Are you volunteering your services to help figure this out?Very interesting. Like you mentioned “what’s good?”. I understand their grading but without a context it’s hard to make and reasonable judgment from the data.
If you are taking requests for comparison, how about LT from a few years back? You could use that as one of the best seasons for a RB in recent memory. How about Arian Foster and Michael Turner for contemporary guys?
And here, I always thought touchdowns were worth 6 points.KDawg said:A touchdown is always worth 4 points.
Of course it does. You're spot on.I wonder if this speaks as much to the line as to Torain. Play calling factors in as well. How many of those fails at the 3-4th plays were because of obvious play calling? If I have time next week, I will look at our line and see if they progressed at all as the year went on.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
Seems like you take issue with every one of my entries. That's fine. And I understand. I think I even said as much in the piece. What I didn't say was that I intend on breaking down a few other backs for comparison's sake in my next blog.Not to bag on you, KDawg, but this is kind of useless without some sort of comparison or baseline. Very interesting numbers, but don't say much without something to compare them too! Need to analyze someone like Jim Brown or Walter Payton or something to get a baseline of what's "good." And no, I'm not volunteering.
No no, I think these numbers are very cool - but Torain's don't mean anything by themselves. Just the math nerd in me, I suppose.Seems like you take issue with every one of my entries. That's fine. And I understand. I think I even said as much in the piece. What I didn't say was that I intend on breaking down a few other backs for comparison's sake in my next blog.
I would have liked to have done it for this one, but breaking down Torain took enough time.
YOU brought it up I'm merely taking your interesting idea to the next logical level.Are you volunteering your services to help figure this out?
And by the way, the system they proposed is MUCH simpler. I changed it and added to it to make it more "accurate". I use quotes because the truth is that I don't know if it made it any more accurate, but I sure think it did
No doubt, but I don't think it requires much in-depth analysis to see the fails with McNabb and Grossman.China,
I'd say that theory has some credence. But then if we broke down McNabb/Grossman's wins/fails I bet we'd see a ton of fails there as well.
Indeed those numbers would add to the system, but I'm not sure that those things happen enough to seriously jolt it.turnovers relative to time and score make a huge difference.....end of the game on the final drive down by 2.....bigger buzz killer than turnovers when ahead by 21.
how is the system normalized across players who play against different quality defenses?
Touche.No doubt, but I don't think it requires much in-depth analysis to see the fails with McNabb and Grossman.
Couldn't find any of his game logs, so I went with Chris Johnson from last year. Halfway through he has ALOT more fails than wins but his points are through the roof due to big plays. He had more points in one game than Torain had through the entire season.Sanders would be intriguing - he routinely had negative runs followed up by huge-gainers.