PDA

View Full Version : Here's to FWP


DACEB
09-19-2008, 09:05 AM
Here's an article on Willie that even ProvidenceSteel would appreciate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/sports/football/19parker.html?_r=1&ref=football&oref=slogin

You've got to love Willie!! I have been critical of Willie in the past, right along with ProvSteel, but I do realize that he is a great guy and great Steeler. True team player and leader by example!!

RunWillieRun
09-19-2008, 09:16 AM
Nice article. Willie is all class.

fansince'76
09-19-2008, 09:18 AM
Here's an article on Willie that even ProvidenceSteel would appreciate.

Unless it tries to point out how Willie "shouldn't be a starting RB at the NFL level," doubtful. :coffee:

DACEB
09-19-2008, 09:29 AM
Unless it tries to point out how Willie "shouldn't be a starting RB at the NFL level," doubtful. :coffee:

Hey, like I said, I've been right there with ProvSteel at times criticizing Willie. I must admit though that Willie has shown a huge desire to improve every aspect of his game. The hard work and dedication he has to his craft has shown on the field with improved vision, power running, patience with his blocks and holding on to the ball.

Can't be said enough, a true team player that leads by example!!

steel#1
09-19-2008, 10:15 AM
I have always been critical of FWP but I have seen the constant progress and work ethic since he has been in Pitt. FWP has now come into his own. He is a complete back because now he can get the tough yards in the middle of the field since he learned patience, keep the legs driving, and use your leverage. The thing that now ticks me off is that he doesn't get the credit he deserves around the league. They are still seeing only the speed and not the power. Much like Ben and the game-manager label they refuse to acknowledge what he has become and still only see what he was. Both have grown and become a complete back and a complete QB. Oh well the lack of respect just means that both have an advantage.

fansince'76
09-19-2008, 10:26 AM
Hey, like I said, I've been right there with ProvSteel at times criticizing Willie.

Not quite, DACEB - please give yourself a little more credit than that.

Valid criticism:

Prov. is absolutely correct in stating the FACT that the fumbles are a problem, I don't understand how anyone can deny that. To those that don't think it's a problem I would ask, how many fumbles a season is acceptable?? Let's ask coach Tomlin,

"You don't like fumbles," Tomlin said. "You don't like fumbles in the red zone, but he is a competitor. I understand that it happens, but we are not going to accept it. We are going to try to be perfect in this area. We have to be."

There you have it, fumbling is in fact unacceptable. Now don't get me wrong, I too believe FWP has tremendous upside and as some have stated is still a little green with limited experience. FWP is indeed an important part of our bright future but the fumbles are a problem and need to be addressed.

As Steelman stated this is a problem that can be corrected (i.e. Barber). FWP only needs to watch tape of Bettis, because the Bus always carried the rock correctly, up tight in your armpit. Yet even Bettis fumbled as we know!!



Bitching simply for the sake of bitching:

This guy has fumbled away games in the past and he's doing it again albeit in preseason. I'm stating now that the Steelers will loose games this season...important games, as a result of badly timed Willie Parker fumbles. I don't like the guy as the starting back. Too small and fumbles WAY too much. I have a BAD feeling again about the RB situation this season.

There's a HUGE difference between these two posts from where I'm sitting. How many games did Willie actually lose singlehandedly through fumbling for us last year after Nostradamus here predicted he would? I count ZERO. Which is also why, as Prov himself pointed out in another thread, he shut his mouth about Willie after about week 6 last year - because he was dead wrong.

klick81
09-19-2008, 10:50 AM
Man, that's a great story. It sounds like Willie and his father have a great relationship.

DACEB
09-19-2008, 11:03 AM
Man, that's a great story. It sounds like Willie and his father have a great relationship.

His father must be very proud indeed. He must constantly brag about his son, and show off his rings. He definetly instilled good values and great character in his son.

moedap
09-19-2008, 11:36 AM
I agree with DACEB FWP has improved as a an NFL RB. I use to think he didnt have the skill set to read the blocks correctly but now I am thinking the downside to his not playing in college was the honing of those skills at a higher level(high school to college). The way he runs now makes me believe he already had the skills but just had to get his senses back with more competition.

Galax Steeler
09-19-2008, 03:49 PM
I have seen a big differance in Willie this year it looks like he is hitting the holes harder an faster.He may also be afraid that Mendenahll will get his job if he don't performe.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 12:29 AM
I hate to rain on the FWP parade but I don't think much has changed since last year. He's racked up 100+ in consecutive games, but against below average run defenses. His success rate is still only 40%, so as soon as his bigger runs dry up (as they inevitably do against stronger run defenses) we're going to see a lot of 2nd and 3rd and longs.

The Duke
09-20-2008, 12:43 AM
I hate to rain on the FWP parade but I don't think much has changed since last year. He's racked up 100+ in consecutive games, but against below average run defenses. His success rate is still only 40%, so as soon as his bigger runs dry up (as they inevitably do against stronger run defenses) we're going to see a lot of 2nd and 3rd and longs.

great, you're back!!

:coffee:

what's with the willie haters coming back all of the sudden?? :noidea:

sorry to rain on your parade, but your success rate thing pretty much lost all its credibility when davenport got cut. you said he had a better success rate, yet he can't even find a job.

willie leads the afc in rushing and is one of the top backs in the league. but I guess some will not accept it till he gains a few pounds :doh:

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 12:44 AM
I hate to rain on the FWP parade but I don't think much has changed since last year. He's racked up 100+ in consecutive games, but against below average run defenses. His success rate is still only 40%, so as soon as his bigger runs dry up (as they inevitably do against stronger run defenses) we're going to see a lot of 2nd and 3rd and longs.

Guess we shoulda kept Davenport, huh?

And to think Willie might have a harder time running against better run defenses? Gasp! Tell us more, Mr. Wizard! :coffee:

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:00 AM
great, you're back!!

:coffee:

what's with the willie haters coming back all of the sudden?? :noidea:

sorry to rain on your parade, but your success rate thing pretty much lost all its credibility when davenport got cut. you said he had a better success rate, yet he can't even find a job.

willie leads the afc in rushing and is one of the top backs in the league. but I guess some will not accept it till he gains a few pounds :doh:

Once again the pro-willie argument boils down to "look at how many rushing yards he has!" while completely ignoring the fact that a large percentage of those yards are gained on a small percentage of plays.

Davenport was cut because a) he was brought in as a short yardage back but didn't do well in those situations; b) we signed mewelde, who is a better 3rd down back and has value returning punts (as soon as he starts catching them); and c) we drafted mendenhall.

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 01:02 AM
Once again the pro-willie argument boils down to "look at how many rushing yards he has!" while completely ignoring the fact that a large percentage of those yards are gained on a small percentage of plays.

Davenport was cut because a) he was brought in as a short yardage back but didn't do well in those situations; b) we signed mewelde, who is a better 3rd down back and has value returning punts (as soon as he starts catching them); and c) we drafted mendenhall.

And once again the anti-Willie argument boils down to BS statistics like "success rates" and "DVOA," or whatever. :coffee:

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:07 AM
Guess we shoulda kept Davenport, huh?

And to think Willie might have a harder time running against better run defenses? Gasp! Tell us more, Mr. Wizard! :coffee:

I don't think I said Davenport was the better RB, but he DID perform better than willie last year behind the same O-line. I know we discussed the possibility that Davenport was given more advantageous situations in which to run, which I think is probably true, but how much this benefited his statistics we don't know.

Either way my point, which still stands, was more that Willie is overrated than Davenport is good (since statistically they were BOTH fairly bad) and despite your clever condescension, you haven't refuted the argument.

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 01:09 AM
I don't think I said Davenport was the better RB, but he DID perform better than willie last year behind the same O-line. I know we discussed the possibility that Davenport was given more advantageous situations in which to run, which I think is probably true, but how much this benefited his statistics we don't know.

Either way my point, which still stands, was more that Willie is overrated than Davenport is good (since statistically they were BOTH fairly bad) and despite your clever condescension, you haven't refuted the argument.

Davenport was cut. Your point = moot.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:09 AM
And once again the anti-Willie argument boils down to BS statistics like "success rates" and "DVOA," or whatever. :coffee:

Care to explain why they're BS...or will clever one-liners be the crux of your argument?

Steelman16
09-20-2008, 01:11 AM
Uh, for the sake of ignorant yokels such as us, please explain exactly what would make him the top back in the AFC?

Obviously it's not leading the AFC (which features a payload of solid backs) in rushing yards. OR, leading the AFC in rushing Touchdowns.

:noidea:

I'm lost. Help a fellow out?

:coffee:

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 01:13 AM
Care to explain why they're BS...or will clever one-liners be the crux of your argument?

I already did explain it, months ago, but here it is again.

....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.

Also explains why the likes of Kenton Keith was at or near the top of these "infallible statistics" you like to cite so much.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:13 AM
Davenport was cut. Your point = moot.

That would be a logic FAIL. Ryan Grant was cut by the Giants last year. Matt Leinart was named the starter over Kurt Warner to start the season. Front offices are fallible.

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 01:18 AM
That would be a logic FAIL. Ryan Grant was cut by the Giants last year. Matt Leinart was named the starter over Kurt Warner to start the season. Front offices are fallible.

Gee, guess you should apply for the Steelers GM job then. Really looking forward to going 2-14 every year. :coffee:

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:19 AM
I already did explain it, months ago, but here it is again.

It's a good observation and one that I just mentioned. But it fails to refute the argument since a) the bettis/davenport situation is actually one of the few times the backups performed better than the starter; and b) even if the stats are biased against RB's who carry the ball more (how it's biased you haven't explained), you need some measure of how biased it is.

Steelman16
09-20-2008, 01:20 AM
That would be a logic FAIL. Ryan Grant was cut by the Giants last year. Matt Leinart was named the starter over Kurt Warner to start the season. Front offices are fallible.

So, like, um, what is your point?

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:22 AM
Gee, guess you should apply for the Steelers GM job then. Really looking forward to going 2-14 every year. :coffee:

I didn't say I know more than the FO. I did say that FO's make mistakes, otherwise you could settle every argument by saying "well so and so gets more playing time so he is better"

But you go on and keep putting words in my mouth...

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 01:26 AM
I didn't say I know more than the FO.

No, but you implied it. You keep on keeping on poring over success rates and DVOA, and I'll make my judgments based on who helps us the most tangibly on Sundays. I'm done with this "argument." :coffee:

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:28 AM
So, like, um, what is your point?

My point is that willie parker is overrated because despite his high yardage totals, he gains most of those on a small percentage of plays. To illustrate:

RB 1 gains 20 yds on 4 carries (5, 5, 5, 5)

RB 2 gains 20 yds on 4 carries (1, -1, 18, 2)

Even though they gained the same amount of yardage with the same number of carries, RB 1 is more valuable because he is consistently gaining yardage (which is reflected in success rate).

This is an extreme example, but still indicative of willie's style.

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 01:29 AM
In summation, Willie sucks if you take away all his long runs. You met Providence Steel yet? :coffee:

RB 2 gains 20 yds on 4 carries (1, -1, 18, 2).

And congrats on describing Barry Sanders' career in a nutshell.

Steelman16
09-20-2008, 01:33 AM
My point is that willie parker is overrated because despite his high yardage totals, he gains most of those on a small percentage of plays. To illustrate:

RB 1 gains 20 yds on 4 carries (5, 5, 5, 5)

RB 2 gains 20 yds on 4 carries (1, -1, 18, 2)

Even though they gained the same amount of yardage with the same number of carries, RB 1 is more valuable because he is consistently gaining yardage (which is reflected in success rate).

This is an extreme example, but still indicative of willie's style.

So basically if you also took away Adrian Petersen's long runs from last year, he'd be the worst back in the league?

Yup. I see how it works.

Meanwhile, I'll be watching Willie Parker lead the AFC in rushing, and rushing TD's, and getting the same amount of yards.

WHO THE HECK CARES IF HE GETS 20 YARDS IN CHUNKS OF 5's OR 18 AND 2?

Ok, I'm done.

:wave:

MACH1
09-20-2008, 01:34 AM
Umm....Ask the seasquaks how many SB's they won with statistics.
Stats don't win you the game.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:35 AM
No, but you implied it. You keep on keeping on poring over success rates and DVOA, and I'll make my judgments based on who helps us the most tangibly on Sundays. I'm done with this "argument." :coffee:

I keep bringing up the stats because they are what I have to go on. I'm not there to watch the guys practice and I'm not in the huddle. I have no football expertise in subjectively evaluating RB's based on vision, power, quickness, etc.

You say you make judgments based on who helps the most "tangibly." Statistics are the best method of measuring tangible production. The key is using the right stats, and this is a case where simple yardage totals don't suffice.

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 01:37 AM
Statistics are the best method of measuring tangible production. The key is using the right stats, and this is a case where simple yardage totals don't suffice.

Sorry, but total yardage is a huge part of those statistics too, and you keep neglecting that. Maybe because it doesn't support your argument?

YARDAGE = PRODUCTION

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:38 AM
So basically if you also took away Adrian Petersen's long runs from last year, he'd be the worst back in the league?

:wave:

Uh no....that's not even remotely close to what I said.

Steelman16
09-20-2008, 01:39 AM
Uh no....that's not even remotely close to what I said.

But that's what you said about Willie. Wouldn't the same apply to other backs as well?


Maybe not worst back in the league, but that is what I heard from your arguments.


Part of what Willie Parker brings to the table is the ability to bounce it out and whale off a big chunk with a burst of speed. You can't measure that. It's just what he does.

I'm sorry that you're still living in the past fantasy world of Jerome Bettis. We've moved on. "Fast" Willie Parker is our runningback.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:41 AM
Sorry, but total yardage is a huge part of those statistics too, and you keep neglecting them. Maybe because they don't support your argument?

They are an important part, they just don't tell the whole story. If you think that 100 yds is 100 yds is 100 yds, no matter how many carries it takes and no matter how inconsistent each carry was, then I have nothing else to say.

MACH1
09-20-2008, 01:42 AM
I have no football expertise
.

Thats the problem right there.

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 01:43 AM
They are an important part, they just don't tell the whole story. If you think that 100 yds is 100 yds is 100 yds, no matter how many carries it takes and no matter how inconsistent each carry was, then I have nothing else to say.

And if you're relying on a system that puts Kenton Keith among the best backs in the league, I really have nothing more to say either. We'll just agree to disagree.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:43 AM
But that's what you said about Willie. Wouldn't the same apply to other backs as well?

I'm saying that a RB who consistently gets stuffed for 0, 1, 2 yard gains but occasionally pops a 20 yarder to inflate his yds/carry is less valuable than a RB who consistently gets solid gains.

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 01:44 AM
I'm saying that a RB who consistently gets stuffed for 0, 1, 2 yard gains but occasionally pops a 20 yarder to inflate his yds/carry is less valuable than a RB who consistently gets solid gains.

In other words, Kenton Keith > Barry Sanders? Yeah, right.

Steelman16
09-20-2008, 01:46 AM
I'm saying that a RB who consistently gets stuffed for 0, 1, 2 yard gains but occasionally pops a 20 yarder to inflate his yds/carry is less valuable than a RB who consistently gets solid gains.

You can read the rest of my last post. I don't care to repeat myself.

At the end of the day, whether or not you gained 100 yards in chunks of 4-5 or 25's means nothing.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:47 AM
And if you're relying on a system that puts Kenton Keith among the best backs in the league, I really have nothing more to say either. We'll just agree to disagree.

That's only if you don't consider context. Simply concluding that Keith is a great RB because he has a good DVOA is folly, just as dismissing the statistic altogether because it doesn't agree with your subjective analysis is folly.

MACH1
09-20-2008, 01:49 AM
I'm saying that a RB who consistently gets stuffed for 0, 1, 2 yard gains but occasionally pops a 20 yarder to inflate his yds/carry is less valuable than a RB who consistently gets solid gains.

Then who's the best back in the nfl in you opinion?

Wait Wait lem'me guess.

ummm. ummm.

Peterson?

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:50 AM
In other words, Kenton Keith > Barry Sanders? Yeah, right.

How you've come to this conclusion is beyond me.

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 01:51 AM
That's only if you don't consider context. Simply concluding that Keith is a great RB because he has a good DVOA is folly, just as dismissing the statistic altogether because it doesn't agree with your subjective analysis is folly.

So I guess dismissing total yardage is folly too? Because that's what you seem to be doing.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:51 AM
Then who's the best back in the nfl in you opinion?

Wait Wait lem'me guess.

ummm. ummm.

Peterson?

Yeah I think peterson is the best pure runner in the league, but I think westbrook is the most complete package because of his receiving skills.

Steelman16
09-20-2008, 01:53 AM
Yeah I think peterson is the best pure runner in the league, but I think westbrook is the most complete package because of his receiving skills.

Based on...what? 1 rookie season?

Yeah, Westbrook also hasn't completed a full season of games ever in his career. :coffee:

MACH1
09-20-2008, 01:54 AM
Yeah I think peterson is the best pure runner in the league, but I think westbrook is the most complete package because of his receiving skills.

He can't block. Not the total package.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:54 AM
So I guess dismissing total yardage is folly too? Because thats's what you seem to be doing.

I'm not saying that at all...I'm saying that a given yardage can be attained in many different ways, and some ways are more valuable to team success than others.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:55 AM
He can't block. Not the total package.

true, but very few elite runners do. Portis, LT, and Barber are all I can think of.

MACH1
09-20-2008, 01:55 AM
I'm not saying that at all...I'm saying that a given yardage can be attained in many different ways, and some ways are more valuable to team success than others.

Like what? A yard and a cloud of dust.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 01:56 AM
Based on...what? 1 rookie season?

Yeah, Westbrook also hasn't completed a full season of games ever in his career. :coffee:

He's played in 15 games 4 times in his career.

MACH1
09-20-2008, 01:59 AM
I didn't know 15 games was a full season? I thought it was 16.:doh:

Blitzburgh_Fever
09-20-2008, 03:43 PM
Come on, to completely say himzi is incorrect is a little extreme. If you can't realize that -1, -1, 18, 2 is a worse series than 5, 5, 5, 5 you really are being biased.

I'll instead pick apart his argument based on something else: negative yardage. 99% of the time negative yardage is a fault with O-line, and I never saw a situation last year where Willie was slow or failed to make a read or reacted too slowly (the situations when negative yardage is a fault of the halfback). It's hard to have positive yardage when you're getting dropped in the backfield.

If it was a matter of 2 yard gains and Willie just having no agility or power to shake a LBer, I'd say that's fair. Bettis, Jackson, Johnson. Those are the three halfbacks who can/could run over DL (and I mean real DL, not the should-be-playing-linebacker defensive ends [which, btw, Willie can run over]). AD and LT plow over linebackers, which is a huge difference.

My summation to you: you take away Willie's negative yardage (which is inarguably indicative of line problems, not HB problems, if he has speed, can make reads, and can react quickly), and bam he's at a 5.0+ yards per carry.

Hell, most of his 1 and 2 yard gains are from when he's taken out in the backfield and makes a move and turns something into nothing.

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 04:38 PM
Come on, to completely say himzi is incorrect is a little extreme. If you can't realize that -1, -1, 18, 2 is a worse series than 5, 5, 5, 5 you really are being biased.

Show me a RB in the league who gets 4-5 yards every carry and never gets stopped for only 1 or 2 yards or even negatiive yardage once in a while. And I'm talking about RBs who carry it 200-250+ times a season. Good luck, because you won't be able to.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 04:45 PM
Show me a RB in the league who gets 4-5 yards every carry and never gets stopped for only 1 or 2 yards or even negatiive yardage once in a while. And I'm talking about RBs who carry it 200-250+ times a season. Good luck, because you won't be able to.

It's an extreme example used to illustrate a broader point. Of course nobody does it all the time, but some do it more than others, and that's what success rate measures.

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 04:47 PM
It's an extreme example used to illustrate a broader point. Of course nobody does it all the time, but some do it more than others, and that's what success rate measures.

And it naturally skews downward with more carries, which is why the likes of Kenton Keith wind up at or near the top of the list, and why RBs like Davenport wind up higher on the list than guys like Peterson and LT.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 05:10 PM
And it naturally skews downward with more carries, which is why the likes of Kenton Keith wind up at or near the top of the list, and why RBs like Davenport wind up higher on the list than guys like Peterson and LT.

League leaders in carries (success rate in parenthesis)

1. Parker 53 Att (40%)
2. Peterson 48 Att (54%)
3. Forte 46 Att (43%)
4. Portis 44 Att (43%)
5. James 44 Att (41%)
6. Perry 40 Att (36%)
7. J Jones 39 Att (49%)
8. T Jones 39 Att (49%)
9. Westbrook 37 Att (62%)
10. Lynch 37 Att (41%)

So even assuming that more carries = lower success rate (and continuously citing Keith doesn't make it true), if you compare Parker to those with a similar number of carries, he still comes up short.

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 05:19 PM
League leaders in carries (success rate in parenthesis)

1. Parker 53 Att (40%)
2. Peterson 48 Att (54%)
3. Forte 46 Att (43%)
4. Portis 44 Att (43%)
5. James 44 Att (41%)
6. Perry 40 Att (36%)
7. J Jones 39 Att (49%)
8. T Jones 39 Att (49%)
9. Westbrook 37 Att (62%)
10. Lynch 37 Att (41%)

So even assuming that more carries = lower success rate (and continuously citing Keith doesn't make it true), if you compare Parker to those with a similar number of carries, he still comes up short.

I'm citing Keith because he WAS #1 on that list last year. Keep on crunching those numbers, though. Looks like Willie has the highest number of carries on that list to me as well.

tony hipchest
09-20-2008, 05:29 PM
I'm citing Keith because he WAS #1 on that list last year. Keep on crunching those numbers, though. Looks like Willie has the highest number of carries on that list to me as well.nobody on that list has a SB ring, let alone a sb record. willie may be small but he keeps defenses honest.

herman moore woulda never led the league in receptions w/o a back like sanders to bring an 8th man in the box. brett perriman (or scott mitchell) is a nobody w/o sanders.

willie is the straw that stirs the steelers o drink. many of his runs the defense knows exactly what is coming. and he still finds success. these schmumbers and "success rates" dont really mean jack, cause willie is in a pretty unique situation.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 05:36 PM
these schmumbers and "success rates" dont really mean jack, cause willie is in a pretty unique situation.

what is unique?

tony hipchest
09-20-2008, 05:59 PM
what is unique?
he is 209 lb. running back (below average size by nfl standards) who is willing and asked to go in "grind it out" mode when defenders know what is coming, and commonly stack the box with 8-9 men. he pretty much does what jerome bettis did. what other backs of his stature do that?

warric dunn? darren sproles? deangello williams?

infact, not many backs of average or above average size consistantly do what jerome did, when the play was known and the defense was set.

are you implying that teams stacking up for tiny lil' willie had no affect on ben being able to throw for 32 touchdowns? if a safety is creeping up in the box to stop willie, a receiver like santonio holmes is gonna lead the league in yards per catch.

theres a reciprocol effect. its give and take.

jerome was a unique back in a unique situation, and so is willie.

i wont back off that statement.

:popcorn:

lilyoder6
09-20-2008, 07:35 PM
i would say willie is unique.. with evrything said above.. he road the pine all thru his days at NC.. and look at him now.. one of the best rb's in the league and a ring

xfl2001fan
09-20-2008, 07:39 PM
Alright, let's all just calm down a bit.

I think the point that hizmi is trying to make is that FWP's stuff/short runs hurt the offense by putting them in 2nd/3rd and long.

He prefers a back (like Bettis) who will get him to 3rd and short on a more consistent basis. By getting constant yardage, (minimizing the stuffs) makes it easier to sustain drives.

If FWP gets 100 yards on 20 carries, but one of those runs was a 75 yarder, then your offense get's little else (productivity wise) out of him for the remaining 19 carries. That stymies the offense.

The counter point this is that the threat of his 75 yard gain keeps the safeties honest on play action passes, allowing for guys like Santo to get open deep because any safety that bites on a play fake is going to be burned by him.

The fact that FWP is likely to be a 100 yard back in most games is threat enough to keep defenses honest.

Seems to me like these are the points both sides are making.

The Duke
09-20-2008, 07:52 PM
even a browns fan agrees with us :doh:

this is the best thing....

The counter point this is that the threat of his 75 yard gain keeps the safeties honest on play action passes

and even better as the steelers passing game continues to evolve

but hey, he's not 260 pounds :coffee:

xfl2001fan
09-20-2008, 08:04 PM
even a browns fan agrees with us :doh:

Easy now, I am saying I see both sides. I prefer the guy who will get me the 3-4 yards every time over the flash and bang of 2, 1, 39.

However, that doesn't mean that I can't see why FWP is so effective and why he's so good for your offense.

As opposed to reading through another 20 posts of back and forth that goes nowhere, I thought I'd get both arguments together.

I believe that hizmi is a Football Outsiders junky and subscribes to their Football Prospectus book each year.

At least, that's what it looks like to me based on his arguments. I love their site and their arguments/definitions/version of logic. I buy into it, but that doesn't mean I don't know the counter-arguments to what they are saying.

GBMelBlount
09-20-2008, 08:26 PM
Alright, let's all just calm down a bit.

I think the point that hizmi is trying to make is that FWP's stuff/short runs hurt the offense by putting them in 2nd/3rd and long.

He prefers a back (like Bettis) who will get him to 3rd and short on a more consistent basis. By getting constant yardage, (minimizing the stuffs) makes it easier to sustain drives.

If FWP gets 100 yards on 20 carries, but one of those runs was a 75 yarder, then your offense get's little else (productivity wise) out of him for the remaining 19 carries. That stymies the offense.

The counter point this is that the threat of his 75 yard gain keeps the safeties honest on play action passes, allowing for guys like Santo to get open deep because any safety that bites on a play fake is going to be burned by him.

The fact that FWP is likely to be a 100 yard back in most games is threat enough to keep defenses honest.

Seems to me like these are the points both sides are making.


Very well said xfl.

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 08:32 PM
So far this season, Willie has had 1 rush of over 20 yards on 53 carries. Peterson has had 3 rushes for over 20 yards on 5 fewer carries. Forte has had 2 (including one of 40+ yards) on seven fewer carries. Portis has had 2 rushes of over 20 yards on 14 fewer carries. The insinuation that Willie does nothing outside of one or two long yardage runs a game is a crock. Additionally, of the top 10 RBs so far in number of carries, Willie has picked up more 1st downs (12) than anybody except Westbrook (13), and more importantly, his percentage of 1st downs vs. number of carries (22.6%) is also 2nd behind Westbrook (35.1%) . Like Tony stated before, these "success rates" mean jack.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 09:04 PM
Alright, let's all just calm down a bit.

I think the point that hizmi is trying to make is that FWP's stuff/short runs hurt the offense by putting them in 2nd/3rd and long.

He prefers a back (like Bettis) who will get him to 3rd and short on a more consistent basis. By getting constant yardage, (minimizing the stuffs) makes it easier to sustain drives.

If FWP gets 100 yards on 20 carries, but one of those runs was a 75 yarder, then your offense get's little else (productivity wise) out of him for the remaining 19 carries. That stymies the offense.

The counter point this is that the threat of his 75 yard gain keeps the safeties honest on play action passes, allowing for guys like Santo to get open deep because any safety that bites on a play fake is going to be burned by him.

The fact that FWP is likely to be a 100 yard back in most games is threat enough to keep defenses honest.

Seems to me like these are the points both sides are making.

Ah the voice of reason!

hizmi
09-20-2008, 09:15 PM
So far this season, Willie has had 1 rush of over 20 yards on 53 carries. Peterson has had 3 rushes for over 20 yards on 5 fewer carries. Forte has had 2 (including one of 40+ yards) on seven fewer carries. Portis has had 2 rushes of over 20 yards on 14 fewer carries. The insinuation that Willie does nothing outside of one or two long yardage runs a game is a crock. Additionally, of the top 10 RBs so far in number of carries, Willie has picked up more 1st downs (12) than anybody except Westbrook (13), and more importantly, his percentage of 1st downs vs. number of carries (22.6%) is also 2nd behind Westbrook (35.1%) . Like Tony stated before, these "success rates" mean jack.

I haven't said willie has been bad this year...he's actually ranked 3rd in DVOA right now and a big reason is the number of first downs he has converted, as you noted.

What I am saying, is that a) the defenses he's seen so far have been poor (DVOA doesn't adjust for opponent until later in the season); b) his success rate is still very low, and this will eventually drag down his overall numbers.

If he performs the rest of the season like he did the first two weeks, then I would have no complaints and that low success rate would be negated. But that low number is a red flag to me, and I'm anticipating his numbers to go down because of it.

I thought it would be better to point this out now, then when/if it happens later on, and I look like a troll who only posts when willie struggles

It's important to remember that success rate is not the end all/be all statistic, as its merely a component of the DVOA formula, or any formula you use to evaluate a RB. There are successful running backs with low success rates, but there aren't many that can sustain a high level performance like that. And I would argue that putting the offense in 2nd and 3rd and longs is especially problematic for us because our pass protection sucks.

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 09:22 PM
All well and good, but I'm still not buying what you're selling.

hizmi
09-20-2008, 09:27 PM
All well and good, but I'm still not buying what you're selling.

that's fine.

I made my point and defended my argument, and will continue to do so if challenged.

We can agree to disagree and take delight in whooping the Brownies:tt02:

fansince'76
09-20-2008, 09:29 PM
We can agree to disagree and take delight in whooping the Brownies:tt02:

Agreed! :drink: