Like the picks

Discussion in 'Detroit Lions Blitz' started by millenbacker, Apr 29, 2017.

  1. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club

    I contradicted it by pointing out that reality doesn't back your statement up. Small RBs don't get injured at any higher rate than the general population of RBs.

    I'm using the criteria you set:

    I then pointed out to you that Blount averages less than 4 yards per carry, and then pointed to another metric that shows his yards after contact, and that he is well below Riddick in that metric. Yet you continue to contradict your own criteria -- still suggesting that there is a wide gap in the capabilities of these two backs.

    And I find that puzzling, so I am asking questions to clarify.

    If it seems like I'm patronizing, I am again using your assertion that "I guess the unintelligent needs a definition ... " I'm obviously not "intelligent" enough to see whatever it is you're seeing, so I am seeking your enlightenment.
  2. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    Really, where did you prove that? You asked a bunch of stupid questions and I told you how to perform the analysis. I said smaller backs are more susceptible to injury but that analysis would help define "What is a small RB?"

    That is criteria set over time, by the NFL, watching the great RB's and their positive attributes. I didn't even list all of the criteria. Just some criteria remembered off the top of memory from the running portion, and I will repeat not all has been presented. You then cherry picked what you wanted and took them out of context to further your argument. Such as yards after contact and average yards/carry. Both of these criteria could be assisted by team mates.

    When describing an NFL Caliber RB probably the most important characteristic is their ability to gain yards on their own.
    Some of the sub-criteria includes;
    Vision - being able to see where the defense is the weakest and accelerating through the weakness. May or may not be the designed hole.
    Elusiveness/Escape capability - missed tackles (juked), breaking tackles (power)
    Speed - outrunning the defense
    In 2010, PFF gave Blount the highest elusive rating ever given to a RB.

    Blount has 4.4 yards/carry over his 7 year career. You cherry pick one of his worst yards/carry years and then compare that to Riddick's best year. I call that dishonest which is not puzzling to me. It is just how you operate.


    Now you are showing your true colors. Remember passive aggressive, don't be the bad guy.
  3. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club


    I "cherry-picked" exactly the data that you claimed was relevant. Yards per carry and yards after first contact, to be exact. As for my "argument," I have no argument in this. I am trying to approach this scientifically. You made the claim that Running Back A was superior to Running Back B.

    I then asked you what criteria you were using to draw that conclusion. You then gave that criteria.

    So I double-checked it, and it didn't add up. The actual data doesn't jive with your assertions. So I pointed out the inconsistency. I liken it to the "big foot" argument. If someone wants to claim bigfoot exists, I don't take the opposing view. I merely point out that there is no known evidence to support the theory. Giant Squids on the other hand? Totally plausible. Personally I could care less if either exists or not.


    So when you're evaluating potential players who are 30 years and over, do you typically use their entire career as a basis by which to evaluate where they stand at this moment? Is taking his age in to account and favoring recent performance for that reason being dishonest? Or is it merely being prudent? Giving you the benefit of the doubt, did you just not know he's 30? Or were you not aware that running backs typically decline at that age? I'm interested in your thought process.

    If your assertion is that LaGarette Blount has had the more distinguished career at this point, then I won't argue that. I just wasn't aware that this is what we were discussing.
  4. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club

    There is no objective data supporting the theory that smaller RBs get injured at a higher rate than normal. If you'd like to see how I arrived at this, you can read this post:

    http://www.lionsredzone.com/threads/rb-injury-predictor-and-small-backs.6645/

    If your assertion were cut-and-dry, then we should be able to look through a random set of running backs (the sample size in my example is 94), look at their size, look at their injury history, and see a pattern. But we're not seeing that pattern. If you feel that you have a better methodology, then I look forward to you sharing. It would be very interesting and noteworthy if you have some data tucked away that contradicts mine.
  5. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    Here are my criteria in their exact words

    Specific statement that could not be exploited for your argument. This is the main criteria that distinguishes NFL Caliber RBs and the reason it was placed first and above all other criteria listed below.

    General statement you exploited through the word "normally" by providing exceptions. My bad, should have been more specific, but Rusty loves to split frog hairs when he is pissed. If I knew that these statements were going to be scrutinized so thoroughly, this would have been more specific. (i.e. escape or broken tackles)

    Specific statement that could not be exploited for your argument.

    Specific statement that could not be exploited for your argument.

    General statement you exploited by comparing Blount to Riddick. My bad. This statement was meant as a summation for the above criteria of creating positive yardage.
  6. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    I got a question; Do you know what objective data are or how to create it? I don't think so. So how can you refute that smaller backs are more susceptible to injury.

    http://www.lionsredzone.com/threads/rb-injury-predictor-and-small-backs.6645/
    Who the fuck are these yahoos and how did they come up with these prediction conclusions? This is just GUESSING! How the fuck is guessing a fact or even considered scientific?

    If you are being truthful Rusty, you will explain your analysis, then I will think about working with you.

    1. explain analysis objectives (besides making Geezer look like an idiot) (i.e. Model type and relation to reality)
    2. explain step by step process (Who should be included in the analysis and why)
    3. explain tools used to obtain objectives (i.e. Statistics used and how they support the model)
    4. explain trends of the data (i.e. averages, comparisons, derivatives)
  7. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club

    I don't refute your assertion that smaller running backs are more susceptible to injury. All I said is that there is no known evidence or data to support it. When you look at the injury histories of any random sampling of running backs, there is not a significant pattern to suggest the smaller ones are getting hurt at a higher rate.

    Does this mean conclusively that smaller running backs aren't more susceptible to injury? No. But at the moment, it means your theory remains just that. A theory. Until you can show otherwise.
  8. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club


    The metrics I showed from last season ("yards after first contact") were directly reflective of missed/broken tackles. As for splitting hairs when I'm "pissed," I can assure you I have no emotional stake in this. It takes quite a bit more to get me "pissed," and football discussions rank pretty low on that scale.

    What I am coming away with is that I just don't think your criteria for an "NFL caliber running back" are very relevant. If a back isn't gaining many yards, I don't think most people are concerned with how hard it is to bring him down, how sturdy their bodies are or how fast they are while they're sucking. I think most people want their back to gain a lot of yards. Football is not figure skating. It doesn't award style points. You're either gaining yardage or you're not. Certainly, durability is a concern, but in the specific case of LaGarette Blount, his 30-year old body would be a negative -- not a positive.

    Either way, you're free to define "NFL caliber" however you wish. And knowing your criteria is a good thing, and it's helpful. Going forward, it helps knowing that you evaluate backs using "geezer metrics" that include things other than a back's measured ability to break tackles, his average yards per carry, and the current age / (wear and tear) his body is in.

    Duly noted!
  9. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    Uh huh, I did not see Zenner or Riddick break many tackles last sesaon. You do know that Blount was used mainly on short yardage against 8 man fronts and as a redzone hawk where rushing the ball is the toughest, thus the 18 TDs and 67 first downs on his resume. 85 successful carries of 299 carries against short yardage or in the redzone. That is what the Lions need.

    I see so Vision, Elusiveness, Power, and Speed are just not relevant criteria for a NFL Caliber RB. Ooookkkaaayyy.
    Tell that to Walter Peyton, Adrian Peterson, Barry Sanders, Eric Dickerson, Earl Campbell, Jim Brown, Franco Harris, Jerome Bettis, and Emmit Smith. All of these guys had vision and a combination of the other criteria.

    Blount is 30 years old, but on only has 1214 touches in 7 years. That is an average 173 touches/year or 11 touches/game. Pretty lite work for a man his size. I will bet he has some gas in the tank.

    LOL unbelievable. I take it your not going to do the analysis.
  10. badnews3123 Well-Known Member

    Blount was second in the entire league in rushing attempts last season with 299. He was not used mainly as a short yardage guy/red zone guy, that's a weak argument. If you carry the ball 300 times, you are carrying it against a variety of fronts.

    And I highly doubt that teams were playing a ton of 8 man fronts against Tom Brady.
  11. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    You are correct Badnews, I said that wrong. I should have said he was the main short yardage and redzone rusher as the stats bear out. Thanks
  12. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club


    They're not relevant if the back can't translate those traits in to more than a measly 3.9 yards per carry. Seriously, who gives a shit about any of those traits if he can't gain the yards?
  13. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club

  14. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    Oh so now you are a stats based guy. In defense of Blount, maybe it was the way he was used in the offense, or his role to help the team that caused his second lowest yards/carry for his career.
  15. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

  16. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club


    .... Or maybe it was a Government conspiracy or Aliens from outer space tampering.
  17. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club

    If you've got something better, share it.

    I look forward to reading it.
  18. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    Cute. LOL
  19. TheDane Active Member

    More..

    [IMG]
  20. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club

    Lions had one of the worst pass defenses last season.

    Lawson is a PASS DEFENDER.

    Any maroon can see that he's not NFL caliber.
  21. badnews3123 Well-Known Member

    Why target Lawson or Slay when you can pick on the terrible slot CB's they had in there and the LB's are playing 10 yards off line of scrimmage?

    I do think Lawson is a decent CB though. Chart just doesn't tell why that may have happened.
  22. TheDane Active Member

    Some people get it, some aren't worth replying to....
  23. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club

    That very same source (PFF) barely gave Lawson a mediocre overall rating.

    77.1 grade, and only #37 at his position overall.

    Pretty uninspiring. Huge improvement over last year though.


    [IMG]

Share This Page