in the WC game, with a long run of 10 (which means he went 15 rushes for 15 yards the rest of the time). Parker went 14 rushes for 100 on the nose against the same D 3 weeks earlier, while Davenport went 1 for -4 yards in that game. Seems to me the more attempts you have behind an average-to-mediocre OL, the more that is going to skew those stats in a downward direction. However, since we couldn't seem to get OL, or weren't inclined to in the draft, I'll be happy to see Willie's carries cut either way - he won't last 2 more seasons if he has to carry the load as much as last year.

Good points there, and I agree that Davenport's numbers would not look as good if he had more carries as the feature back. But I still think they would be better than Parker's because his success rate is so much higher and he doesn't fumble as often.

Edit: going back two years, when we had a pretty food O-line, Parker's success rate was much better...48% for a rank of 12/53. But Bettis was still better, with a success rate of 51% for a rank of 8/53 and a DVOA rank of 7/53 compared to Parker's 22/53. So yes, Parker's numbers do depend on the O-Line, maybe more than I was willing to give credit for initially. But, his competition in the backfield, when given ample opportunities (davenport's first year doesn't count), has outperformed him while running behind the same O-Line. So I stand behind my assertion that he is not a very good running back and is vastly overrated.

fansince'76
04-28-2008, 10:09 PM
Edit: going back two years, when we had a pretty food O-line, Parker's success rate was much better...48% for a rank of 12/53. But Bettis was still better, with a success rate of 51% for a rank of 8/53 and a DVOA rank of 7/53 compared to Parker's 22/53....But, his competition in the backfield, when given ample opportunities (davenport's first year doesn't count), has outperformed him while running behind the same O-Line. So I stand behind my assertion that he is not a very good running back and is vastly overrated.

Yes, but Parker was the featured back by that point getting the lion's share of the carries, and Bettis was his backup. The success and DVOA statistics you cited tend to skew downward as the number of carries for a RB increases, as evidenced by Davenport's higher numbers in these categories than the likes of Peterson and Tomlinson. Do I think Parker is the next Walter Payton or Barry Sanders? No. But he's better than you make him out to be, IMO.

EDIT: By the way, welcome to the board! :cheers:

hizmi
04-28-2008, 10:32 PM
Yes, but Parker was the featured back by that point getting the lion's share of the carries, and Bettis was his backup. The success and DVOA statistics you cited tend to skew downward as the number of carries for a RB increases, as evidenced by Davenport's higher numbers in these categories than the likes of Peterson and Tomlinson. Do I think Parker is the next Walter Payton or Barry Sanders? No. But he's better than you make him out to be, IMO.

There are cases where this is true.....for instance kenton keith had a succcess rate of 58%, good for #1 in the league and the #4 DVOA compared to Addai, who ranked 6th and 16th respectively. Unlike the parker/davenport situation, however, addai was still amongst the league leaders AND he ranked ahead of Keith in DPAR (which is not on a per-play basis).

Keith, Davenport, Sammy Morris, and Jerious Norwood are the only part-time backs who rank very high in DVOA and DPAR. Keith and Morris, however, are most certainly the beneficiaries of a great offensive line, since the starters (Addai and Maroney) also ranked very high in DVOA and had a higher DPAR.

Norwood and Davenport, on the other hand, were both ranked significantly higher in all three categories than Dunn and Parker, which suggests to me they are simply more effective.

If Davenport and Parker were at least close statistically like Addai/Keith and Maroney/Morris, then I'd say yeah, Parker is at a disadvantage and is clearly the better back. But they aren't close, and the only similar example of a backup outperforming the starter to that extent is Norwood, who many feel is better than Dunn.

El-Gonzo Jackson
04-28-2008, 10:49 PM
Our O line was not BAD.....it was not healthy and not deep, which ended up with bad results.

Mahan was a mistake. Smith was injured, Faneca was unhappy and Colon was new.

If healthy, the line stacks up pretty good this season, but with Smith, Starks, Kemo, Essex all on the last year of their contracts it is by no means solid for 2009. The FO should have been picking linemen for the future. We can hope Hills and Legursky pan out.

fansince'76
04-28-2008, 11:01 PM
There are cases where this is true.....for instance kenton keith had a succcess rate of 58%, good for #1 in the league and the #4 DVOA compared to Addai, who ranked 6th and 16th respectively. Unlike the parker/davenport situation, however, addai was still amongst the league leaders AND he ranked ahead of Keith in DPAR (which is not on a per-play basis).

Keith, Davenport, Sammy Morris, and Jerious Norwood are the only part-time backs who rank very high in DVOA and DPAR. Keith and Morris, however, are most certainly the beneficiaries of a great offensive line, since the starters (Addai and Maroney) also ranked very high in DVOA and had a higher DPAR.

Norwood and Davenport, on the other hand, were both ranked significantly higher in all three categories than Dunn and Parker, which suggests to me they are simply more effective.

If Davenport and Parker were at least close statistically like Addai/Keith and Maroney/Morris, then I'd say yeah, Parker is at a disadvantage and is clearly the better back. But they aren't close, and the only similar example of a backup outperforming the starter to that extent is Norwood, who many feel is better than Dunn.

The fact that Kenton Keith is ranked #1 in the league in anything kinda suggests how flawed these statistics are. I'm sorry, but the notion that Davenport is a better RB than Parker is one I'm not buying, so we'll agree to disagree. :cheers:

Preacher
04-28-2008, 11:11 PM
The fact that Kenton Keith is ranked #1 in the league in anything kinda suggests how flawed these statistics are. I'm sorry, but the notion that Davenport is a better RB than Parker is one I'm not buying, so we'll agree to disagree. :cheers:

FS...

Isn't it nice to have a new guy come on and actually debate.. instead of saying... Nuh uh... dumbhead!

:chuckle:

Welcom to the board Hizmi

hizmi
04-28-2008, 11:58 PM
The fact that Kenton Keith is ranked #1 in the league in anything kinda suggests how flawed these statistics are. I'm sorry, but the notion that Davenport is a better RB than Parker is one I'm not buying, so we'll agree to disagree. :cheers:

The statistics aren't flawed, though interpretations of them may be. Keith had the highest success rate in the league.....that's simply a fact. A flawed interpretation would be to conclude that Keith is therefore the best RB in the league, and I'm definitely not claiming that.

The rankings in order of DPAR from last year:
1. Westbrook
2. Tomlinson
3. Barber
4. Addai
5. Peterson
6. Maroney
7. Jacobs
8. Grant
9. Taylor
10. Watson

With the exception of Watson, that's pretty close to what one would expect.

So when I see Parker ranked so low, and davenport ranked relatively high, it catches my attention. And considering Parker was outperformed by Bettis during 05/06 in DVOA, success rate, and DPAR when the O-line was good, plus the fact that Parker was outperformed by Davenport in DVOA, DPAR, and success rate last year with a bad O-line....I think there's a solid argument here that Willie Parker just isn't that good.

And if you don't buy that argument....then ummm....you're a dumbhead! :wink:

fansince'76
04-29-2008, 12:06 AM
And if you don't buy that argument....then ummm....you're a dumbhead! :wink:

:flap: :laughing:

TackleMeBen
04-29-2008, 07:39 AM
FS...

Isn't it nice to have a new guy come on and actually debate.. instead of saying... Nuh uh... dumbhead!

:chuckle:

Welcom to the board Hizmi
guess you have been doing your job now preacher :wink02:

The Duke
04-29-2008, 11:19 AM
Cutting down on Sacks :tap: ..... cut willie parker, he sucks :wink02:

Elvis
04-29-2008, 11:22 AM
I think that alot of the sacks came from Ben calling the wrong protections?
What do ya'll think? Maybe his 2nd year of doing so things will be better. I know something was wrong.
As far as ranking the RB's I look at this way:
1 Tomlinson- No better overall back in the league right now.
2. Westbrook- He can do it all, too bad he is stuck in philly..
3. A. Peterson (Vikings) A 2nd year player that is showing tremendous promise in this league.
4. Addai is a nice back in Indy and does alot for his team.
I dont know exactly where to put Willie Parker, but there is no way in Heyties... Davenport is a better back than him!!!!
:noidea:

rdsovchen
04-29-2008, 12:12 PM
Hey guys,
It's great reading these kind of debates and at times even commical to hear so many oppinions on a given subject.:popcorn: But, lets remember one thing. There is a whole staff of professionals hired by the Rooney's to oversee the day to day operations of this entire franchise. They know and see things every single day that we as fans are not even privy to. The people they draft, the free agents they sign, and the players they keep all boil down to decisions that consider what's best for this team at this moment in time, while maintaining the high standard of business practices the Rooney's have employed.:hatsoff: Whether the decisions be based on players declining skills, upcoming talent, teams state of economy, etc., every decision they make is based strictly around sound business practices. Let's just all hope the decisons that they do make are the correct ones, after all we do not want to end up with a franchise like the Dolphins, Bengals, Raiders etc.:rofl: They are a mess.

El-Gonzo Jackson
04-29-2008, 12:32 PM
I bet most NFL GM's and Head Coaches evaluate talent and their current players by their DVOA and DPAR..

I can just see Parcells, Belijerk, Gruden, Del Rio, Fischer, Tomlin, crunching the numbers and cutting guys with low stats.

Dino 6 Rings
04-29-2008, 12:33 PM
How to cut down on sacks...

First, get a new Center to prevent the guards from having to crash down to the inside to help an over matched Mahan and free them up to block to the outside and create a true Pocket. CHECK

Second, Get a new 3rd down back who can A. Pick up the blocking Scheme and B. Get production out of the backfield with screens, draws and dump off passes. C. Learn the Playbook, all of it and not just 10 plays. CHECK.

Third. Get a Viable 3rd Receiver to increase the probability of a guy open down field, who will A. Get open. B. Catch the ball and not drop it when thrown to. C. Open up double coverages against the #1 and #2 Receivers that teams were using. CHECK.

Fourth. Spend another offseason tweaking the protection calls, teaching the QB what to check out of and what calls to make. CHECK.

Fifth. Get all Disgruntled linemen off the field. CHECK.

Sixth. Get more weapons, to allow the team to build leads early on in games and not have to get into a situation where the defense can just pin back its ears and come full bore at the QB on every down after 5 minutes into the 3rd quarter. CHECK.

That's about it for my list.

Oh, and Keep Willie going, hit the teams with Lightning (Willie) Wind (Moore) and Thunder (Mendendhall) while throwing the ball all over the place to some of the best receivers in the game, Miller, Ward, and Holmes with the occassional jump ball to the new guy. The same guy that made Vince Young look like a great passer.

hizmi
04-29-2008, 01:33 PM
I bet most NFL GM's and Head Coaches evaluate talent and their current players by their DVOA and DPAR..

I can just see Parcells, Belijerk, Gruden, Del Rio, Fischer, Tomlin, crunching the numbers and cutting guys with low stats.

Willie Parker's success rate is among the lowest in the league; even if you don't bother with the statistics, just watching the games will show how often he gains little or negative yardage.

I contend this, in addition to his fumbling problem, hurts the team more than his occasional big gains help because of the 2nd and 3rd and long situations that result.

If you're argument is that the offensive line is to blame, then you must explain why Parker was outperformed by Bettis when the line was good AND by davenport when the line was bad.

Making an irrelevant assumption which neither of us can confirm does not constitute an argument.

fansince'76
04-29-2008, 01:44 PM
Willie Parker's success rate is among the lowest in the league; even if you don't bother with the statistics, just watching the games will show how often he gains little or negative yardage.

Well, I guess we should make a trade ASAP for Kenton Keith, since he had the #1 success rate in the league.

steelreserve
04-29-2008, 01:45 PM
2. A better running back--I know this is rather controversial, but hear me out. Willie Parker is simply not a very good running back. People will think this is crazy because of his impressive yardage totals and career average of 4.4 yds/carry. But dig a little a deeper, and you'll see why Parker is vastly overrated by Steeler fans especially. According to footballoutsiders.com his biggest problem is success percentage, where success on a given carry is defined according to down and distance. Last year Parker had a success rate of 42%, ranking him 42/56 (minimum of 75 carries required). The year before, Parker had a success rate of 44%, ranking him 35/53.

What does this mean? Quite simply, Parker has far too many carries where he gains minimal or negative yardage. His high yards/carry is inflated by his ability to hit the home-run, but the value of his big-plays are severely reduced because of his 1 yard gains and 2 yard losses. This puts enormous pressure on the passing game to convert 2nd and 3rd and long situations, thus contributing to the high sack totals that have plagued our offense.

I'm really glad somebody came up with a way to account for that. I mean, if you break a 30-yard run on one play, then run up the middle for no gain twice and throw an incomplete pass, your rushing average is going to look great, but you still lose the ball.

For the past two years, I've never felt like we could count on the running game to sustain drives consistently. You have to be able to get three or four first downs in a row in order to do that, and we just didn't have that ability once Bettis retired.

I also think adding a guy who's a better receiver out of the backfield is going to be a big help for Ben. If you have confidence that dumping the ball off to a RB is a legitimate option, you won't take as many sacks holding onto the ball and looking for something downfield.

So basically, the two new RBs are going to make it easier on Ben, easier on Willie, and make the line look a whole lot better too.

DACEB
04-29-2008, 01:56 PM
Welcome to the board hizmi. You'll definetly have a hard time selling that argument here, but not with me. I posted this in a war room thread;

Tomlin and the team, IMO, wanted to bring in another highly rated RB to help analyze the O-line. I think there is a question about FWPs vision as a RB. I honestly believe the team feels the O-line is better than what the stats have shown. There is a theory that both FWP and Ben aren't the easiest to block for. Mendenhall will be a variable in analyzing that theory.

I frequent footballoutsiders and to me the stats are right on. I won't knock FWP because he brings great value, great motor, and is a team player. I will say that I truly believe Mendenhall will be a huge addition to the running game. I also agree with the notions many put forth about the improvements throughout the offense as a whole and the maturation on offense as a whole.

For those that doubt hizmi's analysis, go check out footballoutsiders and take the time to really look at the great stats they have.

hizmi
04-29-2008, 01:57 PM
Well, I guess we should make a trade ASAP for Kenton Keith, since he had the #1 success rate in the league.

Again it's important to keep these stats in context.

First off, success rate is not everything; it's merely an important component of evaluating an RB. For instance, Peterson ranked 35/56 in success rate, but by no means would I consider him a poor running back. His #5 ranking in DPAR reflects this.

I am saying, however, that a high success rate is ESPECIALLY important for the Steelers, because of our inability to protect Big Ben in 2nd and 3rd and long situations.

As for Keith, he was playing in a great offense where the presence of Manning, Wayne and Harrison looms large. I suspect teams were gladly allowing Keith to run for 4 and 5 yard gains on first down as opposed to getting burned on a big play by Manning.

hizmi
04-29-2008, 02:01 PM
I'm really glad somebody came up with a way to account for that. I mean, if you break a 30-yard run on one play, then run up the middle for no gain twice and throw an incomplete pass, your rushing average is going to look great, but you still lose the ball.

For the past two years, I've never felt like we could count on the running game to sustain drives consistently. You have to be able to get three or four first downs in a row in order to do that, and we just didn't have that ability once Bettis retired.

I also think adding a guy who's a better receiver out of the backfield is going to be a big help for Ben. If you have confidence that dumping the ball off to a RB is a legitimate option, you won't take as many sacks holding onto the ball and looking for something downfield.

So basically, the two new RBs are going to make it easier on Ben, easier on Willie, and make the line look a whole lot better too.

Exactly

And to add to your point, I think sustaining drives will really help our defense, which I felt got worn down last year because of how many times the offense got only one first down or went three and out.

fansince'76
04-29-2008, 02:25 PM
And to add to your point, I think sustaining drives will really help our defense, which I felt got worn down last year because of how many times the offense got only one first down or went three and out.

How do you account for the offense's TOP improving every year since Willie became the starting RB then? Seems to me the opposite would be true, if that were the case.

2005 - 15th in TOP
2006 - 7th in TOP
2007 - 1st in TOP

Fact is, a person can spin statistics to say anything they want to, if they're so inclined. Put an OL in front of Willie like LT has in SD, and he goes for 1,800+ and 10-15 TDs at a minimum.

El-Gonzo Jackson
04-29-2008, 02:33 PM
Willie Parker's success rate is among the lowest in the league; even if you don't bother with the statistics, just watching the games will show how often he gains little or negative yardage.

I contend this, in addition to his fumbling problem, hurts the team more than his occasional big gains help because of the 2nd and 3rd and long situations that result.

If you're argument is that the offensive line is to blame, then you must explain why Parker was outperformed by Bettis when the line was good AND by davenport when the line was bad.

Making an irrelevant assumption which neither of us can confirm does not constitute an argument.

Comparing Bettis to Parker in the same season they played does not relate to the present situation... at that time Bettis was a seasoned veteran, while Parker was a raw 2nd year player. The offense was built around a RB grinding out positive yardage, but not expecting him to break long runs.

I think we can all conclude that Bettis consistently gained yardage in 3-7 yard chunks, while Parker has gained a lot of yardage on long runs and often ran for little or negative yardage.

My irrelevant assumption which you refer to was sarcastic, as you can imagine, is because my point of view does not come from statistical analysis of football. It comes from over 25 years of playing, coaching, attending coaching clinics to learn and share ideas primarily on Offensive Line and offensive systems.

I do blame the offensive line for last years performance, because it was injured and not cohesive due to injuries, new additions and sometimes bad technique. With a solid properly executing offensive line and offensive system, a guy like Carey Davis can average 3-4ypc. (See Barry Foster and Bam Morris for reference)

My sarcasm is because I highly doubt that those coaches, nor any coaches that I know give a darn about those statistics. Coaches in the majority evaluate talent on the field, not on the spreadsheet and from what I know as a lifelong Steeler fan and accredited football coach is that I would goto war with Willie Parker in my backfield before Davenport any day......and yes, twice on Sundays.

As an offensive lineman, you love to block for a hard working 200lb undersized back that works his but off, a bit more than blocking for a back that is 250lbs and would rather dance outside instead of stick his nose in the pile like you do on every snap.

Does that constitue an arguement to your satasfaction??

lilyoder6
04-29-2008, 02:33 PM
i would have to agree.. i don't think stats rly matter.. what defines a player's career is if he won a superbowl or not..
yay u can say u were great but the fact is that u could never won the big one(dan marino)

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-29-2008, 02:43 PM
Its also a fact that the rise in ice cream purchases is directly proportional to a rise in drownings every year.

Stats can be decieving...

El-Gonzo Jackson
04-29-2008, 02:45 PM
i would have to agree.. i don't think stats rly matter.. what defines a player's career is if he won a superbowl or not..
yay u can say u were great but the fact is that u could never won the big one(dan marino)

Yeah, but you cant say Marino is a bust because he didnt win the SB. Elway would not have won one without Terrel Davis. Marino didnt have help.

My point is you go with the best "players" on your team not the best "statistical players".

Statistically some guys like Dave Megget, Steve Tasker, Jon Whitman, Rocky Bleir, Randy Grossman, Jerry Olsavsky, Mosi Tatupu, Chidi Iwoma, Lionel James, etc should not have been given a jersey. But I pay them the highest respect in the game by saying "they were good FOOTBALL PLAYERS".

El-Gonzo Jackson
04-29-2008, 02:49 PM
Its also a fact that the rise in ice cream purchases is directly proportional to a rise in drownings every year.

Stats can be decieving...

Better yet. A team of health professionals determined that exposure to bananas lead to loss in bone density of workers in a banana processing plant.

Further investigation revealed that the broken bones were not due to exposure to bananas.....rather slipping on banana peels:chuckle:

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-29-2008, 02:55 PM
A team can have a shut-down corner on one side..which will make a QB throw to the opposite side as much as possible.

STATISTICALLY, since the other CB will have more more passes defended..and perhaps more INT's.....Does that make the Shut-Down corner weaker? :doh:

OneForTheToe
04-29-2008, 02:56 PM
Its also a fact that the rise in ice cream purchases is directly proportional to a rise in drownings every year.

Stats can be decieving...


52% of people believe that 71% of the time.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-29-2008, 02:56 PM
Better yet. A team of health professionals determined that exposure to bananas lead to loss in bone density of workers in a banana processing plant.

Further investigation revealed that the broken bones were not due to exposure to bananas.....rather slipping on banana peels:chuckle:

I think its because the workers were eating bananas....and ice cream....while swimming.

lamberts-lost-tooth
04-29-2008, 02:57 PM
52% of people believe that 71% of the time.

...and 9 out of 7 people are bad at math.

rdsovchen
04-29-2008, 03:22 PM
...and 9 out of 7 people are bad at math.

Man, it would really suck to be one of the two of the 9 out of 7 that are bad at math, which can't be counted, because statistically they do not exist. Can we find that out for a fact on footballoutsiders?
Let's have another:drink:

DACEB
04-29-2008, 03:25 PM
9 out of 10 people who don't even look at the stats, think stats are irrelevant.

El-Gonzo Jackson
04-29-2008, 03:37 PM
I suspect teams were gladly allowing Keith to run for 4 and 5 yard gains on first down as opposed to getting burned on a big play by Manning.

You find me a football coach that gladly allows an opposing running back to run for 4to 5 yards on first down and I will show you one that should be and will be ......unemployed.

No self-respecting defensive coach gladly gives up 5 yards on first down.....to anybody!!

fansince'76
04-29-2008, 03:40 PM
I suspect teams were gladly allowing Keith to run for 4 and 5 yard gains on first down as opposed to getting burned on a big play by Manning.

And on the flip side of that, I suspect our running game got stuffed more than a couple times last season due to the old reliable run-run-pass predictability we still showed on offense against 8 in the box. Suspected? No, I know it happened as I watched every game and saw it happen.

steelreserve
04-29-2008, 03:44 PM
And on the flip side of that, I suspect our running game got stuffed more than a couple times last season due to the old reliable run-run-pass predictability we still showed on offense against 8 in the box. Suspected? No, I know it happened as I watched every game and saw it happen.

Problem is, that actually worked OK for us when Bettis was the guy running the ball, because he'd usually get you 4 yards anyway. Parker? Not so much.

Which is why we got another guy to help with that.

faneca05
04-29-2008, 03:50 PM
I don't think that willie is that great either. Sure he had 1300+ yards. But only 2 TDs! I don't think you can consider a guy one of the top 5-10 backs when he only scores 2 TDs.

fansince'76
04-29-2008, 04:04 PM
Problem is, that actually worked OK for us when Bettis was the guy running the ball, because he'd usually get you 4 yards anyway. Parker? Not so much.

Which is why we got another guy to help with that.

Like the 4th-and-1 situation in the '04 AFCCG inside of NE's 40-yard line trailing 3-0 in the 1st quarter where the Bus not only got stuffed, but fumbled the ball away as well? Look, I loved the Bus and I miss him as much as anybody, but he got stuffed plenty over the last couple years of his career. Hence his sub-4.0 YPC average from 2002 on.

Rotorhead
04-29-2008, 04:12 PM
Stats are relevent when pertaining to certain things, but unfortunately leave out luck, heart, teamwork, adhoc plays, play calling, etc. If we went by stats, the Cheatriots should have won the SB as on paper the Giants were no match for them period (they are simply out coached which stats have nothing to do with). So in the cast of FWP being overrated . . . if the offense is geared to a power back to gain 3-5yds/carry and you add a speed back that cant "push the pile" how do you account for that in your stats . . . obviously by saying he is overrated (which he is obviously not as he would have won the rushing title had he not been hurt). If you dont think total yards gained in a season means much (based on your stats) for a running back, maybe you should recall what a running back is there for . . .gaining yards on the ground. The fact of the matter is, your stat machine is designed for consistent output by big bruising backs that run between the tackles, not speed backs, so it will show those backs in a much better light. Try switching some stats around to cater to speed backs, like # of runs over 10yds, 20yds etc, or carries vs longgains or something crazy like avg yd/carry divided by avg yd/game and it will put speed backs at the top of the list . . . stats can say what you want them to say, period, to get a clear picture, you have to take into account every possible variable . . . which they do not.

El-Gonzo Jackson
04-29-2008, 04:15 PM
I don't think that willie is that great either. Sure he had 1300+ yards. But only 2 TDs! I don't think you can consider a guy one of the top 5-10 backs when he only scores 2 TDs.

So what do you think of Bettis?? In 1998 he ran for 1185 yards and 3TD's. Could you consider him one of the top 5-10 backs then???

The truth of the matter is. Those that can, play football....those that can't.....statistically overanalyze the game.

Rotorhead
04-29-2008, 04:17 PM
^
Nice

steelreserve
04-29-2008, 04:55 PM
Like the 4th-and-1 situation in the '04 AFCCG inside of NE's 40-yard line trailing 3-0 in the 1st quarter where the Bus not only got stuffed, but fumbled the ball away as well? Look, I loved the Bus and I miss him as much as anybody, but he got stuffed plenty over the last couple years of his career. Hence his sub-4.0 YPC average from 2002 on.

Yeah, I know Bettis wasn't always perfect every time he touched the ball, but he didn't get stuffed nearly as much as Parker. For the last two seasons, if we have a second-and-2, it's seriously been a crapshoot as to whether we can get a first down by running.

This is less about the Bus than it is about the fact that Parker has one obvious shortcoming. Bettis made up for that nicely when he was around, and I'm glad we picked up another guy that can hopefully do that this season. I'm not saying we should keep running a predictable offense. But Parker's lack of power really seemed to magnify the problems with that offensive system when he was the ONLY option in the backfield.

fansince'76
04-29-2008, 05:00 PM
Yeah, I know Bettis wasn't always perfect every time he touched the ball, but he didn't get stuffed nearly as much as Parker. For the last two seasons, if we have a second-and-2, it's seriously been a crapshoot as to whether we can get a first down by running.

This is less about the Bus than it is about the fact that Parker has one obvious shortcoming. Bettis made up for that nicely when he was around, and I'm glad we picked up another guy that can hopefully do that this season. I'm not saying we should keep running a predictable offense. But Parker's lack of power really seemed to magnify the problems with that offensive system when he was the ONLY option in the backfield.

Yeah, I can definitely agree with that. And like I said earlier, I like the fact that we'll have another option besides Willie, because I think Willie would be lucky to last so much as two more seasons with the number of carries he's been getting.

hizmi
04-29-2008, 07:49 PM
Stats are relevent when pertaining to certain things, but unfortunately leave out luck, heart, teamwork, adhoc plays, play calling, etc. If we went by stats, the Cheatriots should have won the SB as on paper the Giants were no match for them period (they are simply out coached which stats have nothing to do with). So in the cast of FWP being overrated . . . if the offense is geared to a power back to gain 3-5yds/carry and you add a speed back that cant "push the pile" how do you account for that in your stats . . . obviously by saying he is overrated (which he is obviously not as he would have won the rushing title had he not been hurt). If you dont think total yards gained in a season means much (based on your stats) for a running back, maybe you should recall what a running back is there for . . .gaining yards on the ground. The fact of the matter is, your stat machine is designed for consistent output by big bruising backs that run between the tackles, not speed backs, so it will show those backs in a much better light. Try switching some stats around to cater to speed backs, like # of runs over 10yds, 20yds etc, or carries vs longgains or something crazy like avg yd/carry divided by avg yd/game and it will put speed backs at the top of the list . . . stats can say what you want them to say, period, to get a clear picture, you have to take into account every possible variable . . . which they do not.

So are you saying stats are flawed or that stats are meaningless?

If they are meaningless, then you must prove willie parker is a good RB WITHOUT citing his total rushing yards, since this a statistic (and a very simplistic one at that....does it not matter how many carries it took to reach that number or the strength of the defense?)

If you're saying they are flawed....well no kidding. The point is to try and identify the most comprehensive model accounting for as many variables as possible....

And this is not MY stat machine, and nor does it have a bias against speed backs. As posted earlier Westbrook, LT, Peterson, Grant, Maroney all ranked in the top ten in DPAR. It DOES have a bias against RB's who consistently get stopped for no gains and losses. If you think this should not be the case, then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

I think before ripping the stats that I am citing, I suggest you read up on exactly how they are calculated. I can't post the link because my post count is too low, but you can go to the footballoutsiders website, go over the tab "just the stats" and click on "our new stats explained"

Here's the part that I think best sums everything up:

"DVOA is still far away from the point where we can use it to represent the value of a player separate from the performance of his ten teammates that are also involved in each play. That means that when we say, "Larry Johnson has a DVOA of 27.6%," what we are really saying is "Larry Johnson, playing in the Kansas City offensive system with the Kansas City offensive line blocking for him and Trent Green selling the fake when necessary, has a DVOA of 27.6%."

hizmi
04-29-2008, 07:54 PM
How do you account for the offense's TOP improving every year since Willie became the starting RB then? Seems to me the opposite would be true, if that were the case.

2005 - 15th in TOP
2006 - 7th in TOP
2007 - 1st in TOP

Fact is, a person can spin statistics to say anything they want to, if they're so inclined. Put an OL in front of Willie like LT has in SD, and he goes for 1,800+ and 10-15 TDs at a minimum.

That's interesting, and it is the opposite of what I would expect. How much of our possession though resulted from blowing out bad teams early, allowing us to sit on the ball in second half and forcing them to air it out?

I think the problem was more evident when we played JAX, NE, BAL (the second time) etc.

hizmi
04-29-2008, 08:03 PM
Comparing Bettis to Parker in the same season they played does not relate to the present situation... at that time Bettis was a seasoned veteran, while Parker was a raw 2nd year player. The offense was built around a RB grinding out positive yardage, but not expecting him to break long runs.

I think we can all conclude that Bettis consistently gained yardage in 3-7 yard chunks, while Parker has gained a lot of yardage on long runs and often ran for little or negative yardage.

My irrelevant assumption which you refer to was sarcastic, as you can imagine, is because my point of view does not come from statistical analysis of football. It comes from over 25 years of playing, coaching, attending coaching clinics to learn and share ideas primarily on Offensive Line and offensive systems.

I do blame the offensive line for last years performance, because it was injured and not cohesive due to injuries, new additions and sometimes bad technique. With a solid properly executing offensive line and offensive system, a guy like Carey Davis can average 3-4ypc. (See Barry Foster and Bam Morris for reference)

My sarcasm is because I highly doubt that those coaches, nor any coaches that I know give a darn about those statistics. Coaches in the majority evaluate talent on the field, not on the spreadsheet and from what I know as a lifelong Steeler fan and accredited football coach is that I would goto war with Willie Parker in my backfield before Davenport any day......and yes, twice on Sundays.

As an offensive lineman, you love to block for a hard working 200lb undersized back that works his but off, a bit more than blocking for a back that is 250lbs and would rather dance outside instead of stick his nose in the pile like you do on every snap.

Does that constitue an arguement to your satasfaction??

I'm not denying the offensive line was bad last year....but you still must explain why Davenport managed to GROSSLY outperform Parker running behind the same line.

You're right though...pretty much any RB can have success running behind a good offensive line. Parker WAS effective in our Super Bowl year running behind a good line...the problem is Bettis was still better. So yeah, Parker could put up huge numbers behind a great O-line, but I'm saying a lot of RB's in this league would outperform Parker running behind the same line, regardless of whether its great or horrible.

And since statistics mean nothing to you, then please make an argument for why Parker is better than Davenport without using statistics. The fact that he "works his butt off" doesn't prove he is better.

fansince'76
04-29-2008, 08:12 PM
I think the problem was more evident when we played....BAL (the second time) etc.

Interesting, since Willie was on IR with a broken leg by that time....

EDIT: Willie went for 100+ against NE and Jax as well - he's not the reason we lost those games.

hizmi
04-29-2008, 08:21 PM
Interesting, since Willie was on IR with a broken leg by that time....

:dang:

El-Gonzo Jackson
04-29-2008, 09:43 PM
I'm not denying the offensive line was bad last year....but you still must explain why Davenport managed to GROSSLY outperform Parker running behind the same line.

You're right though...pretty much any RB can have success running behind a good offensive line. Parker WAS effective in our Super Bowl year running behind a good line...the problem is Bettis was still better. So yeah, Parker could put up huge numbers behind a great O-line, but I'm saying a lot of RB's in this league would outperform Parker running behind the same line, regardless of whether its great or horrible.

And since statistics mean nothing to you, then please make an argument for why Parker is better than Davenport without using statistics. The fact that he "works his butt off" doesn't prove he is better.

Statistics are not meaningless. They are a good tool as part of an evaluation process. I think if you were to ask any NFL coach, GM, scout and the majority of fans .."What Steeler RB had a better year last year?" or "which Steeler RB grossly outperformed the other" They would say Parker.

If you offered up both RB's to a trade for a 2nd Round pick, how many NFL teams do you think would trade a 2nd round pick for Davenport and how many do you think would trade a 2nd round pick for Parker?? I would guess that of the 2 RB's, 31 teams would take Parker over Davenport.

Davenport was released in favour of Samkan Gado. Do you honestly think that Willie Parker would be released for Gado at any point?? So if Davenport grossly outperformed Parker as you put it, we should expect FWP to be released and the RB depth chart will be Davenport, Mendenhall and Russell. Its what the stats say.

hizmi
04-29-2008, 10:13 PM
Statistics are not meaningless. They are a good tool as part of an evaluation process. I think if you were to ask any NFL coach, GM, scout and the majority of fans .."What Steeler RB had a better year last year?" or "which Steeler RB grossly outperformed the other" They would say Parker.

If you offered up both RB's to a trade for a 2nd Round pick, how many NFL teams do you think would trade a 2nd round pick for Davenport and how many do you think would trade a 2nd round pick for Parker?? I would guess that of the 2 RB's, 31 teams would take Parker over Davenport.

Davenport was released in favour of Samkan Gado. Do you honestly think that Willie Parker would be released for Gado at any point?? So if Davenport grossly outperformed Parker as you put it, we should expect FWP to be released and the RB depth chart will be Davenport, Mendenhall and Russell. Its what the stats say.

Oh I'm sure that most would chose Parker. But that doesn't refute anything I've said.

To be clear I'm not asserting Davenport is a better running back, period end of story. I am saying, however, that last year Davenport outperformed Parker running behind the same offensive line, albeit in different situations (the extent to which these different situations are advantageous for davenport is something that's up for debate).

And my main assertion is that Parker is vastly overrated because of his low success rate.

El-Gonzo Jackson
04-29-2008, 10:36 PM
please make an argument for why Parker is better than Davenport without using statistics. The fact that he "works his butt off" doesn't prove he is better.

OK, here is my assessment of both players.

Najeh Davenport-Big back, good speed for a man his size, good feet, but not shifty, can break tackles and accelerate well in the 2nd level. Good pass catcher out of the backfield, runs somewhat upright and often does not utilize his size with forward body lean to hit holes, but rather moves laterally to try and get to the edge. Former highschool sprinter that sometimes tries to rely on that speed to get to the edge instead of running north-south. Does not always finish runs falling forward due to upright running style. Not a great blocker, but has value returning kickoffs

Willie Parker- exceptional speed and quickness, a big play threat every time he touches the ball. Patient and sets up his blocks well. Runs with low pad level, good forward lean and power inside for a smaller back. Good leg drive, but not strong enough to move the pile on his own which sometimes results in minimal gains of yardage. Adequate pass catcher but not great as a receiver out of the backfield, although improved since his rookie season. Not a big back, but a willing blocker in pass protection. As an undrafted free agent, takes nothing for granted and plays with a chip on his shoulder, trying to prove he should have been drafted high.

I would have mentioned Parker's 1000 yard seasons and 3 seasons as a feature back compared to Davenport's career as a backup runner, but I thought the point was a qualitative assessment, not quantitative.

The short of it is:

Parker is fast, a big play threat, that plays bigger than his size and has had success in the NFL as a feature back the past 3 seasons.

Davenport is a big back that often plays like a smaller back, looking to bounce runs outside rather than run into traffic. He often is tackled when moving laterally because he has good top end speed, but acceleration of his 247lb frame is difficult. (Simple physics of F=MV2

lilyoder6
04-29-2008, 10:41 PM
willie is the starter and najah is the back-up if najah was better he would be the starter

tony hipchest
04-29-2008, 10:43 PM
i forget what game it was but willie was getting stood up by 3 defenders at the line and he was still fighting, legs churning, and while he didnt move the 3 defenders too far, it was 1 hell of a display of fortitude. he didnt just go down.

vastly overrated? thats like saying jerome was overrated cause he never averaged much more than 4 ypc. :rolleyes:

El-Gonzo Jackson
04-29-2008, 10:47 PM
Oh I'm sure that most would chose Parker. But that doesn't refute anything I've said.

To be clear I'm not asserting Davenport is a better running back, period end of story. I am saying, however, that last year Davenport outperformed Parker running behind the same offensive line, albeit in different situations (the extent to which these different situations are advantageous for davenport is something that's up for debate).

And my main assertion is that Parker is vastly overrated because of his low success rate.

Aaaaah. I thought you were saying Davenport is better than Parker. To which I vehemently disagree. I will still disagree that Davenport outperformed Parker....as we both know if Davenport were able to have the same number of carries as Parker in a season, the law of averages would likely drag Davenports numbers down. He mainly got his yardage in relief when defenses were worn down and if defenses gameplanned against him like they do Parker, his numbers would be worse.

I can agree that Parker is somewhat overrated, but I would not say vastly. Parker is similar to Barry Sanders in that they are slot machines.....for the most They Payout Big or Not At All.

Both are good football players and statistically speaking....they may have a lot of zero or negative yardage runs, but they also have a lot of big runs, which averages out. Maybe somebody needs to do some 3 season exponential smoothing of rushing statistics??:chuckle: But not me.

JanBr7
04-29-2008, 11:03 PM
willie is the starter and najah is the back-up if najah was better he would be the starter


Wow. That's heavy. If Najeh were better, he would be the starter?
But he's not better. I say he doesn't even make the team next year. Mendenhall will be backup and third down back, and maybe more. Najeh will be selling soft pretzels.

hizmi
04-29-2008, 11:43 PM
OK, here is my assessment of both players.

Najeh Davenport-Big back, good speed for a man his size, good feet, but not shifty, can break tackles and accelerate well in the 2nd level. Good pass catcher out of the backfield, runs somewhat upright and often does not utilize his size with forward body lean to hit holes, but rather moves laterally to try and get to the edge. Former highschool sprinter that sometimes tries to rely on that speed to get to the edge instead of running north-south. Does not always finish runs falling forward due to upright running style. Not a great blocker, but has value returning kickoffs

Willie Parker- exceptional speed and quickness, a big play threat every time he touches the ball. Patient and sets up his blocks well. Runs with low pad level, good forward lean and power inside for a smaller back. Good leg drive, but not strong enough to move the pile on his own which sometimes results in minimal gains of yardage. Adequate pass catcher but not great as a receiver out of the backfield, although improved since his rookie season. Not a big back, but a willing blocker in pass protection. As an undrafted free agent, takes nothing for granted and plays with a chip on his shoulder, trying to prove he should have been drafted high.

I would have mentioned Parker's 1000 yard seasons and 3 seasons as a feature back compared to Davenport's career as a backup runner, but I thought the point was a qualitative assessment, not quantitative.

The short of it is:

Parker is fast, a big play threat, that plays bigger than his size and has had success in the NFL as a feature back the past 3 seasons.

Davenport is a big back that often plays like a smaller back, looking to bounce runs outside rather than run into traffic. He often is tackled when moving laterally because he has good top end speed, but acceleration of his 247lb frame is difficult. (Simple physics of F=MV2

Very thorough, and in my opinion, accurate scouting report.

But when you say Parker has had success....how do you define success? I think when most people say Parker is a good back, they point to his yardage totals as evidence. Unfortunately, yardage totals tell a very small portion of the story.

As for exponential smoothing....cmon....lets try and keep this debate civilized :chuckle:

hizmi
04-29-2008, 11:47 PM
vastly overrated? thats like saying jerome was overrated cause he never averaged much more than 4 ypc. :rolleyes:

No, actually it's nothing like saying that.

In fact it's almost the opposite, as I'm saying parker is overrated DESPITE his fairly good YPC.

El-Gonzo Jackson
04-29-2008, 11:57 PM
Very thorough, and in my opinion, accurate scouting report.

But when you say Parker has had success....how do you define success? I think when most people say Parker is a good back, they point to his yardage totals as evidence. Unfortunately, yardage totals tell a very small portion of the story.

As for exponential smoothing....cmon....lets try and keep this debate civilized :chuckle:

You are engaging in a philosophical debate to which there is no absolute answer, basing your analysis totally on statistics. I am countering with totally qualitative analysis.

I think we both know that in the real world (NFL is included in there) a judgement is made with both in mind. The NFL coaches take that into account and have their opinions as to who is better than who and none are exactly the same. Your stance reminds me of my engineer friends that when faced with something that illogically fails they say "well.....in theory, it works!"

Basically we can probably agree this debate will never be solved and each have our own opinons. Since you seem to like numbers, its like if you are 6 ft away from a door and keep moving half the distance to it....you will never reach it. You know the math.

I agree to disagree. Parker is somewhat overrated, but not vastly and you cant statistically cut down sacks and expect to win football games. You have to start in the trenches to reduce sacks....its what O linemen are for.

Welcome to the boards.

hizmi
04-30-2008, 12:33 AM
You are engaging in a philosophical debate to which there is no absolute answer, basing your analysis totally on statistics. I am countering with totally qualitative analysis.

I think we both know that in the real world (NFL is included in there) a judgement is made with both in mind. The NFL coaches take that into account and have their opinions as to who is better than who and none are exactly the same. Your stance reminds me of my engineer friends that when faced with something that illogically fails they say "well.....in theory, it works!"

Basically we can probably agree this debate will never be solved and each have our own opinons. Since you seem to like numbers, its like if you are 6 ft away from a door and keep moving half the distance to it....you will never reach it. You know the math.

I agree to disagree. Parker is somewhat overrated, but not vastly and you cant statistically cut down sacks and expect to win football games. You have to start in the trenches to reduce sacks....its what O linemen are for.

Welcome to the boards.

Fair enough....just keep an eye on how Parker performs this year compared to mendenhall and mewelde. :popcorn:

augustashark
04-30-2008, 12:51 AM
This is a very funny thread, title is "Cutting down on sacks", but turned into a "is willie a good running back". Gotta love the offseason.

Preacher
04-30-2008, 01:53 AM
This is a very funny thread, title is "Cutting down on sacks", but turned into a "is willie a good running back". Gotta love the offseason.

Yep... which is why... I guess, you don't come around much during the offseason right? :wink02:

Rotorhead
04-30-2008, 02:17 PM
I am not saying the stats are incorrect or meaningless, stats are simply stats. I am saying the interpretation of them is flawed . . . You are correct that I have not looked at the site, but I really dont have to. Just in the obvious fact that FWP would have most likely won the rushing title, regardless of how it was acheived (-2yd, -1yd, -3yd, +40yd) he accomplished what he is out there to do, gain yardage on the ground. You can attempt to breakdown every step he and his teammates made statistically, a micro-reflection of the season if you will, and you will have more stats than most ppl will care to study and more variables than most mathematicians care to even think about (and probably dont have the time to do). The most comprehensive stat model should simply be, did he accomplish his particular job . . . and that answer is yes. I would assert that he did his particular job rather well, so well in fact that one could say he did it better than any other at the same position until he was injured. Not to mention we did win our division and make the playoffs . . .